Entry #365 is a periodic “sense check” about the likelihood of a 5th revolution in the United States. The first entry for this blog was in the fall 2013. The theme was based on a correlation that I discovered while writing another paper. The correlation was the United States has experienced some type of Revolution about every 50 years. (See Entry #1 for more explanation.)
According to my analysis, Revolution #4 occurred in the late 60s, early 1970s. If the pattern holds true, then there should be another revolution sometime around 2020. For nitpickers, measuring social change is not a precise algebraic equation. Therefore, a revolution in 2025 and even a few years later would still fall within the general guidelines of the 50-year cycle.
So, what’s the likelihood of this 5th revolution? What was unknown in 2013 was a likely trigger point. By late 2013 the Obama Administration had implemented numerous social reforms but none seemed likely to trigger a revolution. Doubtless, some groups in society, especially those on the far right, were frustrated by the Administration’s policies but some groups are always frustrated when there’s change.
What has changed since? Enter the effect of Trump. The “Trump effect” cannot be attributed solely to Trump. Trump was more a catalyst than the cause. Some change had been building in the Republican Party for years. No question that Trump has managed to accelerate the change in the Republican Party. And the change has been more extensive and faster than anticipated.
Trump’s involvement was even a surprise to Republicans and Democrats. Few expected him to earn the nomination and even fewer expected him to be elected. But Trump was elected, well sort of elected. Based on a popular vote count Trump received about 3 million fewer votes than Clinton. Nevertheless, Trump won the Electoral College vote, the second consecutive Republican to lose the popular vote and still be elected.
While the Electoral College win was frustrating for many Democrats, what seemed to shatter any hope of Congress and/or voter coming together was Trump’s personal behavior. From the moment the outcome of the election was clear, Trump ramped up his insulting, boorish behavior, further alienating Democrats and many independent voters.
Trump also managed to bully Republicans in the House and Senate into supporting his strange policies. Other than the late Senator John McCain, no Republican has been willing to challenge Trump’s abandonment of many previously held Republican principles – free trade and fiscal conservatism, e.g.
The bullying has resulted in the same Republicans making no public effort to stop Trump’s serial lying, denigration of widely-respected government employees, trashing of the FBI and CIA, insulting the military chain of command, and repeatedly insulting leaders of long-standing US allies. Nor, has any Republican made any serious counter to Trump’s public support of known enemies of the US, which is a direct threat to national security.
Among the voting public, Trump supporters seem to fall into three major camps and a fourth smaller camp. The three major camps are: #1, far-right fringe groups, who relish Trump’s support, whether intentional or not; #2, Evangelical Christians who seem to focus on one issue – abortion – and somehow disregard 99% of Trump’s behavior that seems contrary to their core religious beliefs; #3, long-time Republicans who somehow cannot fathom voting for a Democrat no matter how bad the Republican is for the welfare of the country. Many of these “yellow-dog Republicans” are likely primary voters who hold a disproportionate influence on members of Congress.
The fourth camp, which has the fewest number of people but the most influence, is the money camp. If one filters out all the noise, the quest for money is what drives Trump. His policies, whether tax policies or directives to such agencies as EPA to slow or stop enforcement, have consistently favored the money group. There is considerable evidence that seems to indicate his positive attitude toward and accommodation of the Russians is driven by access to their money.
Maybe most surprising and illogical to me is that Trump and Trump TV talking heads (Fox News) have convinced the three non-money camps that Trump’s policies are in their best economic interest, when in fact, the policies are contrary to the economic interests of virtually all these families. The 2017 tax cut is a good example. The tax cut threw a few bones to middle and lower-income families in the short term. However, beginning in the mid-2020’s, the “tax cut” results in penalties to middle-income families while continuing to benefit the rich.
In addition, the tax cut for corporations combined with the tax cut for the wealthy was so significant that the Federal deficit ballooned in 2019 – up 50% to about $1,000,000,000 – even though the economy was reasonably strong. Oh, yes I forgot, Trump is the reason the economy grew. The deficit grew because of Obama’s policies. (Seriously, if you want to understand more about why “trickle-down” economics is a fraud, even though widely supported by many Republicans, start with Entry #21. It’s conversational and easy to understand. Entry #237 also addresses some fundamentals of economics.)
What could be the trigger point for the 5th US revolution is Trump’s reelection. But the revolution will not be started by Democrats. The revolution will be started by Trump supporters. Why?
Long before Trump, I assigned a name to the projected 5th revolution – the Revenge Revolution. But revenge for what?
Right now the table seems to have lots of plates that qualify for revenge – inequitable economic policies; environmental degradation; a department of education that favors private over public education; a president and first family that are enriching themselves at public expense; an immigration policy where children are physically separated from the parents then housed in cages for indefinite periods; an attorney general who promotes Trump as being above the law; a president who labels wounded military veterans as “scum;” a president who is a serial liar, distorting the truth about even the most insignificant issues…and the list goes on.
Despite all the obvious reasons for revenge against the Trump Administration, the Revenge Revolution may be started by an unexpected group. The group is Trump supporters.
If Trump is reelected, Trump will try to satisfy his money camp and start screaming about the need to reduce the Federal deficit. But Trump will argue the deficit cannot be reduced by raising taxes – such a move would kill economic growth and result in a recession. No, the only way to reduce the Federal deficit is with additional cuts in spending for social programs – food stamps, e.g. – as well as cutbacks in Medicare, Social Security and support for Obamacare.
If Trump is not reelected, then Republicans will make the same arguments that the Federal deficit is too high and must be reduced. One thing about their argument is correct. The rate of increase in the deficit needs to be reduced. But reduced by returning tax rates to levels under Obama, or even Clinton, and not by cutting social programs and cutting benefits for program workers have funded.
The proposed cuts in Medicare and Social Security may finally awaken Trump supporters to realize how much they’re going to be screwed economically under Trump’s new proposals , and then how much they have been screwed under Trump’s existing policies. When they do awaken, this group will be shocked and angry. They might also start listening to their children and grandchildren and finally acknowledge that global warming is real and not a hoax of some 3,000 scientist and every credible news outlet worldwide.
What form might the Revenge Revolution take? The 4th revolution in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s was a mix of social upheaval and armed rebellion. The social side is often referenced with a cutesy photograph of a couple hippies dressed in tie-dyes and smoking weed in Haight Asbury or at Woodstock.
The armed side of the 4th Revolution was much grimmer. Events included significant riots that devastated parts of Newark, Detroit and Los Angeles as well as protests in many other cities and college campuses. 1968 included the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.
Given the continued expansion of ownership of firearms, the Revenge Revolution is likely to be more of an armed rebellion than the 1960’s/1970’s. But who will be the aggressors and who will be the targets in the Revenge Revolution?
Although I have not done a deep-dive into the psychology of why, a group that seems likely to be part of the aggressors is those who view the changing demographics of the United States as diminishing the value of their “whiteness.” To me such thinking seems a bit absurd.
However, a long article in The NY Times (19 12 29 NYT Example of Attitude of Trump Supporters in AZ) discussed attitudes of some of Trump’s core base in Arizona. The base is very white, less-educated and seemingly either brainwashed or completely delusional about who is really impacted by Trump’s policies. Like many Trump supporters I’ve tried to talk to and understand, this group’s lexicon seems to be unique – “up” means “down,” “good” means “bad,” “hate” means ”patriotic,” etc.
A number of comments and quotes in the article left my head shaking. One comment from a Trump supporter that I found both frightening and amusing, “I don’t have a problem with Muslims but can they take the rag off their head out of respect for our country?” The scary part is this guy’s very anti-Muslim, and probably anti-black, anti-Asian and anti-Semitic as well.
The amusing side was it probably never occurred to the speaker he too was wearing a head-cover, thus by his own definition, disrespecting this country. And it probably never occurred to him his MAGA hat was made of the same basic cotton as the Muslim’s “rag.” Somehow I don’t irony would play well with this guy.
This group of self-proclaimed patriots discussed having an armed revolt if Trump was not reelected in 2020. Nice to see the patriots support the US Constitution and the electoral process.
On a broader scale the likelihood of a 5th US Revolution seems to increase with the findings of the impeachment proceedings, the bizarre actions/inactions by Mitch McConnell and the continued overhang of the many unanswered questions of Mueller Report, especially Trump’s association with the Russians – likely more about money than philosophy.
In the last Sense Check, Entry #332, I indicated the probability of the revolution had increased to “highly likely.” Based on what’s happened in Washington the past few months, a forecast of “highly likely” seems on solid ground with an emerging forecast closer to “almost assured.”
Unfortunately, as experienced during the 4th Revolution, the 5th US Revolution is likely to include the assassinations of high-profile figures. Targets will likely include those deemed “liberal,” whether judges, politicians, prominent business people, or media personalities. Equally unfortunate is that the police and/or the US military will be unable to prevent many of these killings.
Think about all the mass killings in the US and how they’ve occurred. (As of December 31, 2019, 434 mass shootings occurred in 2019… In these shootings, over 1,643 people were injured and 517 died, for a total of over 2,160 victims.) Virtually all were carried out by a single individual. Imagine a well-organized killing effort by a group of individuals with military-assault style rifles. There are millions of AR-15’s in private hands and even more rounds of ammunition. Yes, it’s scary.
As noted repeatedly throughout this blog, I hope the assumption is wrong about a 5th US revolution, the Revenge Revolution. Everyone who makes predictions makes mistakes. And I am no exception. However, I wish my track record at making accurate predictions were a little less positive than it is.
Welcome to the year 2020.
As noted in #310, my reference point is a Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, Everett Dirksen and Jacob Javits. The attitude of that Republican Party could best be described using a slogan from Bush 43’s 2000 presidential campaign, “compassionate conservatism.”
In our particular town – population approaching 50,000 – the public school system was top-notch with quality teachers in all grades. High-school students had a choice of three tracks and could switch between tracks for a limited number of classes – college prep, general education, technical training. The town produced a disproportionate number of famous and successful people in a wide range of occupations – education, entertainment, medicine, military (early astronaut), science and industry.
So that’s a description of the Republican Party I grew up with and use as a reference point for those running for political office. Such a Republican Party no longer exists. When I hear a Republican call it the party of Lincoln, I shake my head and want to scream. Most of today’s Republicans have no clue about the values of the party of Lincoln.
I share the view of many economists that a very good way to assess the potential impact of debt for a country is to measure outstanding debt as a percent of GDP (gross domestic product). Think of it this way. Pretend you’re a banker. Two people walk into a bank and want to borrow $25,000,000. One of them is someone like you…and the other is Warren Buffet. The bank decides on loans based on income and assets. For someone like you, the $25,000,000 is likely to be multiples higher than your income and assets. For Warren Buffet, the $25,000,000 is considered chump change. Thus, a large amount of debt isn’t necessarily bad if you have a large income and/or large asset base, which the US does. The US government owns lots of land and buildings.
Following WWII and up to the Reagan Administration, debt as a percent of GDP declined. During the Reagan Administration debt as a percent of GDP increased from about 30% to about 50% — a relative increase of 60%. Under Reagan, the relative increase in debt was only somewhat less than experienced during the New Deal under FDR. Under Bush 41 relative debt percent increased over 25% beyond Reagan. Under Bush 43, relative debt increased over 40% from the Clinton years. Under Trump, despite a very strong economy the Federal debt for FY2018 was the highest in 6 years. The deficit under Trump is expected to balloon to over $1,000,000,000,000 annually because of the gigantic tax cut that reduced taxes primarily for the wealthy.
What about debt increases under Democrats? They were even worse, right? Well, no. Throughout the Clinton Administration, debt as a percent of GDP decreased a little over 12%. During some years under Clinton, the US ran a surplus. Under Obama, relative debt climbed about 35%, even with the combination of fiscal stimulus required to avoid another Great Depression and the introduction of the Affordable Care Act. Debt under Obama, despite all the cries from Republicans increased less than under either Regan or Bush 43. So, which party is more fiscally conservative? If you look at fiscal policies under Republicans, one term comes to mind – red ink.
Further, Republican have resisted increasing the minimum wage. When Reagan was inaugurated, the minimum wage in real terms (adjusted for inflation) was about $10.00 per hour. Today’s minim wage is $7.75 per hour, a decrease in real terms of more than 20%. The decrease reduces further the ability of lower-skilled, entry-level workers to earn enough to exceed the poverty line. What happened to the “compassion” of the Republican Party?
Just in case today’s Republicans have not read the Constitution, as is abundantly clear from listening to President Trump, the First Amendment reads as follows, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press (see the press is not your enemy but protected!), or the right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
At the time the Constitution was written…for all the “Constitutionalists in the crowd” that was 225+ years ago…the United States had a very small “standing army.” The defense of the country relied on “well-regulated” state militia – think National Guard. Members of the well-regulated militia were “citizen soldiers” and expected to provide firearms, as implied in the Second Amendment. Over time the US created a permanent military for “the security of the free state,” thus the standing army eliminated the need for citizen soldiers.
As a result actions during the confirmation process, I increased the chances of a 5th US revolution to “highly likely.” However, my reasons for changing to “highly likely” may be different from what many others have stated or written about the Kavanaugh nomination/confirmation process.
Further, there is no requirement that the president nominate, or the Senate confirm, candidates to ensure a balance of opinion on SCOTUS. While the situation unlikely, say if all liberal-leaning justices left the Court during the term of one president, the president could nominate and the Senate could approve, justices so the entire Court supported rulings considered far right.
Over the decades, what has allowed SCOTUS rulings to be recognized as law of the land by the populace? Obviously not everyone has supported every decision but why have even controversial decisions become the law of the land? Trust by the people in the objectivity of the justices. In parallel, the Court’s decisions likely have been moderated to a degree by public opinion. Justices have recognized the need to create trust and acknowledge public opinion so the vast majority of SCOTUS rulings have not been too far left or right.
Let’s take a closer look at McConnell’s greatest achievement. The initial phase of this latest “great achievement” was McConnell denying president Obama the right to have the Senate consider a nominee to fill an open seat on SCOTUS. According to McConnell the vacancy should be filled “after the people vote.” Forget the Constitution, forget precedent, McConnell alone should decide when a vacancy on SCOTUS should be filled.
To further build public trust…or maybe that’s distrust…in Kavanaugh, McConnell (this time thru Grassley and Trump), stonewalled efforts to dig deeper into Kavanaugh’s past. Charges ranged from sexual assault to excessive gambling. Rather than let the FBI explore a series of allegations fully, the Judiciary Committee allowed only one key witness to testify – yes, only one – Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Kavanaugh followed Dr. Ford and managed to create even more concern about his truthfulness and demeanor as publicly insulted Senators seeking answers to some basic questions and even lied about what he should have dismissed as youthful indiscretions.
While those on the political right might view with great satisfaction McConnell’s tactics of attempting to hide the truth about Kavanaugh, thereby giving the finger to the left, how would the right react if a nominee from a Democratic president had the same questionable background and exhibited the same rude behavior as Kavanaugh? I can hear the cries now, “Lock him up! Lock him up!”
Senator Susan Collins is among the brainwashed or brain-dead. Collins gave a 45-minute talk justifying support of Kavanaugh. Her remarks included some truly nonsensical statements. For example, she claimed that as a sitting judge, Kavanaugh has consistently supported legal precedent…unless he considered the precedent wrong. Huh, Susan? In real speak that means precedent plays no part in Kavanaugh’s decisions. Why would anyone ever make such an inane claim? Collins was also interviewed on “60 Minutes” the day after the confirmation. Based on her comments during “60 Minutes,” no one would ever accuse her of being a deep thinker. Enough about Collins.
Then we have Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham’s behavior of late could be compared to that of Stormy Daniels in one of her movies – constantly taking on new positions and new partners, including cuddling up to president Trump. At least Stormy Daniels has been straightforward with the public about her beliefs. No so for Graham. Say Lindsey, do you not remember any lessons from John McCain?
Among people who have principles, there is an adage that most learned early in life. Mitch you must have missed the class…again and again and again. The adage is, “What goes around, comes around.” The follow-on part of that adage is when it comes back, the intensity is usually much greater. My suggestion Mitch? Be on the lookout because your life is about to begin heading down a very steep hill.
Is there any hope? Yes, there’s some. While we probably can’t avoid the Revenge Revolution, the intensity could be moderated by one person – Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts is a smart guy. Roberts knows his legacy will be determined by how credible the public views decisions of SCOTUS. Roberts also knows he’s got two justices who are considered illegitimate by many people – Thomas and Kavanaugh.
mafia. The Russians, like the mafia, play serious hardball when it comes to collecting debts. Trump and Manafort seem to be aware of the dirt bath they might get if they don’t cooperate with the Russians.
While you might ignore all the shenanigans and secrecy with the Russians, claiming the “Trump haters” just don’t understand and are overreacting as usual, I’ll bet you begin to pause when Trump’s so-called “economic policies” hit your pocketbook hard. Without getting into a wonkish discussion about economics, several of Trump’s so-called economic policies – tariffs, even on countries even where we have a trade surplus, massive tax cuts for business and the wealthy, promoting a weak dollar, promoting low interest rates and a couple of others – are at cross purposes. First and maybe most important is the tariffs will raise prices and reduce employment – and your pocketbook will be affected.
There’s more to discuss but enough for now. The final thought of this “sense check” entry. When all the lower-income Trump supporters finally realize they’ve been had, we will see the tipping point for the revolution. Remember, hell hath no fury like a (former Trump supporter) scorned. So Republicans, be prepared and make sure to enjoy the ride to the Revenge Revolution.
Since today is part of a long weekend celebrating July 4 and the nation’s declaration of independence, what better time to step back and assess the premise of this blog. I’ve been writing the blog for about five (5) years with a few months between starting writing and publishing the initial entry. What has surprised me the most the past five years is not that a revolution seems likely…but the path to the 5th revolution.
Five years ago (2013), Barack Obama was in the second term of this presidency. Some key points of that time: (i) the economy was slowly but steadily recovering from the Great Recession of 2008; (ii) even with the economic recovery median household income was flat (not unexpected given the depth of the recession); (iii) the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, was just beginning to be fully implemented; (iv) Republicans were making every effort to thwart legislation of nearly any action proposed by president Obama. Recall Mitch McConnell declared about two years into Obama’s term that his job and the job of Republicans in Congress 
As noted in 
The unexpected catalyst for the 5th revolution, at least what seems to be so far, was the unexpected and unlikely 2016 Republican presidential nominee – Donald Trump. Trump ran a very unconventional campaign, capitalizing on what seems to be his major strength – being a highly effective bully. But a bully not in the tradition of the presidency, which is often referred to as having a “bully pulpit,” but a bully that one might have experienced in say grammar school or middle school.
During the campaign for the Republican nomination Trump was relentless in taunting fellow Republican candidates. After earning the nomination, he was relentless in taunting the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. While in “normal times” one would expect such school-yard tactics to result in a resounding defeat,” Trump won the Electoral College vote even though losing the popular vote by more than three (3) million votes.
Why expect the hard-core right to revolt? Aren’t they Trump’s biggest supporters? Yes, but the hard right will be the most negatively affected by Trump’s policies. Believe what you will but the coal industry is never coming back. Use of other fossil fuels is going to drop sharply. Two of Trump’s favorite industries – steel and aluminum – are highly automated and don’t need many more workers to increase output.
The other group likely to revolt is farmers, who also were big Trump supporters. Exports have become a huge money-maker for family and corporate farms. Retaliatory tariffs on farm products by China and other nations will decrease demand for soybeans, corn and wheat. The US produces far more foodstuff than it can possibly consume. A decrease in farm production translates into a decrease in farm income.
One day in the next five years or so, the hard-core Trumpsters will wake up and realize not only are the promised jobs not coming back but Trump and Congressional Republicans are on a determined path to cut Social Security and Medicare. Why? Because the Federal deficit is too high. Why is the deficit too high? Because the Trump tax cuts benefitted the rich and the promised “trickle-down” effect never occurred. Raising taxes on the rich is out of the question, of course, so these “entitlement” programs must be cut.
theory “voodoo economics.” Trump’s tax cuts were pure voodoo economics.
As noted in the early entries to this blog, the scorned (hard right Trumpsters) begin to exact revenge on the more affluent. How widespread is such an armed revolt? Hard to predict. But what I do know is there are not enough police and not enough military personnel to stop geographically dispersed guerilla raids on single homes and/or neighborhoods, especially if invaders are armed with AR15’s and the like.