Party rotations
Reading about the machinations of the big R donors like Koch and Adelson, I suddenly realized. This election represents a new realignment of the parties.

Running through some previous realignments on the two variables of Wall Street and War:

In 1936, R was Wall Street and Non-War, D was Workers and Non-War.

In 1952, R was Wall Street and Non-War, D was Workers and War.

In 1968, R was Wall Street and War, D was Workers and Non-War.

In 1992, R was Wall Street and War, D was Wall Street and War.

Now Hillary maintains the same position, Wall Street and War; but Trump is trying to move R toward a position that was last occupied by FDR. Workers and Non-War.



I thought about including the 'social' axis, pro-life vs pro-trannie and so on, but decided (1) a three-axis graph is unreadable and (2) the 'social' axis isn't on the same level as war and workers. Until 1980 the social distinction was just a natural consequence of the aristocrat axis. Aristocrats are always immoral and workers are always moral. Neither party felt the need to specify the distinction. In 1980 Lee Atwater, maximally immoral, introduced the 'social' axis as a cynical trick. Rs began to attract moral people, persuaded moral people that their interests were aligned with the demonic aristocrats. R politicians remained max immoral themselves, which provided a splendid opening for blackmailers on the Left.

Most moral people have figured the trick by now, and Trump is neutralizing the trick because he doesn't give a fuck about the whole issue.

= = = = =

Graphic sidenote: When I watch the GIF, it seems like the oval year labels pop up just after the R and D finish moving. This is not physically true; the popup and holdstill happen in the same frame. Wonder if this is related to the odd flicker fusion effect I noted recently?

Labels: Asked and sort of answered

  ¶ 6:57 PM