Trump Baffles Academics

, Malcolm A. Kline, 5 Comments

image screenshot from MSNBC video coverage of Trump rally on the media

image screenshot from MSNBC video coverage of Trump rally on the media

The “best and the brightest” in academe have been trying to unravel the Trump phenomenon for about as long as this election season has run. Martin Kich of Wright State University devotes about three blogs a week to the subject on the academe blog maintained by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).

Here’s a clue: You can only convince people that we have a good economy if they actually have jobs. A pair of scholars of fairly diverse backgrounds has figured this out: They are, of course, a minority in academe.

We have written about the phenomenon today in which more budding businesses fail than succeed. It turns out that we aren’t the only ones who noticed. “Nowadays, more businesses die each year than are started,” Angelo Codevilla writes in The Claremont Review of Books. “In this century, all net additions in employment have come from the country’s 1,500 largest corporations.”

Ah, but where are those jobs?  “In the first decade of this century, U.S. multinationals shed 2.9 million U.S. jobs while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million,” George Mason University law school professor Frank Buckley noted in a speech earlier this year at Hillsdale College’s Washington, D. C. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.

“General Electric provides a striking example,” he argued. “Jeffrey Immelt became the company’s CEO in 2001, with a mission to advance stock price. He did this in part by reducing GE’s U.S. workforce by 34,000 jobs. During the same period, the company added 25,000 jobs overseas. Ironically, President Obama chose Immelt to head his Jobs Council.”


5 Responses

  1. DennyOR

    October 6, 2016 1:34 pm

    Maybe, but didn’t anyone notice that the mainstream media gave Trump 90% of the Republican primary coverage. First they made sure he was nominated, and now they’re making sure he’s not elected, which is turning out to be more of a challenge than they thought it would be. The good thing is that they’re using up the last scrap of any remaining credibility they had left in order to accomplish this.

  2. mashman

    October 6, 2016 2:55 pm

    Agreed, the MSM determined Trump to be the weakest, and easiest candidate for Hillary to beat, so they insured Trump won the nomination.

  3. mashman

    October 6, 2016 3:08 pm

    Trumps popularity is easy to figure out, but it’s the arrogance, and narcissism, of liberals that keeps that understanding out of their reach.

    For the last 8 years, the average, blue collar, middle class, white, male, has been called ‘racist’ because he didn’t believe in socialism, homophobic, because he views marriage as a sacrament, and not a civil ceremony, ‘Privileged’ for having been born white, a misogynist, for having been born a man, and hateful because he doesn’t want his teenage daughter showering with girls with male genitalia.

    And now, during the election, they are being called a plethora of pejoratives, simply for wanting to vote for someone who hasn’t called them evil for having been born who they were!

    Trump won the primary’s easily, because millions of people who typically avoid politics came out to vote for him. AND, he will win the election for the same reason. Yes, ‘the polls’, ‘the polls’, the vast majority of the polls show Trump losing badly, but so did the primary polls. The polls now, are wrong for the same reason the polls were wrong then. Trump is getting the support of people who typically don’t vote! These people get dropped from ‘likely voter’ samples, where one of the main variables is ‘did you vote in the last general election’ – if you answer no to that question, most of the polls will not include you in the sample, because the believe you actually will not vote.

    Want to see what I’m talking about? Check out one of the few polls that aren’t dropping this hidden support. Notice where the polls differ so much from the reported polls, huge differences in states with lots of blue collor, white, males!

    Also, another way to recognize that these polls, are better than the ones used by the MSM to show Trump losing badly, is to notice these polls have very small undecided/3rd party votes. Third party candidates NEVER get more than one percentage point or more – look at what Johnson got in 2012 for example – and this close to the election, there shouldn’t be hardly any undecided’s.

    So, don’t be surprised when the election rolls around, and yes, Trump did win Pennsylvania, and he didn’t lose it by 10% like the MSM said he would!

  4. Colleen Lawler

    October 8, 2016 8:37 pm

    A lot of truth to your statement, I was at the caucus in Iowa. That said, somewhere I read that a break with past practices is being made to report voting results while voting is in progress. Is this yet another attempt to affect the turnout of this hidden support you mention?

  5. BarryStern

    October 9, 2016 8:39 pm

    NAFTA seems to have helped large manufacturing firms and farms at the expense of smaller ones and rural areas in both the U.S. and Mexico. In other words, in both countries the rich got richer and poor got poorer. NAFTA likely contributed to the stagnation of middle class wages, less economic mobility, higher unemployment, accelerated migration from rural areas to the cities, economic devastation of small towns, neglect of the rural economy, more illegal immigrants especially to factory farms that produce inordinate amounts of polluted water, air, soil and food contaminated with hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and chemicals (fertilizers) that diminishes health and raises health care costs.

    We’re all familiar with U.S. manufacturers boxing up factories and sending them to developing countries with low wages and less powerful or no unions. Less known is NAFTA’s ripple effect on the character and culture of both countries. To quote Smithsonian magazine’s recent article on “Living in No Man’s Land,” a journalist’s account of what he saw during several months visiting communities on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border:

    “One of the first consequences of the North American Free Trade Agreement…was the emigration of the poor from southern Mexico, who had lost their livelihood as farmers and small manufacturers: NAFTA in effect since 1994, had put them out of business. Some ended up in border factories, others as border jumpers.”

Leave a Reply

(*) Required, Your email will not be published