It's deeper than anger at cultural issues. And we need to recognize the economic context.
1. MAGA followers distain those who have led both parties. They feel looked down upon. They resent the huge increase in inequality.
2. The "traditional" Republican Party has nothing to show the people for their rule except deeper public debt. When Trump said "the system is rigged" it echoed since it felt true. And largely remains true. Starting with Reagan, "cutting taxes" became their religion. They used the "voodoo economics" of "supply-side" thinking to promise great benefits (see the new book "Power to Destroy" by Michael Graetz that lays out the history of this debt-generating change). On top of that the Republicans added harsh criticism of Democrat politicians and signed onto many aspects of the cultural war. All in a (fairly successful) effort to get elected. And the Democrats, seeking election, eventually became reluctant partners in allowing the public to forget that spending requires roughly corresponding tax revenue. That never made any sense but, in a world ready to buy our bonds (for a while), reality has been delayed.
3. We have a constitution (unstable and ineffective presidential "checks and balances" type instead of a responsive parliamentary type) and election system that drives us towards two parties dominated by extremes. Instead of the kind of multi-party system that can find room for and promote compromise (hence action). So, we have seen the conversion of the Republican party into the Trump party. See, for example, David Dayen's January essay "America is not a Democracy":
4. Finally, media changes and campaign finance have distorted the flow of truth to the public. Nearly everybody misses the point that the rich and successful have been financing our elections with a relatively tiny amount of money. $10 billion in 2022 and probably double that in 2024. Please think for a moment how small that amount of money is in a $26 trillion dollar economy. A federal campaign finance voucher program of roughly the same size (costing the average taxpayer the cost of a single cup of coffee a year in taxes) would at least clear the air of lies and allow candidates to focus on truth.
I agree with MOST of what you say here. I will take slight issue with your financial statement. $20 billion dollars (the suggested cost of the 2024 election) is probably pretty close to correct. You say that would cost each taxpayer roughly a cup of coffee per year. You MUST be drinking incredibly great coffee :-). With 300,000,000 people in the country, that's $66/person. WOW, that is the most expensive coffee I have ever heard of LOL! And probably slightly more because not ALL of our 300,000,000 people are taxpayers.
I will say though that I completely agree that state or federally financed elections should be required and private organizations should be absolutely BARRED from spending money on electoral politics. We need to eliminate PACs completely and require that everyone who donates to any political contests be identified with the amount contributed.
And note that there would be no need to ban PACs or restrict donor actions in any way. Not that such restrictions would get past the Supreme court. Just keep matching what the rich and corporations spend and watch politicians start bragging how much money they are getting from "average voters".
Median (loosely, "average") taxpayers (~70K income or less) are in low marginal tax rates. Most of the taxes used to pay that $20 billion (as any program) would come from higher income families. Indeed, the wealthy would need to give up a few more cups of coffee.
Divide a $2 trillion federal budget by 125 million households we get an "average" of $16K taxes paid. Median/average households pay nothing like that. Adding $20 billion and you get a trivial increase in taxes for Median/average households.
But the main point is that the "successful" (my code word, I confess) already contribute campaign money. It is the median/average/low-income people whose votes are rendered irrelevant/mute by our campaign finance system.
It's deeper than anger at cultural issues. And we need to recognize the economic context.
1. MAGA followers distain those who have led both parties. They feel looked down upon. They resent the huge increase in inequality.
2. The "traditional" Republican Party has nothing to show the people for their rule except deeper public debt. When Trump said "the system is rigged" it echoed since it felt true. And largely remains true. Starting with Reagan, "cutting taxes" became their religion. They used the "voodoo economics" of "supply-side" thinking to promise great benefits (see the new book "Power to Destroy" by Michael Graetz that lays out the history of this debt-generating change). On top of that the Republicans added harsh criticism of Democrat politicians and signed onto many aspects of the cultural war. All in a (fairly successful) effort to get elected. And the Democrats, seeking election, eventually became reluctant partners in allowing the public to forget that spending requires roughly corresponding tax revenue. That never made any sense but, in a world ready to buy our bonds (for a while), reality has been delayed.
3. We have a constitution (unstable and ineffective presidential "checks and balances" type instead of a responsive parliamentary type) and election system that drives us towards two parties dominated by extremes. Instead of the kind of multi-party system that can find room for and promote compromise (hence action). So, we have seen the conversion of the Republican party into the Trump party. See, for example, David Dayen's January essay "America is not a Democracy":
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-01-29-america-is-not-democracy/
4. Finally, media changes and campaign finance have distorted the flow of truth to the public. Nearly everybody misses the point that the rich and successful have been financing our elections with a relatively tiny amount of money. $10 billion in 2022 and probably double that in 2024. Please think for a moment how small that amount of money is in a $26 trillion dollar economy. A federal campaign finance voucher program of roughly the same size (costing the average taxpayer the cost of a single cup of coffee a year in taxes) would at least clear the air of lies and allow candidates to focus on truth.
https://open.substack.com/pub/michaelfoxworth/p/achilles-heel-of-control-by-big-campaign?r=33ahhb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I agree with MOST of what you say here. I will take slight issue with your financial statement. $20 billion dollars (the suggested cost of the 2024 election) is probably pretty close to correct. You say that would cost each taxpayer roughly a cup of coffee per year. You MUST be drinking incredibly great coffee :-). With 300,000,000 people in the country, that's $66/person. WOW, that is the most expensive coffee I have ever heard of LOL! And probably slightly more because not ALL of our 300,000,000 people are taxpayers.
I will say though that I completely agree that state or federally financed elections should be required and private organizations should be absolutely BARRED from spending money on electoral politics. We need to eliminate PACs completely and require that everyone who donates to any political contests be identified with the amount contributed.
And note that there would be no need to ban PACs or restrict donor actions in any way. Not that such restrictions would get past the Supreme court. Just keep matching what the rich and corporations spend and watch politicians start bragging how much money they are getting from "average voters".
Median (loosely, "average") taxpayers (~70K income or less) are in low marginal tax rates. Most of the taxes used to pay that $20 billion (as any program) would come from higher income families. Indeed, the wealthy would need to give up a few more cups of coffee.
Divide a $2 trillion federal budget by 125 million households we get an "average" of $16K taxes paid. Median/average households pay nothing like that. Adding $20 billion and you get a trivial increase in taxes for Median/average households.
But the main point is that the "successful" (my code word, I confess) already contribute campaign money. It is the median/average/low-income people whose votes are rendered irrelevant/mute by our campaign finance system.