Donald Trump

A 'Change Election'? Just the Opposite

Trump vote really a desire to 'change' back.


Trump rally
Glen Stubbe/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Was this a "change election"? Donald Trump's victory is widely attributed to the public's thirst for something new, which he represented and Hillary Clinton didn't. It would be more accurate to say the outcome stemmed from too much change—which has discombobulated conservatives, as well as liberals.

Trump would be very different from past presidents, and that quality appealed to voters fed up with the status quo. But his supporters were voting for something old. "Make America Great Again" is a cry of nostalgia.

Clinton stood for stability, predictability and caution. So the choice boiled down to "undo all the changes I don't like" vs. "don't change a thing."

The problem is that change, however disruptive, is a defining achievement of our age.

The modern capitalist economy is continually adapting to serve the demands of the populace. Material progress and more choices come about through the creation of new methods and new products that make old ones obsolete.

The 20th-century economist Joseph Schumpeter called this phenomenon "creative destruction," which he argued is "the essential fact about capitalism." It has become the essential fact about modern life, indispensable to the rising living standards that Americans expect. But it carries a price: No one is guaranteed that life will forever remain as it is.

Trump ran well, we are told, among working-class whites who have seen the industries that once employed them shrink or vanish. Both he and Clinton, as well as Democratic insurgent Bernie Sanders, cultivated these voters by turning against international trade. But most of the upheaval in our industrial landscape has not been caused by foreign competition.

By one measure, total employment, American manufacturing has wasted away. Since 2000, 5 million jobs have disappeared. But U.S. manufacturing output is 15 percent higher now than it was then and nearly double what it was in 1987.

A lot of automaking jobs have moved not to Mexico but to Tennessee and South Carolina. A lot of coal mining jobs in Appalachia have been lost to natural gas fracking operations in Texas.

But politicians act as though well-paying jobs should be tenured perches. That can't be the case in a healthy, dynamic economy—not with blue-collar jobs and not with white-collar ones.

Law was once a lifetime ticket to a high income. Not anymore. Law firms are shedding partners, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics says lawyers can expect to see more price competition, more tasks going to paralegals and some work being outsourced overseas. The number of people working at newspapers has been slashed by 38 percent in the past decade. A century ago, 1 in 3 Americans worked on farms. Today, it's 1 in 50.

Change is something to navigate, not something to obstruct. Our lives are easier, better and longer than those of generations past, and those achievements have been built on the ruins of defunct businesses and occupations. I would prefer that people get their news on printed pages, but my preferences hold no sway with readers who like electronic transmission.

Remember video stores? Economist Mark J. Perry of the conservative American Enterprise Institute notes that in 1999, they employed 170,000 people. Good luck finding one now.

But the ubiquity and familiarity of change don't make it less a source of anxiety. And the endless transformation extends to the realms of culture, religion and family life, where it's also often unwelcome.

The resistance comes in different forms among different people. Conservative whites feel besieged by immigrants, whose language and customs are sometimes jarringly alien.

Liberals and minorities in places such as San Francisco and Brooklyn resent gentrification and rising housing prices, which remake the neighborhoods they call home.

Nostalgia for the 1950s and '60s is common across the political spectrum. Working-class whites remember them as an era when high-wage factory jobs were plentiful and the culture was less open to exotic influences. Liberals fondly recall that inequality was moderate, unions thrived and people still believed in government. Conservatives miss the low crime rate, sturdy families and cultural uniformity. (Blacks, women and Latinos: Your memories may vary.)

It may be normal to cherish fond memories of the good old days, but for better or worse, they can't be resurrected, and it's a fraud for political leaders to pretend they can. Anyone who wants to stop or roll back the tide of change picked the wrong century in which to be born.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Trump Selects Betsy Devos for Education Secretary, Jill Stein Raising Money for Recount, Monday Night Football Ratings Collapse: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I guess, if you think Clinton was disingenuous enough to have kept NAFTA and the TPP and not rolled back free trade. I dunno.

    The difference between change via private market and change via the government is that the former is tested by competition and vetted according to whether it actually appeals to consuming public, while the latter is not. Governments (and therefore politicians) shouldn’t be agents of change. They should be agents of staying out of the way and letting others change where it suits them and not changing where it doesn’t.

    1. Seventies and eighties, too Second-hand muscle cars (1965 GTO with a 327 Chevy) FTW.

      1. 70 Chevelle SS LS6 454

        1. “sigh”

        2. This guy gets it. Most bad-ass production car ever made

          1. “Most bad-ass production car ever made”

            The Porsche 918 laughs and laughs. Just for fun I looked up the quarter mile time. The 918 did it in 9.8. That’s insane.

            1. I guess by saying “production car” I was trying to exclude super-cars. The 918 had a production run of less than 1000.

        3. I’ll be in my bunk

        4. Um, I have a Schwinn road bike.

    2. When you can convince people (who are already willing to believe) that you can control change – be it social or economic – you have a constituency, two actually.

  2. Clinton stood for stability, predictability and caution.

    Which is why she talked about setting up no-fly zones over Syria for Russian planes, in an area with Russian AA installations. Because nothing says ‘stability, predictability and caution’ like picking a fight with a nuclear power. ‘Caution’ is a particularly moronic word to use for Clinton. Every single major scandal associated with her as SoS is explicitly because she’s not cautious. Unless of course Chapman means ‘caution’ in the sense of ‘cautiously hiding her email activity’ which she still massively failed at.

    1. You really expect Chapman to hold Hillary to the same standard? Look how ‘stable’ Libya is now.

    2. “Clinton stood for stability, predictability and caution.”

      She was predictable alright. She was going to hang a ‘For Sale’ sign on the oval office.

      These pinko idiots are just laughable.

      1. How anyone views her as anything but incompetent and amoral is beyond me. Clinton was and is a joke. And I voted for GJ.

    3. Predictable, sure; predictably careless and unstable.

  3. “It may be normal to cherish fond memories of the good old days, but for better or worse, they can’t be resurrected,…”

    “The good old days are good and gone now. That’s why they’re good, because they’re gone now.” -Loudon Wainwright III

    Our memories are selective, and often remember only the good in the old days. That’s why appealing to nostalgia works well with so many voters.

    This was possibly Chapmans best piece ever in Reason. (OK, that’s feint praise)

    1. ‘feint praise’
      What you did there, it is seen.

    2. So the praise is over there instead of over here.

    3. Pre-AIDS sex. Kids today can’t imagine sex with 2 or 3 hotties per day today.

      1. Today’s acid is like 3.2 beer. Not even fun.

    4. +1 hit of 4-way acid. Consumed by myself.

  4. If I had to choose one thing to sum up Trump’s win, it’d be this.

    1. What the fuck is that?

      1. You can check under the hood if you’re curious.

        1. No thanks. There just aren’t enough face-palms in the world.

      2. I’m not sure what it is, but it needs to get some sun.

        1. So we can all be dark-skinned? When I came back from Brazil I would have been classified as black. NTTAWWT.

        2. It had to read all that crap off its phone … what commentary on these snowflakes.

      3. It’s a fascist petrified that the other sides dictator got power instead of he side’s dictator.

        If she’s lucky, she’ll learn over the next few month that we don’t live in a dictatorship (yet) and the president doesn’t have the kind of power iver her life that she wishes he had.

    2. Looks bad enough to not turn on the sound.

    3. Dude, keep the links to under 5 minutes if you want us to follow along. Especially if the hook looks like that. (TIWTANLW – yeah, I know).

      Too much scotch in my system anyway.

  5. Cry, then choke on a turkey leg, then cry some more Chapman, you little bitch Obama momma!

  6. Hey Chapman, your bitch lost. Suck it up.

    1. When Chapman writes and Reason publishes it, we all lose.

      1. So now we know who got the punishment detail of holiday HnR today – us.

    2. They need him to get the begrudging recognition from the Guardian for which they so desperately yearn.

  7. I long for the good old days when Reason didn’t publish work by a Hillary’s ass kissing sycophant who’s not a particularly good writer or thinker on his best day. We wouldn’t even have to go back to the ’80s to get that.

    1. Chapman is a fucking tool, along with anyone else who thought “Make America Great Again” meant anything nefarious.

      That’s like saying people who wanted the Cubs to win again, wanted the exact same team and players from 71 years ago to play and win the World Series. In no way is this an embarrassment to Cubs fans, it’s an embarrassment to retards like Chapman making this kind of moronic assumption.

  8. I read the first two lines and immediately thought “Chapman.” Read the next couple and it was confirmed. I did not read past that. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this has to be just another pity party.

    On the bright side, I cooked a killer mutta dosa for breakfast. I’m sure I must have run a 7-11 in a previous life.

    1. I just suggested to my wife that I would make eggs benedict but she doesnt want anything that rich. Bacon, one over-medium egg and toast it is.

      I made pineapple pork last night and we ate until we couldn’t move.

      On Topic: I cant believe how satisfying all of the lefty butt-hurt is. I just cant get enough of it.

      1. I’m lost in Asia at the moment and have been eating insanely good “street” food.

        I’ll be back in the USA soon, in time to watch it return to greatness.
        And then the menu will consist of that which cannot be had in any quality in Asia: Steak, Pizza, Mexican.

        1. *(SE Asia, thus the crappy steak)

          1. It’s kangaroo meat. Still delicious.

            1. Probably some human meet mixed in too.

              1. Don’t forget the puppy meat!

        2. One of the Gujarati guys who works for me observed, “Indian food is Mexican plus garam masala.” Much truth there.

        3. Loving every minute of it for twenty years. Chitterlings, pig ear, and stinky tofu FTW.

        4. I’ve never been a big fan of Asian food. They live in an upside down world from mine. When I prepare a fish I throw the head and guts away and cook the muscle.

          1. In Asia, you can eat all the correct parts of the animal, it’s just prepared in so many interesting and delicious ways.

            1. I was kidding. I cook ‘Asian’ all the time.

              1. I got octopus coming out of my ears! I want my human rights!

                1. And look at these Russian shoes!

          2. You know the problem with Asian women? An hour later you’re hourly again.

            1. Jesus stupid phone!
              An hour later you’re horny again.

      2. Proof the you’re a deplorable ist and ic.

        Welcome to the club.

      3. I’ve been trying to not OD on the lefty butt-hurt. Fun as it is to indulge now and then, I just wouldn’t get anything done if I let myself run free. And two of my sisters would disown me…

        1. HIsashiburi. Happy Thanksgiving!

          1. Happy turkey-day to you too! Hope all is well.

            1. Actually had my first White Thanksgiving here. Fun times.

              1. I’ve had to adjust my T-day to local custom (the 23rd) and give up on my hope that my wife will ever learn to like turkey. I BBQ’d a rack of dry rubbed ribs and a slice of Angus along with other foodstuffs.

                1. We gave up on the turkey years ago. I made Chimichangas tonight. No sour cream at the grocery store. Turkey, sour cream and Reese’s peanut butter cups are the 3 things I have to make a special trip to Costco for.

    2. I read part of the title and knew who it was immediately. The smug leading question immediately answered by its own writer is a dead giveaway.

      If it’s posted under “Reason Staff” and looks like codswallop, it’s one of two writers about to shill for Her.

      There might as well be flies circling the link to the article.

  9. Chapman,
    You’re really picking nits today.

    If Trump voters want to abandon a more recent paradigm and return to an older (previous) paradigm, That is Change. Doesn’t matter if it is new or old. If it is different, then it is “change”.

    Analogy: You take off a shirt you bought today, and you put on a shirt you bought last year. You have “changed” your shirt, even though it isn’t a new shirt…. got it?

    FYI, I didn’t bother reading past the first few sentences.

    1. Chapman doesn’t understand that, good or bad, appeals to the ‘old way’ still develop into new systems or institutions.

      If Chapman was writing several hundred years ago he’d complain about all these Enlightenment writers who praise the Greek and Roman classical institutions of republicanism and democracy, and demand that they kowtow to the local feudal aristocracy.

      1. ” kowtow to the local feudal aristocracy.”

        Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
        /love that movie

      2. “…demand that they kowtow to the local feudal aristocracy.”

        John nails Chapman.

          1. *Belated narrowed gaze*

            Why must I do everything for you?

    2. Wait a moment. Aren’t most American libertarians wanting a “change back” to constitutional government and free markets?

      1. only the ones that care about liberty

      2. Heck, most Americans just want some change back when they have to break a twenty.

    3. It is somewhat disturbing when people adopt a linear unidirectional understanding of history, an outlook usually habitual to leftists. It basically assumes every novel decision ever made by a politician was a good one and to reverse it would be a travesty.

      1. to reverse it would be a travesty.

        I always enjoy pointing out that this is the definition of “conservative.” Much sputtering and de-friending me.

  10. It’s like Chapman thinks that because the politicians he likes call themselves Progressives, then everything they do would be progress, even though authoritarianism is a reversion to something the opposite of that.

  11. “Trump ran well, we are told, among working-class whites who have seen the industries that once employed them shrink or vanish.”

    I keep hearing this line or something similar. I am sure it is true, but did not Trump increase the percentage of the vote in all demographics over previous Republican candidates?

    Trump didn’t win because he is so great and promises change. Most people know that time doesn’t go backwards. Trump won because Hillary is a warmongering dishonest corrupt skank.

    1. According to the New York Times exit polls, which are the only ones I’ve seen that have a function to easily compare between results of past elections, Trump improved across all racial demographics (which is probably why you heard what you heard), but when you divide it up further he did do worse in some demographics. He did better among non-college and poor people than Romney but worse among college educated and wealthier people, so the characterization of him winning due to the working class has merit (he gained more working class voters than the number of white collar people he lost).

    2. Also, he won because black people did not turn out for The Hag like they did for BO.

    3. You’re being unfair to skanks

  12. I believe that the Dems want to return to the New Deal writ large. Socialized medical care,shutting down fossil fuels. Seems they want to go back to the horse and buggy days.

    1. Horse and buggy days? They want to see you pull a plow from the window of their private jet.

      1. “Those who beat their guns into plowshares will pull that plow for those that don’t.” – T. Jefferson

        1. Better judged by twelve than carried by six.

    2. the Dems want to return to the New Deal writ large … shutting down fossil fuels

      The New Deal was many things but anti-industrial was not one of them. FDR wanted to promote American industry, not destroy it.

      1. But his method of doing so was to give as much market power to industries as possible under the National Industrial Recovery Act — because the problem in his view was insufficient demand and how better to get more demand than to let everyone charge high prices, amirite? One of the wildest was the oil industry, where pro-rationing of output roughly doubled prices relative to the trough. In 1933-34, this was run by the Dept of Interior. But after the Supreme Court declared NIRA invalid in January 1935, he let the states run pro-rationing (lead by Texas and Oklahoma). Then in the second FDR administration, DOJ went after the oil industry on antitrust violations (the Sony-Vacuum case), with the result being that the feds took over pipelines and have been mucking it up ever since.

  13. Conservatives miss the low crime rate, sturdy families and cultural uniformity. (Blacks, women and Latinos: Your memories may vary.)

    That’s all so 20th century. A high crime rate, broken families and cultural diversity is the “in” thing now. And it’s no coincidence that those three things always go together. That’s what liberals (and evidently some libertarians) call progress.

    1. Blacks have been voting pretty solid democrat for how long now? The percentage of fatherless homes for blacks is around 70%? On the evil scale this is one point below putting people in ovens.

      “When I get finished with ’em those niggers will vote democrat for 100 years.” – Lyndon Johnson

    2. Except that the crime rate peaked in 1993 and has been dropping ever since. Well, except for the 10:00 o’clock news.

      1. Except that in the 50 largest cities homicides increased by a staggering 17 percent. This is why when you find yourself mouthing the exact same words that a NYT writer would screech in order to shut down debate you might want to dig a little deeper into the data. Too many libertarians (because of glib spergy meliorism) assume that if people are worried about a troubling trend that trend must be the result of unfounded concern.

    3. I don’t know what Chapman’s smoking, but the 1950s had low crime rates and more stable families regardless of skin color. Yes, there was also legal discrimination and outright oppression of black people. But crime rates and family stability didn’t go to shit until the 1970s. Very few people nowadays believe we should return to Jim Crow or worse. Saying that we would like to have lower crime rates* and more stable families is not at all the same thing.

      In fact, one could say it’s insulting on Chapman’s part to conflate legal discrimination and oppression with crime and family stability for historically marginalized groups of people. Most people from that time period likely take pride in the fact that, despite their mistreatment at the hands of government and other segments of society, they were upstanding individuals who built healthy communities.

      * = Present-day crime rates are actually fairly comparable to those of the 1950s, so mission accomplished there

  14. Trompe l’oeil. First time I’ve thought of that term since the campaign began.

  15. Bull pucky. So progress is blowing up women and children, spying on citizens, selling political favors to the highest bidder, disarming the populace, sucking the wealth of a nation dry, oh we could go on. Keep your “progress”. Clinton voters need to get off their moral and intellectual high horse. They’ve no business up there.

  16. Roll back the New Deal!

  17. “The 20th-century economist Joseph Schumpeter called this phenomenon “creative destruction,” which he argued is “the essential fact about capitalism.”

    He got it from Marx.

    In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), Joseph Schumpeter developed the concept out of a careful reading of Marx’s thought (to which the whole of Part I of the book is devoted), arguing (in Part II) that the creative-destructive forces unleashed by capitalism would eventually lead to its demise as a system (see below).[7] Despite this, the term subsequently gained popularity within neoliberal or free-market economics as a description of processes such as downsizing in order to increase the efficiency and dynamism of a company.

    This is part of what I mean when I say that what progressives believe about what makes economies grow is dumber than creationism.

    As awful as Marx was, he was smarter than progressives about this. Keynes, likewise, may have been woefully wrong about a number of things, but he wasn’t nearly as stupid as the progressives who cite him make him out to be when they invoke his name.

    1. Marx was essentially a scam artist. The whole “Communism” bullshit made him a tidy sum.

      1. Marx was extremely wrong about some things. ”

        Marx was right about other things.

        When Marx is wrong, it’s because the things he said were wrong. Things aren’t wrong just because Marx said them.

        One of the things he was right about was creative destruction. Creative destruction is the means by which economies grow. Whether you’re talking about productivity gains through technology, efficiencies caused by free trade, etc., you’re talking about displacing old ways of doing things and the people whose employment depends on doing things the old way.

        Marx believed that displacement was the key that would eventually destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism. Schumpeter, not a Marxist, believes that, too. I’m here to tell you that the social programs and regulatory bodies we’ve built to protect people from the economic cycle, creative destruction, etc., are the very things that are killing capitalism.

        Whether you’re a Marxist or a free-market capitalist, you can agree on these facts and principles–the difference between them is normative. Marx thought it a good thing that capitalism is destroyed this way. Free market capitalists don’t.

        1. Marx’s central fillet was the labor theory of value that underpinned his economic theory, especially the normative part.

          It’s why I like to say Marx was obsolete by the time he finished Capital: the marginal utility theory of labor was making headway and displacing Ricardo’s theory while Marx was still alive.

          1. Lol, fillet. I meant folly.

        2. Fuck you, Ken.

          Marx wasn’t right about anything. Relabeling and over-pontifiacation of existing, well known and defined phenonima does not make one ‘right’. It’s just pseudo-intellectual theater.

          Creative destruction is a stupid fucking label for the obvious perils in any enterprise. It’s poetic jibberish, the obnoxious ramblings from the Nostradamus of economics. And you’re a retard for investing more time than you should of into that nonsense, then taking any of it seriously.

          1. “Marx wasn’t right about anything. Relabeling and over-pontifiacation of existing, well known and defined phenonima does not make one ‘right’. It’s just pseudo-intellectual theater.”

            Marx was right about creative destruction. He was right about reactions to it leading to socialism, too.

            There’s this thing called intellectual honesty. I’m not sure you know what it is. Doesn’t look like you have it.

            But intellectual honesty has to do with being honest about facts–even if you don’t like them. Yeah, Marx was right about the facts–he was wrong in their interpretation.

            And, anyway, in this case, there’s no reason not to like the facts. If even Marx–EVEN MARX!–understood that economic growth depends on creative destruction, then progressives have no excuse. They’re just ignorant.

            Meanwhile, if you go around pretending that everything Marx said was wrong because Marx is the one that said it, then you might as well be playing for the other team–’cause intellectual dishonesty isn’t about to win any arguments for libertarianism or capitalism.

            “Creative destruction is a stupid fucking label for the obvious perils in any enterprise.”

            Creative destruction is about how and why economies grow, how science works, how species evolve . . . it’s about a lot of things. But it isn’t just a stupid label. And if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn’t have said that.

            1. Fuck you again, Ken.

              You’ve spent a lot of text explaining this genius concept and novel label for something that’s beyond obvious. There’s no credit given for that, to you or Marx.

              I’m sure Nostradamus could identify an eclipse, and even if he invented a different name for one, that doesn’t warrant acknowledgment when he was clearly a fucking overall dipshit.

              This is just your own pseudo-intellectual, circle jerk. I’m just tying to tell you those peanuts you found in that pile of shit, shouldn’t be considered food, and you might want to stop putting them in your mouth.

              1. Pointing to Marx as the source of Schumpeter’s creative destruction isn’t intellectual. It’s a widely known fact.

                Pointing out your intellectual dishonesty isn’t intellectual either. Every honest ignoramus knows that broken clocks like Marx tell perfect time twice a day . . . but not you.

                You seem to think that because truths have always been true, that means the people who discover, acknowledge, or use them in their arguments, somehow, aren’t doing anything but labeling them?

                You must be Tulpa. Tell-tale sign is being willfully obtuse.

                1. Fuck you x3, Ken.

                  Broken clock being right twice a day, is semantic bullshit, aka poetry. The tiny fraction of time those clock hands happen to coincide with real time, never equals a working clock. You certainly don’t continue to use it as a tool to tell time, you throw it out and find something that actually works. There’s nothing special about coincidence, and pseudo-intellectual pontification and glorification about this in Nostradamus or Marx is just fucking retarded.

                  The label of creative destruction added no new understanding to economics. Cutesy names for obvious, well known and understood mechanisms, is merely ivory tower obfuscation.

                  So you continue to eat peanuts found in shit, and insist it’s still food. It’s not, you’re just eating shit. The minute those peanuts left the asshole (in this case Marx), they became shit. Now extrapolate and apply to Schumpeter or anyone else in the successive lip-to-asshole grafts along the Marxian chain of shit peanut ingestion.

                  What’s next from Ken, score carding L. Ron Hubbard for physics?

      2. What’s ridiculous about progressives is that they’re far dumber (if less dangerous) than Marxists–because they deny that economic growth depends on creative destruction. They make climate change deniers look ingenious by way of comparison. Progressive ideas about how economies grow are dumber than creationism. They’re so dumb, not even Marxists will endorse them, not even Keynes would endorse them.

        Progressive ideas about how economies grow are simple denialism stripped of any observations of the real world. It’s a way to get people to vote for you–and that’s it. Anyone who actually believes their horseshit is an ignorant dupe.

        1. If you’re at a Thanksgiving table today with a lot of progressives, if and when they start talking about politics, ask them to explain how economies grow.

          Most of them will look at you with a blank stare because they don’t have the foggiest idea, but those who are sure they’re right will launch into a stream of blatant stupidity with the confidence of an NFL quarterback.

          It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

          1. Or when the topic of politics came up, you could change the subject to something less loaded and more pleasant, rather than being an unpleasant, pedantic fuck and helping ruin everyone else’s holiday time.

            Maybe next year pass this phrase along for everyone else at the table.
            “What actual experience do you have growing an economy? So try shutting the fuck up and passing the gravy, Ken.”

        2. Progressives are infantilized adults and their politics and positions are a celebration of that infantilazation. Their socialist only in the sense that they crave some uber paterfamilias to care for them in the way that a good parent cares for a young child. The how and why are irrelevant to them.

          1. hey crave some uber paterfamilias to care for them in the way that a good parent cares for a young child

            Yet, oddly enough, they seek to tear down such arrangements wherever they find them. I would say that they are toddlers not infants; they crave structure but resent its manifestation. The problem is that, as adults, they have the power to destroy without any higher authority to stop them (for good or ill).

        3. That’s like saying Stalin wasn’t dangerous because Lenin would have opposed a lot of his policies, or that the Inquisition wasn’t dangerous because Jesus would have opposed it.

          The hypothetical opinions of philosophy founders on issues that arise after they’re already dead matters little. What matters is the people who live now and hold power, who use the philosophy as their rhetorical justification for using that power.

          1. “That’s like saying Stalin wasn’t dangerous because Lenin would have opposed a lot of his policies, or that the Inquisition wasn’t dangerous because Jesus would have opposed it.”

            Saying that progressives are dumber than Marxists isn’t at all like saying that Stalin wasn’t dangerous.

            Meanwhile, I suggested that progressives are less dangerous that Marxists, not vice versa.

            Are you drunk?

        4. Keynes gets a bad rap (though he also gets inappropriately deified on the left). He was ready to revise his ideas when his colleagues suitably rebutted them. There’s a reason Keynes earned the respect of guys like Hayek and Friedman.

          Popular political Keynesianism today is basically a dumbed down version of some of Keynes’s most disputed ideas (from which he distanced himself in his later years). Unfortunately charlatans like Krugman and Reich keep that wheel spinning. In Keynes’s own words, politicians are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.

          1. “Popular political Keynesianism today is basically a dumbed down version of some of Keynes’s most disputed ideas (from which he distanced himself in his later years)”.


            Keynes’ solution to the liquidity trap was not meant to be the eternal source of economic growth.

            It’s just an argument meant to win voters over–especially to ease the minds of those who depend on government largess. It isn’t an actual representation of Keynes’ work.

            If we made Keynes out to be like the progressives make him out to be, we could rightly be accused of making him into a straw man. Somehow, the progressives have built a straw man of Keynes themselves–but they don’t mean to discredit him by it. They want to worship their straw man Keynes as an idol and offer rational fiscal policy to it as a sacrifice.

  18. Leave it to an establishment left liberal to see human beings only as skin colors, desirous of oversight by benevolent watchers. Racist and fascist, through and through.

    1. “Right wingers” telling left wingers they shouldn’t care so much about race are accused by said left wingers of being racist. O tempora, o mores.

  19. Even more than a “Chane” election or a “Nostalgia” election, this was a “Fuck You” election. All the Right People were telling the electorate that Shrillary Clinton was the uncrowned Queen and it was their Duty to vote for her. And the electorate was decided in its response between those who said “Fuck You” and stayed home and those who said “Fuck You” and voted for somebody – ANYBODY – else.

  20. Writing anti-Trump articles is still a pretty safe way to stay employed as a writer, apparently. Look up this guy in Google news, he’s one note.

  21. “It may be normal to cherish fond memories of the good old days, but for better or worse, they can’t be resurrected, and it’s a fraud for political leaders to pretend they can. Anyone who wants to stop or roll back the tide of change picked the wrong century in which to be born.

    There’s one sense in which Trump’s victory stood in the way of historical change, yelled stop–and history obeyed.

    I thought we were headed for hate speech laws in this country. The First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to hurt minorities with your speech any more than the Second Amendment gives you the right to shoot them with a gun–don’t you libertarians know anything about the Constitution?!

    After Trump was elected despite charges of sexism, racism, xenophobia, and sexual assault, it feels like a ton of pressure has been let out of the room. Racism is still socially unacceptable, but smearing someone as a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, etc. ain’t what it used to be.

  22. Historians will look back at this era in history as like another Red Scare. Back then people were terrified of someone destroying their reputation beyond repair by calling them a communist–and for a while there, being called a racist or a homophobe was like that. We were on track to institutionalize that form of McCarthyism, maybe at the Supreme Court, if Hillary Clinton had won.

    The progressives both losing the opportunity to do that and the total repudiation of the anti-PC charges against Trump is a huge part of what the progressives are crying about. In that sense, Trump winning has set us back to a better time, when regulating speech wasn’t necessarily a legitimate responsibility of government.

  23. Pretty good Chapman article. Sun on a dog’s ass and whatnot

    1. Just read through all he comments, I don’t think I read the same article as most of you. I didn’t really see any defense of Hillary by Chapman here. He said she represented stability and status quo, which considering who’s in office now and who preceded him, doesn’t seem so far off. No, war with Russia isn’t stability, but in the sense that we’ve been in a constant state of war for the last 15 years, in a sense it is status quo. I think the opinions are colored by the articles author. The general thesis of the article is that people desire a return to a nostalgic time that likely wasn’t as good as they remember and that trying to thwart progress is a mistake. Nowhere did I see that he meant HRC was progress.

      1. The argument made is totally valid. I guess the mistake made is trying to tie it to the election and Trump vs. Hillary for the one millionth “what does The election mean for America” article, but apparently that is what editors want right now.

      2. Respectfully, Adam, the criticism is not a knee-jerk response to the author but, rather an observation of his lazy writing, straw man argumentation, and consistent lack of creativity or newness. It’s a poorly structured essay, suffering from the all-over-place syndrome, lacking in clarity and focused narrative. Add to this the requisite belch referencing races, and the lack of scientific or analytical rigor in defining the terms of “change”, motivations without generalizations, and freshness in perspective. It is adolescent writing and tired emotion.
        Now where he deserves praise is in continued business savvy, conning the likes of Nick et. al. in embracing his banal opinion and cutting him checks on a regular basis. Nice work if you can get it….

      3. Hi Chapman!

        1. Unlike Ron Bailey and ENB, I doubt Chapman reads the comments.

  24. Clinton stood for stability, predictability and caution.

    She wanted to bring the world ORDER. And the cosmos loved her for it.

  25. “Steve Chapman explains more.”

    Of course he does. Who else could it possibly be?

    1. I guess we could just call it “Chapsplaining” from now on.

  26. Let me guess:

    TL,DR= “Boo hoo hoo.”

  27. Chapman does a disservice to the headline, and says the election was a vote for nostalgia. I thought it was going to be an explanation as to why Trump’s administration won’t result in any significant change. Heck, I could write a better article on that, in summary:

    The 2017 federal budget will spend more and have higher deficits than Obama’s 2016 budget – no change in that.
    Trump promised not to touch Social Sec. and Medicare – no change in that.
    Trump has hired a bunch of people who’ve spent their life in government (except Carson so far) – not much change in that
    Trump has promised to deal with ISIS – no change in that
    Trump’s business will be a conflict of interest – no change there

    Trump’s changes:

    Tear up free trade agreements (ok agreements with mixed protectionism and some liberalization of trade). The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 resulted in US GDP falling almost in half in 3 years before it was repealed. Both Smoot and Hawley, Republicans, lost their offices in 1933. That’s going to be a disaster.
    Trump wants to deport a lot of illegals. Glad he’s deporting criminals, but it won’t help all the people employed selling them stuff. That won’t help the economy – which is not a change in direction.

    The other thing Chapman missed – in a few years, just like for Obama, Trump’s supporters will be extremely disappointed in the Hope for Change they had.

    Wouldn’t that make a better article?

    1. I could go on and consider Obamacare, wall street regulation, internet gambling, marijuana, non-prosecution of Clinton, charity slush funds, stimulus/infrastructure spending, etc, but Reason limits the size of posts.

      Besides, any positive change Trump wants, will likely be blocked by Congress. E.G., I wouldn’t bet Trump will legalize online gambling. But I’d bet on the budget if I could find any takers.

    2. Yes, this outline is a much better article.

      If you start a publication, I’ll stop coming here.
      If you keep up the good work, I might even white list you on the old’ ad blocker.

      However Reason is staying ad-free here.

  28. This is an overly reductionist narrative. Like all of them I suppose.

    First of all, progressivism is “change” for society via threats and exercise of force. It’s a govt movement not a cultural one. Once you get the guns away from people’s heads–remember the supreme court doesn’t make laws, it strikes them down–people go right back to being who they always were. And every dollar you pay in tax in each transaction is “change”, it is the govt stepping in with a forced redirection of your free choices. Hillary’s desire to maintain and even raise taxes is a promise to continue forcing change.

    And second, as simple-minded as Trump’s politics is, you have still managed to over-simplify it. He didn’t simply promise walls and tariffs and therefore safe jobs. He also promised to clear out regulations, free up businesses, cut our embarrassing corporate taxes, claiming that this would double growth or whatever. Greatness also meant rapid development like the old days, before the govt leviathan crushed it, according to the story anyway.

  29. Sweet Jesus, Steve, just stop.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.