A Brief History of Trumpism
November 1, 2024 11:59 PM Subscribe
Trumpism Has Deep Roots in American History, and It Will Outlast Trump [ungated] - "He's said he wants the Justice Department to target people and institutions he regards as opponents, and would unleash the military to round up American citizens he's labeled as the 'enemy from within.' He wants to deport more than 10 million immigrants. He plans to lock down trade channels with massive tariffs and turn his back on European and Asian allies. He's prepared to continue stocking the courts with jurists who allow legal precedent to be voided — at the expense of women's health and autonomy — and make presidents largely immune from the rule of law. He has called for the 'termination' of the Constitution to overturn election results that don't satisfy him (and has already fomented one insurrection). Some of this is cultural, economic and diplomatic warfare. Much of it — as many voters, historians, analysts, Republicans, former Trump White House advisers and military leaders like John Kelly and Mark Milley have noted — is fascism. All of it, collectively, is Trumpism."
Whether or not Trump wins on Nov. 5, Trumpism is here to stay. He has shown the GOP that it’s a wickedly effective path to power. But Trumpism is also here to stay because versions of it have always been here, long before Trump rode down a Trump Tower escalator in 2015 to declare his first presidential bid...
Imagine a political recipe that starts with a broadly defined distaste for “the other.” Blend in a strong measure of anti-institutionalism and antipathy toward centralized power, add a healthy amount of authoritarian aggression, and mix in heaps of propaganda and disinformation. Keep the affluent at bay by promising tax cuts and smaller government, and workers at bay by identifying with their despair. Bake the entirety of it in a cult of personality and, presto, you have Trumpism.
And Trumpism’s roots run centuries-deep in the US.
long before Trump rode down a Trump Tower escalator in 2015 to declare his first presidential bid...
His second, though he likes to pretend it didn't happen, since it was basically a total failure.
posted by jedicus at 4:54 AM on November 2 [13 favorites]
His second, though he likes to pretend it didn't happen, since it was basically a total failure.
posted by jedicus at 4:54 AM on November 2 [13 favorites]
What's so frustrating about this movement is that it's ultimately a dead end: insisting on unproductive policies simply because you get to hurt the people you hate is so stupid.
Why not live well yourself? No, the supreme urge in these folks is to harm The Other even at their own expense.Just like toddlers, ugh.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:01 AM on November 2 [25 favorites]
Why not live well yourself? No, the supreme urge in these folks is to harm The Other even at their own expense.Just like toddlers, ugh.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:01 AM on November 2 [25 favorites]
We’re about to go headfirst through the windshield of history - probably only when it ends in economic disaster will the large % of the electorate hypnotized by stupid tribal bloodlust recede into the background again for a while.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:01 AM on November 2 [13 favorites]
posted by ryanshepard at 6:01 AM on November 2 [13 favorites]
The trouble is that we've been digging ourselves into this for my entire lifetime in order to benefit the wealthy of both parties. We wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for union-busting and "free trade" agreements coupled with gutting welfare. That's not to say that Americans are great and they only turn to racism and patriarchy when they are forced by economic conditions; it's to say that at least with better economic conditions more people would in fact tend their own gardens and be bigots in private.
Any nonsense has gone for my entire life as long as it makes the rich richer. Every major change for the worse in this country has been understood and warned about well in advance, and has been obvious to anyone of average intelligence who has a teensy bit of information, but we all charged ahead anyway on a "la la I can't hear you" basis. Fifty years of eating the seedcorn - no, not even eating the seedcorn, scattering it for the crows - and whoops, there isn't any seedcorn left.
This is why Trump is going to win next week and (what a great phrase) we are indeed going to smash right through that windshield. Fools and billionaires got us here after half a century of trying. I felt I was too old to leave the country in 2016 but in retrospect I should have tried.
posted by Frowner at 6:46 AM on November 2 [26 favorites]
Any nonsense has gone for my entire life as long as it makes the rich richer. Every major change for the worse in this country has been understood and warned about well in advance, and has been obvious to anyone of average intelligence who has a teensy bit of information, but we all charged ahead anyway on a "la la I can't hear you" basis. Fifty years of eating the seedcorn - no, not even eating the seedcorn, scattering it for the crows - and whoops, there isn't any seedcorn left.
This is why Trump is going to win next week and (what a great phrase) we are indeed going to smash right through that windshield. Fools and billionaires got us here after half a century of trying. I felt I was too old to leave the country in 2016 but in retrospect I should have tried.
posted by Frowner at 6:46 AM on November 2 [26 favorites]
"And for what? For a little bit of money? There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it."[1,2]
also btw, re: history...
@petergleick@fediscience.org: "Dr. Seuss' political cartoon from 1940 linking the 'America First' movement with Nazism. Trump proudly leads the new 'America First' movement."
posted by kliuless at 6:59 AM on November 2 [12 favorites]
also btw, re: history...
@petergleick@fediscience.org: "Dr. Seuss' political cartoon from 1940 linking the 'America First' movement with Nazism. Trump proudly leads the new 'America First' movement."
posted by kliuless at 6:59 AM on November 2 [12 favorites]
There used to be a vigilance about guarding against demagoguery. It was always taken as wisdom to defeat it early and often. The reality TV producer that made Trump has formally apologized. The point being that so-called big man cults are not accidents but social engineering ventures with big payoffs for their funding sources out of the treasury. Televangelists used to be on every channel all night long, shouting about why yesterday's disaster happened to those sinful victims, and their cursed children too. None of them ever made serious candidates because the dogmatic stuff wouldn't work outside of the bible belt. Then they found a fried chicken and burger salesman who got famous for firing people on TV (and already famous in New York for not tipping female restaurant servers). But not to blame the past only, because whoever weaponized that stale roadkill now called "Broicism" also knew what they were doing.
posted by Brian B. at 7:13 AM on November 2 [5 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 7:13 AM on November 2 [5 favorites]
One tactic the GOP learned works well is to take something like welfare or food stamps, which benefit everyone in need, and portray it as something that only benefits the Other (e.g. Reagan's "Welfare Queen"). Their voters will then support any legislation that eliminates or curtails that benefit. It's only when they themselves are out of a job or otherwise in need do they find out that they're affected, too. But the GOP will only turn around and blame someone else for the cutback in benefits, secure in the knowledge that no one is going to check the receipts.
I watched my father, a staunch union man, support Nixon, Reagan, and every other Republican as they vilified unions and blamed them for high prices on domestic goods. He was not a stupid man but they convinced him to vote against his own self-interests. It's a tactic that's worked for decades.
Trumpism is just the same shit the Right has been doing for years, just turned up to 11 and with all the covers removed. It's not going away because it's always been here.
posted by tommasz at 7:14 AM on November 2 [21 favorites]
I watched my father, a staunch union man, support Nixon, Reagan, and every other Republican as they vilified unions and blamed them for high prices on domestic goods. He was not a stupid man but they convinced him to vote against his own self-interests. It's a tactic that's worked for decades.
Trumpism is just the same shit the Right has been doing for years, just turned up to 11 and with all the covers removed. It's not going away because it's always been here.
posted by tommasz at 7:14 AM on November 2 [21 favorites]
Jeffrey Epstein details close relationship with Trump in newly released tapes
Recordings from 2017 reveal Epstein talking for some ‘100 hours’ about the ex-president, journalist Michael Wolff says
I've largely semi-avoided the election on tiwtter, mostly by unfollowing US centric sources, not muting keywords, but this Epstein story became popular there. It's not the "October Surprise" some desire, except in some morbid sense. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 7:29 AM on November 2 [5 favorites]
Recordings from 2017 reveal Epstein talking for some ‘100 hours’ about the ex-president, journalist Michael Wolff says
I've largely semi-avoided the election on tiwtter, mostly by unfollowing US centric sources, not muting keywords, but this Epstein story became popular there. It's not the "October Surprise" some desire, except in some morbid sense. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 7:29 AM on November 2 [5 favorites]
Fuck Michael Wolff and everyone like him that holds onto shit until exactly the moment that will get them the most book sales.
posted by Room 101 at 7:36 AM on November 2 [39 favorites]
posted by Room 101 at 7:36 AM on November 2 [39 favorites]
There's a scene in John Carpenter's "They Live", where a couple of the protagonists are musing about the aliens among them who are manipulating society for their own evil ends.
Frank: How long have they been there?
Nada: Who knows.
Frank: What are they? Where do they come from?
Nada: Well, they ain't from Cleveland.
"They Live" was released in 1988.
posted by gimonca at 7:48 AM on November 2 [9 favorites]
Frank: How long have they been there?
Nada: Who knows.
Frank: What are they? Where do they come from?
Nada: Well, they ain't from Cleveland.
"They Live" was released in 1988.
posted by gimonca at 7:48 AM on November 2 [9 favorites]
We’ve been giving people shit educations since the 70s, and suddenly the ruling classes are surprised when the masses choose fascism.
posted by The River Ivel at 8:43 AM on November 2 [10 favorites]
posted by The River Ivel at 8:43 AM on November 2 [10 favorites]
It would seem the Jacksonians will always be with us...
posted by jim in austin at 8:44 AM on November 2 [3 favorites]
posted by jim in austin at 8:44 AM on November 2 [3 favorites]
Across the world there is a tide of rising authoritarianism.
It seems that every 60 to 80 years we need another round of violence in which millions die to drive the fash back into hiding where they lick their wounds, nurse their grudges, and emerge strengthened and ready to fight again after that 60 to 80 year period in which people forget why we had to literally, with guns and bombs, fight them last time.
They praise and value martial prowess and "strength" above all else, and must periodically be reminded that they do not possess a monopoly on those things or else they assume they can rule unimpeded.
In WWII both Japan and Germany embodied that right wing vision of strength as brutality, as ferocity, as bloodlust and battle madness. And they lost to the people they thought of as weak and puny, the people who had smaller armies and spent their national fortunes on washing machines and vacations rather than bombs and tanks. They lost to the people who fought with planning and at least some modicum of mercy.
I'd like to hope that we're not, yet again, going to have to literally, physically, fight the fash and suffer megadeaths and see entire cities razed to show them that no, we're still not going to back down and no they still don't have a monopoly on violence. But I think we're approaching that time. They've been convincing themselves that anyone to their left is a wimp, a pathetic feminized and pacifist person or group to be held in the maximum contempt.
The rise of more extreme sexism is not coincidental, nor is the increasing characterization of any politics to the left of Darth Vader as feminine.
I'd like to say that we will always beat them, but the truth is for most of human history they were the winners. It's only been the last few cycles when those of us who'd prefer not to live under authoritarian puritanism were actually able to win.
This isn't ending on Tuesday, even if Trump does lose. They're on the rise, their power is growing, and they're beginning to feel out how far they can push the boundaries. It's going to get a lot worse, and quickly.
posted by sotonohito at 9:06 AM on November 2 [33 favorites]
It seems that every 60 to 80 years we need another round of violence in which millions die to drive the fash back into hiding where they lick their wounds, nurse their grudges, and emerge strengthened and ready to fight again after that 60 to 80 year period in which people forget why we had to literally, with guns and bombs, fight them last time.
They praise and value martial prowess and "strength" above all else, and must periodically be reminded that they do not possess a monopoly on those things or else they assume they can rule unimpeded.
In WWII both Japan and Germany embodied that right wing vision of strength as brutality, as ferocity, as bloodlust and battle madness. And they lost to the people they thought of as weak and puny, the people who had smaller armies and spent their national fortunes on washing machines and vacations rather than bombs and tanks. They lost to the people who fought with planning and at least some modicum of mercy.
I'd like to hope that we're not, yet again, going to have to literally, physically, fight the fash and suffer megadeaths and see entire cities razed to show them that no, we're still not going to back down and no they still don't have a monopoly on violence. But I think we're approaching that time. They've been convincing themselves that anyone to their left is a wimp, a pathetic feminized and pacifist person or group to be held in the maximum contempt.
The rise of more extreme sexism is not coincidental, nor is the increasing characterization of any politics to the left of Darth Vader as feminine.
I'd like to say that we will always beat them, but the truth is for most of human history they were the winners. It's only been the last few cycles when those of us who'd prefer not to live under authoritarian puritanism were actually able to win.
This isn't ending on Tuesday, even if Trump does lose. They're on the rise, their power is growing, and they're beginning to feel out how far they can push the boundaries. It's going to get a lot worse, and quickly.
posted by sotonohito at 9:06 AM on November 2 [33 favorites]
One tactic the GOP learned works well is to take something like welfare or food stamps, which benefit everyone in need, and portray it as something that only benefits the Other (e.g. Reagan's "Welfare Queen").
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
― Lyndon B. Johnson
posted by kirkaracha at 9:20 AM on November 2 [26 favorites]
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
― Lyndon B. Johnson
posted by kirkaracha at 9:20 AM on November 2 [26 favorites]
I don't think the US is able to avoid a fall into fascism in the near future. Even if the Republicans never win another election, I think we have too large and deeply entrenched far right to avoid them acquiring significant power.
The election is an opportunity to buy time for non-electoral organization and resistance, but this is the going to be with us as long as we have capitalism, generating a class of very powerful people with material interests opposed to the welfare of the rest of society.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:21 AM on November 2 [11 favorites]
The election is an opportunity to buy time for non-electoral organization and resistance, but this is the going to be with us as long as we have capitalism, generating a class of very powerful people with material interests opposed to the welfare of the rest of society.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:21 AM on November 2 [11 favorites]
every 60 to 80 years we need another round of violence in which millions die to drive the fash back into hiding
Back then, the US, China and eventually Russia were united against a smaller Axis.
Now it's Russia, China, India and half the West against the other half.
On top of that, Russian/Chinese online agitprop very effectively seduced folks on both the left and right into attacking the only potent opposition to neo-fascism.
I don't think it likely the tide will be turned. Orwell was right. People are too easily roped in by Five Minutes of Hate.
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:26 AM on November 2 [6 favorites]
Back then, the US, China and eventually Russia were united against a smaller Axis.
Now it's Russia, China, India and half the West against the other half.
On top of that, Russian/Chinese online agitprop very effectively seduced folks on both the left and right into attacking the only potent opposition to neo-fascism.
I don't think it likely the tide will be turned. Orwell was right. People are too easily roped in by Five Minutes of Hate.
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:26 AM on November 2 [6 favorites]
I'd like to hope that we're not, yet again, going to have to literally, physically, fight the fash and suffer megadeaths and see entire cities razed
I mean, this is happening right now, and we've been slow-walking aid for years.
posted by ryanrs at 9:28 AM on November 2 [8 favorites]
I mean, this is happening right now, and we've been slow-walking aid for years.
posted by ryanrs at 9:28 AM on November 2 [8 favorites]
The comments on here are depressing as hell but they summarize perfectly how I have felt the last couple of years. And people wonder why I don't follow or discuss politics anymore (and have, quite frankly, become far more pessimistic on society in general).
Why not live well yourself? No, the supreme urge in these folks is to harm The Other even at their own expense.
I know you probably don't mean it that way (and maybe your comment is directed at the wealthier Trump supporters), but "why not live well yourself" has a bit of a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" vibe. People want someone or something to blame for the issues in their life that are out of their control. People are worked to the bone with zero safety net, it's virtually impossible to afford to have kids anymore, healthcare, education and eldercare are just elaborate corporate grifts, and it just gets worse every year.
What drives me nuts is that the anger is understandable but it's misdirected. You should be mad at the CEOs, the billionaires and ownership class who profit from our misfortune. But no, instead propaganda (and maybe an urge to find the easy solution) has convinced people that it's because of the Other.
posted by photo guy at 9:47 AM on November 2 [14 favorites]
Why not live well yourself? No, the supreme urge in these folks is to harm The Other even at their own expense.
I know you probably don't mean it that way (and maybe your comment is directed at the wealthier Trump supporters), but "why not live well yourself" has a bit of a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" vibe. People want someone or something to blame for the issues in their life that are out of their control. People are worked to the bone with zero safety net, it's virtually impossible to afford to have kids anymore, healthcare, education and eldercare are just elaborate corporate grifts, and it just gets worse every year.
What drives me nuts is that the anger is understandable but it's misdirected. You should be mad at the CEOs, the billionaires and ownership class who profit from our misfortune. But no, instead propaganda (and maybe an urge to find the easy solution) has convinced people that it's because of the Other.
posted by photo guy at 9:47 AM on November 2 [14 favorites]
...why not live well yourself" has a bit of a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" vibe
Just the opposite intent: more like "work on yourself" and put your effort into what actually matters to you, and stop focusing on someone else. More of a classical Greek "good life" and less of a "Kardashians" good life!
posted by wenestvedt at 10:17 AM on November 2 [2 favorites]
Just the opposite intent: more like "work on yourself" and put your effort into what actually matters to you, and stop focusing on someone else. More of a classical Greek "good life" and less of a "Kardashians" good life!
posted by wenestvedt at 10:17 AM on November 2 [2 favorites]
And yes, it's also self-hatted because the real causes of this misery happens to be the same people that we're told to emulate and want to be
posted by wenestvedt at 10:18 AM on November 2
posted by wenestvedt at 10:18 AM on November 2
I am hopeful that Tuesday at least will go our way, because it might. I appreciate I live in a blue state (IL) and don’t follow right wing media. But I am still hopeful. I have been listening to Pod Save America daily and for some reason it makes me feel better. I trust they are summing up the news intelligently. They are as shocked and terrified as anyone, but can joke about it comfortably.
I was heartened to read earlier Kamala’s confirmation they are very ready for dirty tricks both before and after the results are known.
On the other hand, 3 states (Texas, Florida, I think and another) said they refuse to let the federal election observers into their polling places and I wonder how that will go.
posted by Glinn at 10:32 AM on November 2 [9 favorites]
I was heartened to read earlier Kamala’s confirmation they are very ready for dirty tricks both before and after the results are known.
On the other hand, 3 states (Texas, Florida, I think and another) said they refuse to let the federal election observers into their polling places and I wonder how that will go.
posted by Glinn at 10:32 AM on November 2 [9 favorites]
it's to say that at least with better economic conditions more people would in fact tend their own gardens and be bigots in private.
I'm sorry, but this isn't just bullshit, but easily disproven bullshit. We've seen reports that the lower quintile of society tends to lean left, and the bulk of the right wing support we see comes out of the middle class - the people who aren't facing actual economic prevarity.
Instead, they are facing social prevarity in two ways: first, they're dealing with the collapse of the old social order that inherently put them on top (and thus they face the terror of the idea that they have to genuinely prove themselves), and second, it turns out that part of their position was built on the economic prevarity of the bottom of society - and so with that group actually seeing real gains economically, that has meant that the people above are now paying the butcher's bill. And it is that - not financial and economic concerns - which is driving their rightward lean.
I watched my father, a staunch union man, support Nixon, Reagan, and every other Republican as they vilified unions and blamed them for high prices on domestic goods. He was not a stupid man but they convinced him to vote against his own self-interests. It's a tactic that's worked for decades.
It's worked because unions and union members live in a society, and as it turns out the union movement has had problems with bigotry for decades, because society has those problems. And one of the things that drives me nuts is the unwillingness of the left to reflect on that. The reality is that bigotry has always been the anchor around labor's neck in the US (and elsewhere, if we're being honest) - the CIO was born out of the bigotry of the AFL and its constituent organizations, for one example. And in turn, union democracy is not a panacea - the Teamsters are being a very vivid demonstration of that currently.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:52 AM on November 2 [13 favorites]
I'm sorry, but this isn't just bullshit, but easily disproven bullshit. We've seen reports that the lower quintile of society tends to lean left, and the bulk of the right wing support we see comes out of the middle class - the people who aren't facing actual economic prevarity.
Instead, they are facing social prevarity in two ways: first, they're dealing with the collapse of the old social order that inherently put them on top (and thus they face the terror of the idea that they have to genuinely prove themselves), and second, it turns out that part of their position was built on the economic prevarity of the bottom of society - and so with that group actually seeing real gains economically, that has meant that the people above are now paying the butcher's bill. And it is that - not financial and economic concerns - which is driving their rightward lean.
I watched my father, a staunch union man, support Nixon, Reagan, and every other Republican as they vilified unions and blamed them for high prices on domestic goods. He was not a stupid man but they convinced him to vote against his own self-interests. It's a tactic that's worked for decades.
It's worked because unions and union members live in a society, and as it turns out the union movement has had problems with bigotry for decades, because society has those problems. And one of the things that drives me nuts is the unwillingness of the left to reflect on that. The reality is that bigotry has always been the anchor around labor's neck in the US (and elsewhere, if we're being honest) - the CIO was born out of the bigotry of the AFL and its constituent organizations, for one example. And in turn, union democracy is not a panacea - the Teamsters are being a very vivid demonstration of that currently.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:52 AM on November 2 [13 favorites]
What drives me nuts is that the anger is understandable but it's misdirected. You should be mad at the CEOs, the billionaires and ownership class who profit from our misfortune. But no, instead propaganda (and maybe an urge to find the easy solution) has convinced people that it's because of the Other.
It works because it's simple. Attack a minority, wait for the left to defend that minority, then claim the left cares for the minority and not for you.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:22 AM on November 2 [7 favorites]
It works because it's simple. Attack a minority, wait for the left to defend that minority, then claim the left cares for the minority and not for you.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:22 AM on November 2 [7 favorites]
There are lots of reasons to dislike Robert Heinlein, but there are enough older science fiction readers to remember his novella, If This Goes On—. I've been thinking about that story for decades as I've watched the Right embrace the hypocritical thuggery Christian Nationalism.
I've been trying to understand and even empathize with a moral compass that rejects universal benefits, tolerance, and social good because some people are "undeserving"—insufficiently industrious, conventional, wealthy, or conforming—and that understands fairness to be something that is earned, and can be denied or withheld. I've tried, honestly I think, and I just don't get it. I just can't bring myself to move from the belief that fairness needs to be extended to everyone, or it isn't fair.
I had misled myself to think the conservative politics in Canada were different than in the United States, because while Canadian conservatives could support smaller government and increased wealth protection for the already wealthy, they would still support the universality of tolerance and social benefits. Those days, if they ever existed, are gone, and the Canadian right-wing is becoming a copy of the American version, although with somewhat fewer guns.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who fears that the riot on 2021 January 06 was merely an impromptu, amateur-hour proof-of-concept and that worse, much, much worse is coming.
Is this how my German, Jewish grandparents felt at the turn of the 20th century?
posted by angiep at 12:03 PM on November 2 [13 favorites]
I've been trying to understand and even empathize with a moral compass that rejects universal benefits, tolerance, and social good because some people are "undeserving"—insufficiently industrious, conventional, wealthy, or conforming—and that understands fairness to be something that is earned, and can be denied or withheld. I've tried, honestly I think, and I just don't get it. I just can't bring myself to move from the belief that fairness needs to be extended to everyone, or it isn't fair.
I had misled myself to think the conservative politics in Canada were different than in the United States, because while Canadian conservatives could support smaller government and increased wealth protection for the already wealthy, they would still support the universality of tolerance and social benefits. Those days, if they ever existed, are gone, and the Canadian right-wing is becoming a copy of the American version, although with somewhat fewer guns.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who fears that the riot on 2021 January 06 was merely an impromptu, amateur-hour proof-of-concept and that worse, much, much worse is coming.
Is this how my German, Jewish grandparents felt at the turn of the 20th century?
posted by angiep at 12:03 PM on November 2 [13 favorites]
I'm sorry, but this isn't just bullshit, but easily disproven bullshit. We've seen reports that the lower quintile of society tends to lean left, and the bulk of the right wing support we see comes out of the middle class - the people who aren't facing actual economic prevarity.
I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. You don't have to be the bottom 20% to face economic ruin in today's America. You do realize that even people with so-called "good" jobs could face tens of thousands in medical bills every year? And many of those so-called middle class could easily lose their jobs due to illness, or for no reason ar all? Or that many of those middle class cannot realistically afford to have kids, because childcare is more than a mortgage payment and neither parent has good leave policies allowing them to actually take care of their kids? Or that "middle class" is not remotely enough to afford housing in many cities?
Instead, they are facing social prevarity in two ways: first, they're dealing with the collapse of the old social order that inherently put them on top (and thus they face the terror of the idea that they have to genuinely prove themselves)
I get your point, but I am talking about basics. NOBODY, ANYWHERE should have to "prove themselves" to get a roof over their head, to get healthcare, or to have affordable childcare. In no universe is this controversial.
This is, quite frankly, the same nonsense again and again. The top 0.1% laugh with glee while everyone else squabbles over the remnants. We're too blinded with rage to see how badly we're being robbed.
posted by photo guy at 1:06 PM on November 2 [10 favorites]
I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. You don't have to be the bottom 20% to face economic ruin in today's America. You do realize that even people with so-called "good" jobs could face tens of thousands in medical bills every year? And many of those so-called middle class could easily lose their jobs due to illness, or for no reason ar all? Or that many of those middle class cannot realistically afford to have kids, because childcare is more than a mortgage payment and neither parent has good leave policies allowing them to actually take care of their kids? Or that "middle class" is not remotely enough to afford housing in many cities?
Instead, they are facing social prevarity in two ways: first, they're dealing with the collapse of the old social order that inherently put them on top (and thus they face the terror of the idea that they have to genuinely prove themselves)
I get your point, but I am talking about basics. NOBODY, ANYWHERE should have to "prove themselves" to get a roof over their head, to get healthcare, or to have affordable childcare. In no universe is this controversial.
This is, quite frankly, the same nonsense again and again. The top 0.1% laugh with glee while everyone else squabbles over the remnants. We're too blinded with rage to see how badly we're being robbed.
posted by photo guy at 1:06 PM on November 2 [10 favorites]
Richard Nixon's House of Representatives election run was sponsored by Prescott Bush. Richard Nixon is the first American President to say and I quote if the president does it it isn't illegal unquote. .
And you can connect the dots when the executive office of America came to be in service of something else.
posted by hortense at 2:41 PM on November 2 [2 favorites]
And you can connect the dots when the executive office of America came to be in service of something else.
posted by hortense at 2:41 PM on November 2 [2 favorites]
This is why Trump is going to win next week and (what a great phrase) we are indeed going to smash right through that windshield.
There is a world in which this is not true. To start with, I do not think he is going to win. The polls are broken, and the political media is, too. They've all been magnifying the Trumpist phenomenon for various short term incentive reasons. But the wider American culture rejects crude racism (polite racism is a different story, but the Trumpists have abandoned that in their arrogance). The jig is going to be up in a few days.
There is a world where all of this breaks like some kind of fever. It's a small but not remote possibility.
I saw someone say on BlueSky that fascism in a democracy is just something you have to keep fighting against, that there will always be tendencies toward it, and you just have to defeat it again. That struck me as very true. We've had Father Coughlin and Huey Long, and now we've had Limbaugh and Trump. If we beat this version there will be another, most certainly. But it may be some decades before we face a crisis point like this again. Let's hope so..
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 3:01 PM on November 2 [28 favorites]
There is a world in which this is not true. To start with, I do not think he is going to win. The polls are broken, and the political media is, too. They've all been magnifying the Trumpist phenomenon for various short term incentive reasons. But the wider American culture rejects crude racism (polite racism is a different story, but the Trumpists have abandoned that in their arrogance). The jig is going to be up in a few days.
There is a world where all of this breaks like some kind of fever. It's a small but not remote possibility.
I saw someone say on BlueSky that fascism in a democracy is just something you have to keep fighting against, that there will always be tendencies toward it, and you just have to defeat it again. That struck me as very true. We've had Father Coughlin and Huey Long, and now we've had Limbaugh and Trump. If we beat this version there will be another, most certainly. But it may be some decades before we face a crisis point like this again. Let's hope so..
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 3:01 PM on November 2 [28 favorites]
Yeah, there'll always be Some Asshole. It seems to be a fundamental flaw in the American character; the nation was built on notions of freedom and self-governance but it was also built on toxic masculinity and racism.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:41 PM on November 2 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:41 PM on November 2 [3 favorites]
You do realize that even people with so-called "good" jobs could face tens of thousands in medical bills every year? And many of those so-called middle class could easily lose their jobs due to illness, or for no reason ar all? Or that many of those middle class cannot realistically afford to have kids, because childcare is more than a mortgage payment and neither parent has good leave policies allowing them to actually take care of their kids? Or that "middle class" is not remotely enough to afford housing in many cities?
For the most part none of this reality, even if it is potentially technically true. The vast majority of the US population lives in cities, close to 70% of US citizens own property, and only the largest cities in the US are 50/50 renter or more. Yes, people can have medical bills, but the average medical bill is less than the average car payment, nor does the average US citizen get an impossible to afford disease at a young age. And the number of people in the US who are employed is bouncing around all-time highs. That's why we need immigrants.
Yes, there are people at the margins who do have to deal with this stuff, and that why more fair economic and policies should be fought for, but it's not because it's going to strike everyone.
posted by The_Vegetables at 3:50 PM on November 2 [4 favorites]
For the most part none of this reality, even if it is potentially technically true. The vast majority of the US population lives in cities, close to 70% of US citizens own property, and only the largest cities in the US are 50/50 renter or more. Yes, people can have medical bills, but the average medical bill is less than the average car payment, nor does the average US citizen get an impossible to afford disease at a young age. And the number of people in the US who are employed is bouncing around all-time highs. That's why we need immigrants.
Yes, there are people at the margins who do have to deal with this stuff, and that why more fair economic and policies should be fought for, but it's not because it's going to strike everyone.
posted by The_Vegetables at 3:50 PM on November 2 [4 favorites]
I agree smedly. There's a decent discussion from pollsters about how they're terrified of being wrong again! 2016 shook them, 2020 broke them. Calling it close is an easy way to say, see, I wasn't that wrong!maybe it's pure copium, but the staggering difference in rally attendance, turnout, and "vibes" suggests we're not in for trump 2024. At least, I hope (as a career fed)
posted by sedimentflux at 3:58 PM on November 2 [11 favorites]
posted by sedimentflux at 3:58 PM on November 2 [11 favorites]
Yes, there are people at the margins who do have to deal with this stuff, and that why more fair economic and policies should be fought for, but it's not because it's going to strike everyone.
If this sounds like gaslighting to anybody else, it's probably because this rosy picture is an extremely spinny version of reality framed to make the Biden administration look a lot better than it really has been, but I feel happy for everyone to whom this does seem reflective of reality; it's safe to say this has been a better, stonkier time for some Americans than others. Personally, I would rather not resort to telling people the shit on their plate is pumpkin pie in an effort to get them to vote right. I hope that we can accept that things are not great and must get better even as we actively try to vote prophylactically in an attempt to keep them from getting suddenly and dramatically much, much worse.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:00 PM on November 2 [5 favorites]
If this sounds like gaslighting to anybody else, it's probably because this rosy picture is an extremely spinny version of reality framed to make the Biden administration look a lot better than it really has been, but I feel happy for everyone to whom this does seem reflective of reality; it's safe to say this has been a better, stonkier time for some Americans than others. Personally, I would rather not resort to telling people the shit on their plate is pumpkin pie in an effort to get them to vote right. I hope that we can accept that things are not great and must get better even as we actively try to vote prophylactically in an attempt to keep them from getting suddenly and dramatically much, much worse.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:00 PM on November 2 [5 favorites]
Sorry, I'm just really angry at everything right now. The last thing I want to do in a thread about how much Trump sucks is talk about how much the democrats also suck. They do, but that's a conversation for after they win, not right now.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:13 PM on November 2 [13 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:13 PM on November 2 [13 favorites]
We’ve been giving people shit educations since the 70s
I'd say since the 1980s actually. Reagan killed a few education regulations, some of the regulations on TV were rolled back and TV became less informative and more about titillation, and stuff like Schoolhouse Rock got struck down.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:32 PM on November 2 [3 favorites]
I'd say since the 1980s actually. Reagan killed a few education regulations, some of the regulations on TV were rolled back and TV became less informative and more about titillation, and stuff like Schoolhouse Rock got struck down.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:32 PM on November 2 [3 favorites]
If this sounds like gaslighting to anybody else
"sounds like???" It IS gaslighting.
I personally know multiple people under 40 who have been ruined by our joke of a healthcare system. It took me five seconds of Googling to find evidence that, yes, childcare is absurdly, cripplingly expensive.
Sorry but I'm just sick and tired of living in a so-called rich country that treats its own citizens like shit. I've spent a good chunk of my adult life abroad and have seen how functional government is supposed to work. I am allowed to be angry about my home country's greed and failings, and being handwavey about what the commenter above is dismissing as "people at the margins" just makes me angrier. Guess the term marginalized only applies when it fits certain narratives.
I am obviously hoping for the non-fascist candidate to win and did my part, but I am allowed to be angry at the system that continues to fail us.
posted by photo guy at 1:06 AM on November 3 [15 favorites]
"sounds like???" It IS gaslighting.
I personally know multiple people under 40 who have been ruined by our joke of a healthcare system. It took me five seconds of Googling to find evidence that, yes, childcare is absurdly, cripplingly expensive.
Sorry but I'm just sick and tired of living in a so-called rich country that treats its own citizens like shit. I've spent a good chunk of my adult life abroad and have seen how functional government is supposed to work. I am allowed to be angry about my home country's greed and failings, and being handwavey about what the commenter above is dismissing as "people at the margins" just makes me angrier. Guess the term marginalized only applies when it fits certain narratives.
I am obviously hoping for the non-fascist candidate to win and did my part, but I am allowed to be angry at the system that continues to fail us.
posted by photo guy at 1:06 AM on November 3 [15 favorites]
but I am allowed to be angry at the system that continues to fail us.
Yes, but the point is that those failures aren't the source of the hatred and bigotry that animates the right, and as such you're not going to actually address said hatred and bigotry by addressing economic conditions. The reality is that the demographic groups that are at the vanguard here are not the ones directly facing economic prevarity (again, look at who showed up on 1/6,) and as we've seen before, their economic "arguments" for their bigotry don't actually withstand scrutiny.
NB: This does not in any way, shape, or form mean that we should not address economic conditions! We absolutely should, because it is the right thing to do and will make our society better. But we should do so with open eyes, and not think that improving the economic condition of American society will be effective praxis against hate and bigotry. Furthermore, thinking that it will be effective praxis is how we wind up taking positions to turn a blind eye to hate and bigotry.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:27 AM on November 3 [8 favorites]
Yes, but the point is that those failures aren't the source of the hatred and bigotry that animates the right, and as such you're not going to actually address said hatred and bigotry by addressing economic conditions. The reality is that the demographic groups that are at the vanguard here are not the ones directly facing economic prevarity (again, look at who showed up on 1/6,) and as we've seen before, their economic "arguments" for their bigotry don't actually withstand scrutiny.
NB: This does not in any way, shape, or form mean that we should not address economic conditions! We absolutely should, because it is the right thing to do and will make our society better. But we should do so with open eyes, and not think that improving the economic condition of American society will be effective praxis against hate and bigotry. Furthermore, thinking that it will be effective praxis is how we wind up taking positions to turn a blind eye to hate and bigotry.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:27 AM on November 3 [8 favorites]
Yes, but the point is that those failures aren't the source of the hatred and bigotry that animates the right, and as such you're not going to actually address said hatred and bigotry by addressing economic conditions.
I didn't say it was the sole cause, I absolutely think people on the right hate for other reasons as well. But I absolutely DO think it is a contributing cause. The right is not some monolithic block, people can and do have multiple and often differing reasons for voting a certain way.
This does not in any way, shape, or form mean that we should not address economic conditions! We absolutely should, because it is the right thing to do and will make our society better. But we should do so with open eyes, and not think that improving the economic condition of American society will be effective praxis against hate and bigotry.
I didn't say that improving the lives of average Americans would fix bigotry and hate, countries with far better safety nets still have occasional issues with Nazi assholes - follow European politics right now. But building a supportive society is something that needs to happen. We're supposed to be this wealthy, powerful country right? Then let's do BOTH things at once, you can both improve everyone's lives (and tax billionaires into oblivion) AND fight hate. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
My frustration is that everyone is so focused on #2 that they have stopped caring about #1. I know more than a few Democrats in my social circle who have fallen into this trap - they vote blue (and are outspoken about it and the need to fight bigotry) but are also upper-middle class, live in wealthy suburban bubbles, have cushy WFH tech jobs, and have an annoying tendency to talk down to people. They are wildly out of touch.
posted by photo guy at 1:35 AM on November 3 [3 favorites]
I didn't say it was the sole cause, I absolutely think people on the right hate for other reasons as well. But I absolutely DO think it is a contributing cause. The right is not some monolithic block, people can and do have multiple and often differing reasons for voting a certain way.
This does not in any way, shape, or form mean that we should not address economic conditions! We absolutely should, because it is the right thing to do and will make our society better. But we should do so with open eyes, and not think that improving the economic condition of American society will be effective praxis against hate and bigotry.
I didn't say that improving the lives of average Americans would fix bigotry and hate, countries with far better safety nets still have occasional issues with Nazi assholes - follow European politics right now. But building a supportive society is something that needs to happen. We're supposed to be this wealthy, powerful country right? Then let's do BOTH things at once, you can both improve everyone's lives (and tax billionaires into oblivion) AND fight hate. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
My frustration is that everyone is so focused on #2 that they have stopped caring about #1. I know more than a few Democrats in my social circle who have fallen into this trap - they vote blue (and are outspoken about it and the need to fight bigotry) but are also upper-middle class, live in wealthy suburban bubbles, have cushy WFH tech jobs, and have an annoying tendency to talk down to people. They are wildly out of touch.
posted by photo guy at 1:35 AM on November 3 [3 favorites]
I know more than a few Democrats in my social circle who have fallen into this trap - they vote blue (and are outspoken about it and the need to fight bigotry) but are also upper-middle class, live in wealthy suburban bubbles, have cushy WFH tech jobs, and have an annoying tendency to talk down to people. They are wildly out of touch.
This is true; it's why the democrats lost in 2016, and if they lose two days from now, it will be why they lost then, too. In important ways, they deserve to lose. Unfortunately, I think it's also true that we do not deserve for Donald Trump to win. The democratic party does, but we don't.
I think that, in America, we are focused on binaries, and on contests of good and evil. If their candidate is bad, then our candidate must be good! It's the story of superhero movies, but it's also the story of westerns, the original heroic narrative of the United States -- a narrative that becomes incredibly shady when you set aside the mythologizing lens and look at it through the lens of actual history. This might seem far removed from the ostensible subject, but I think we can all agree that the wooliest MAGA people have mythologized the fuck out of Trump, that it's obvious that they see him through several gauzy layers of delusion and horseshit. What may be harder for us to perceive is the mythology we've accepted ourselves, that Kamala is Brat and Tim Walz is America's Dad and all this other crap that's really just a sales pitch. Without cynicism, trying only to embrace reality, I think we should wipe that junk from our eyes and vote for these people anyway, knowing that they're trash, because it's the difference between a slow bullet to the brain of American democracy and a very fast one. The fast one is Trump.
Do I think, once elected, we can push Harris left? No. I think she barely acknowledges the left now, and will give even less of a fuck after she is elected. I know that isn't very stirring, but I'm not on the good vibes committee, I'm on the He-Man Trump Haters committee. "Good vibes" are noise to me and people like me, and that noise makes people angry, and angry people vote stupid. Please, everyone, let the left hold their nose and vote begrudgingly for your awful neoliberal candidate in peace; it's the only way this will work.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:55 AM on November 3 [6 favorites]
This is true; it's why the democrats lost in 2016, and if they lose two days from now, it will be why they lost then, too. In important ways, they deserve to lose. Unfortunately, I think it's also true that we do not deserve for Donald Trump to win. The democratic party does, but we don't.
I think that, in America, we are focused on binaries, and on contests of good and evil. If their candidate is bad, then our candidate must be good! It's the story of superhero movies, but it's also the story of westerns, the original heroic narrative of the United States -- a narrative that becomes incredibly shady when you set aside the mythologizing lens and look at it through the lens of actual history. This might seem far removed from the ostensible subject, but I think we can all agree that the wooliest MAGA people have mythologized the fuck out of Trump, that it's obvious that they see him through several gauzy layers of delusion and horseshit. What may be harder for us to perceive is the mythology we've accepted ourselves, that Kamala is Brat and Tim Walz is America's Dad and all this other crap that's really just a sales pitch. Without cynicism, trying only to embrace reality, I think we should wipe that junk from our eyes and vote for these people anyway, knowing that they're trash, because it's the difference between a slow bullet to the brain of American democracy and a very fast one. The fast one is Trump.
Do I think, once elected, we can push Harris left? No. I think she barely acknowledges the left now, and will give even less of a fuck after she is elected. I know that isn't very stirring, but I'm not on the good vibes committee, I'm on the He-Man Trump Haters committee. "Good vibes" are noise to me and people like me, and that noise makes people angry, and angry people vote stupid. Please, everyone, let the left hold their nose and vote begrudgingly for your awful neoliberal candidate in peace; it's the only way this will work.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:55 AM on November 3 [6 favorites]
But we should do so with open eyes, and not think that improving the economic condition of American society will be effective praxis against hate and bigotry. Furthermore, thinking that it will be effective praxis is how we wind up taking positions to turn a blind eye to hate and bigotry.
yeah i always caught a whiff of classism coming from the argument that better economic conditions and education will somehow reduce bigotry, when the biggest purveyors of the most hateful policies are well-moneyed and from good schools. such as the guy running for president right now. and it sure as hell wasn't high school grad working class folks comprising the lion's share of those who stormed the capitol on jan 6
we're witnessing a reactionary movement desperately trying to position itself to where they can do violence against perceived threats to their wealth and privilege and that has more to do with the system that allows them to get to that point than anything else
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:05 AM on November 3 [9 favorites]
yeah i always caught a whiff of classism coming from the argument that better economic conditions and education will somehow reduce bigotry, when the biggest purveyors of the most hateful policies are well-moneyed and from good schools. such as the guy running for president right now. and it sure as hell wasn't high school grad working class folks comprising the lion's share of those who stormed the capitol on jan 6
we're witnessing a reactionary movement desperately trying to position itself to where they can do violence against perceived threats to their wealth and privilege and that has more to do with the system that allows them to get to that point than anything else
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:05 AM on November 3 [9 favorites]
I think people are misreading my comments. Once again, I am not defending bigots or Trumpism. I absolutely believe the most fervent Trumpists (e.g. the 1/6 crowd) generally seem to be well off and are not suffering - they are bigots and I dont know how to fix that. However I AM defending people who are increasingly apathetic and disconnected from US politics and feel left behind by both political parties (and increasingly by their fellow Americans, even some of the ones who claim to be progressives). I never said helping the less fortunate would fix Trumpism, but it might get everyone else more fired up to fight for you and might improve turnout.
I said it before but I happily voted for Harris and would crawl over broken glass to do it again. I encourage others to do the same, as far as i am able.
Whatever, I've said my peace. I told myself I'd stay away from politics this week for my own mental health so I'm stepping away from this thread and finding something less enraging to keep myself occupied.
posted by photo guy at 8:12 AM on November 3 [6 favorites]
I said it before but I happily voted for Harris and would crawl over broken glass to do it again. I encourage others to do the same, as far as i am able.
Whatever, I've said my peace. I told myself I'd stay away from politics this week for my own mental health so I'm stepping away from this thread and finding something less enraging to keep myself occupied.
posted by photo guy at 8:12 AM on November 3 [6 favorites]
The vast majority of the US population lives in cities, close to 70% of US citizens own property, and only the largest cities in the US are 50/50 renter or more.
I think this analysis is ignoring the extent to which SF/NYC’s problems are poised to become the rest of the country’s problems. Personally, I have lived in big expensive coastal cities and have spent the last several years living in a “cheap” Midwestern city, of the type people often hold up as more representative of the country as a whole, and I think people might be surprised at how similar the conversations around housing, rent, displacement, etc. have been. In absolute terms, the Midwestern city is obviously still much more affordable, but we are also adding jobs (a small subset of which are highly-paid) and residents way faster than we’re adding homes.
Indeed, some of the steepest upward home price trajectories are now in places like Charlotte, Indianapolis, Grand Rapids, and Kansas City. Nationwide, the age people are buying their first home has gone from 29 in 1981 to 35 in 2023. I also believe that the 70% number quoted above is not the percent of US citizens who own property, but the percent of households that are owner-occupied — meaning that young adults who live with their parents or other family are missing from the equation. And of course, while you might not care about whether young middle-class people can afford a home, this trend means that people at the bottom of the ladder who had previously been able to hold things together are now in greater danger of getting squeezed out of stable housing entirely. Homelessness and evictions are both way up here.
Housing affordability may not currently be in the exact same level of crisis across the whole country, but it also isn’t just some kind of neurosis of coastal elites — the direction things are going is very concerning and the remaining pockets of affordability are getting smaller and smaller.
posted by en forme de poire at 9:46 AM on November 3 [2 favorites]
I think this analysis is ignoring the extent to which SF/NYC’s problems are poised to become the rest of the country’s problems. Personally, I have lived in big expensive coastal cities and have spent the last several years living in a “cheap” Midwestern city, of the type people often hold up as more representative of the country as a whole, and I think people might be surprised at how similar the conversations around housing, rent, displacement, etc. have been. In absolute terms, the Midwestern city is obviously still much more affordable, but we are also adding jobs (a small subset of which are highly-paid) and residents way faster than we’re adding homes.
Indeed, some of the steepest upward home price trajectories are now in places like Charlotte, Indianapolis, Grand Rapids, and Kansas City. Nationwide, the age people are buying their first home has gone from 29 in 1981 to 35 in 2023. I also believe that the 70% number quoted above is not the percent of US citizens who own property, but the percent of households that are owner-occupied — meaning that young adults who live with their parents or other family are missing from the equation. And of course, while you might not care about whether young middle-class people can afford a home, this trend means that people at the bottom of the ladder who had previously been able to hold things together are now in greater danger of getting squeezed out of stable housing entirely. Homelessness and evictions are both way up here.
Housing affordability may not currently be in the exact same level of crisis across the whole country, but it also isn’t just some kind of neurosis of coastal elites — the direction things are going is very concerning and the remaining pockets of affordability are getting smaller and smaller.
posted by en forme de poire at 9:46 AM on November 3 [2 favorites]
close to 70% of US citizens own property
This is not true. 65% of households are owner-occupied; that does not translate to "65% of US citizens own real estate" (especially since some not inconsiderable percentage of those owner-occupied households will include adult children in their 20's still living at home because they can't afford rent or a mortgage).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:06 AM on November 3 [7 favorites]
This is not true. 65% of households are owner-occupied; that does not translate to "65% of US citizens own real estate" (especially since some not inconsiderable percentage of those owner-occupied households will include adult children in their 20's still living at home because they can't afford rent or a mortgage).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:06 AM on November 3 [7 favorites]
If I'm tracking the same figures, that's 86.62 million homes. There are 258.3 million adults in the US, so sounds like 33.5% of adults own at least one home.
posted by CPAnarchist at 3:03 PM on November 3 [2 favorites]
posted by CPAnarchist at 3:03 PM on November 3 [2 favorites]
*though not necessarily the land under the home
posted by CPAnarchist at 3:05 PM on November 3 [1 favorite]
posted by CPAnarchist at 3:05 PM on November 3 [1 favorite]
Many homes are owned jointly by couples, though.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:48 AM on November 4 [1 favorite]
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:48 AM on November 4 [1 favorite]
The link I posted above has an analysis that breaks this down further by marital status. It’s much less common for young people to either own a home or be married to the homeowner than it was in the 90s:
Let’s compare the household-based traditional homeownership rate with the individual-based real homeownership rate. We found 41.5 percent of young adults were homeowners as heads or spouses. This share dropped to 29.3 percent in 2021. During this period, the traditional homeownership rate, measured at the household level, dropped from 45.0 percent to 41.6 percent. This means the decline in the real homeownership rate is 12.2 percentage points, compared with a 3.4 percentage-point drop in the traditional homeownership rate.posted by en forme de poire at 6:05 AM on November 5 [2 favorites]
« Older Technology sucks liquid out of the air to provide... | "The translator is author and artist and it's... Newer »
posted by hototogisu at 2:19 AM on November 2 [16 favorites]