{"id":76438,"date":"2016-02-25T14:06:45","date_gmt":"2016-02-25T14:06:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2016\/02\/25\/sanders-trump-la-fantasy-du-new-york-times\/"},"modified":"2016-02-25T14:06:45","modified_gmt":"2016-02-25T14:06:45","slug":"sanders-trump-la-fantasy-du-new-york-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2016\/02\/25\/sanders-trump-la-fantasy-du-new-york-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Sanders-Trump, la Fantasy<\/em> du New York Times<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sanders-Trump, la Fantasy<\/em> du New York Times<\/em><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Voici que le New York Times<\/em>, l’\u00e9tendard absolument sacr\u00e9 de l’establishment<\/em> de l’am\u00e9ricanisme et du Syst\u00e8me, publie une analyse d’un de ses collaborateurs r\u00e9guliers, d\u00e9taillant une hypoth\u00e8se qualifi\u00e9e certes de Fantasy<\/em>, – mot que nous aurions tendance, dans une premi\u00e8re approche, \u00e0 interpr\u00e9ter dans ce cas dans le sens le plus concret d’une compl\u00e8te fiction doublement fictionnelle<\/a>, c’est-\u00e0-dire une fiction bas\u00e9e sur des \u00e9l\u00e9ments eux-m\u00eames compl\u00e8tement fictionnels, c’est-\u00e0-dire ne tentant en aucun cas de reproduire la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 (« Fantasy is a genre of fiction that uses magic or other supernatural elements…<\/em> », etc.). Du moins \u00e9tait-ce, au premier abord r\u00e9p\u00e9tons-le, notre interpr\u00e9tation de voir ce terme, dans le titre, exprimer le v\u00e9ritable jugement de l’auteur et du journal (Thomas B. Edsall, le 24 f\u00e9vrier dans le New York Times<\/em><\/a>) alors que, par ailleurs, le contenu du texte apparaît tr\u00e8s vite comme une analyse tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9cise et concr\u00e8te du sujet envisag\u00e9, qui est loin de le discr\u00e9diter en aucune fa\u00e7on, et encore moins le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne<\/a> que recouvre ce sujet. L’important, qui doit \u00eatre per\u00e7u comme un signal dans un syst\u00e8me de la communication actuellement en pleine \u00e9bullition aux USA, est que ce porte-drapeau de l’establishment<\/em> publie sans aucune restriction un texte qui apparaît beaucoup plus comme une analyse \u00ab\u00a0objective\u00a0\u00bb de quelque chose qui aurait \u00e9t\u00e9 jug\u00e9, il y a \u00e0 peine deux ou trois mois, comme compl\u00e8tement absurde sinon sacril\u00e8ge.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

En effet, cette \u00ab\u00a0analyse tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9cise et concr\u00e8te\u00a0\u00bb ne parvient pas, elle, \u00e0 nous convaincre que le sujet trait\u00e9 est une compl\u00e8te Fantasy<\/em> et ouvre la voie \u00e0 une question de plus, dans cette exploration \u00e0 multiples tiroirs : l’auteur croit-il vraiment que c’est une Fantasy<\/em> ?… Le sujet trait\u00e9 est la possibilit\u00e9 d’une sorte d’alliance pour les \u00e9lections pr\u00e9sidentielles, pouvant aller jusqu’\u00e0 un \u00ab\u00a0ticket\u00a0\u00bb pr\u00e9sidentiel, au moins pour la phase finale de l’\u00e9lection, et peut-\u00eatre victorieux finalement, constitu\u00e9 de Donald Trump et Bernie Sanders, – dans le cas où l’un des deux, et l’on pense surtout \u00e0 Sanders, n’obtiendrait pas la d\u00e9signation alors que son parcours pour la nomination aurait \u00e9t\u00e9 impeccable, sinon sup\u00e9rieur en voix au candidat (\u00e0 la candidate) finalement d\u00e9sign\u00e9e. Encore s’aper\u00e7oit-on tr\u00e8s vite que ce point d’une alliance Sanders-Trump n’est que la surface de cette analyse, qui s’int\u00e9resse en fait, et d’une fa\u00e7on qui est loin de minimiser cette perspective, ou de la ridiculiser bien au contraire, au mouvement de protestation et d’insurrection qui s’exprime par l’interm\u00e9diaire de Sanders et de Trump dans leurs partis respectifs.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Il est remarquable dans tous les cas que ce sujet, cette hypoth\u00e8se extr\u00eame des deux antiSyst\u00e8me s’alliant, m\u00eame dans le cas où elle serait per\u00e7ue (pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e) comme tout \u00e0 fait absurde et impensable \u00e0 la fois (ce qui n’est justement pas le cas), – m\u00eame alors, il s’agirait pour un journal comme le NYT, d’une audace conceptuelle remarquable ; et l’on peut voir, finalement, que cette hypoth\u00e8se n’est pas trait\u00e9e comme compl\u00e8tement absurde et impensable (dans le sens d’impossible), mais comme une formule qui semblerait assez improbable, sans plus et sans plus de protestation… On a l\u00e0 une mesure extr\u00eamement forte et convaincante de la puissance du mouvement qui est en marche, et surtout de sa rapidit\u00e9, tant il \u00e9tait impensable, toujours dans cette perspectives d’il y a deux ou trois mois pass\u00e9s, qu’il pût \u00eatre question de tels bouleversements tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9cis qu’envisage l’article.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ainsi peut-on, encore plus, observer que l’analyse qui est conduite, si elle tend \u00e0 favoriser l’option de l’impossibilit\u00e9 d’une alliance Sanders-Trump, n’en prend pas moins fortement acte du courant quasiment \u00ab\u00a0r\u00e9volutionnaire\u00a0\u00bb qui est en marche aux USA, le comparant sans la moindre h\u00e9sitation \u00e0 ceux de 1964 et (surtout) de 1972, mais implicitement avec beaucoup plus de chance de r\u00e9ussite \u00e9lectoralement et surtout une puissance beaucoup plus grande et une substance beaucoup plus significative. Qui plus est, la conclusion ne rejette absolument pas la possibilit\u00e9 d’une victoire, d’une fa\u00e7on ou l’autre et quoi qu’il en soit de l’hypoth\u00e8se sp\u00e9cifique Sanders-Trump qui a servi de pr\u00e9texte \u00e0 l’analyse, du courant populiste antiSyst\u00e8me. On peut m\u00eame avancer que cette conclusion tendrait \u00e0 nous dire que tout se passe comme si ce courant, qui est une v\u00e9ritable vague sinon un tsunami<\/em>, pourrait \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme ayant d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 gagn\u00e9 puisque l’alternative qui est envisag\u00e9e est d’une part, et c’est le terme le plus \u00ab\u00a0mod\u00e9r\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb, qu’une r\u00e9forme fondamentale sinon une r\u00e9volution du syst\u00e8me en place est n\u00e9cessaire pour \u00e9viter, et c’est l’autre terme de l’alternative qui n’est nullement \u00e9cart\u00e9e, la mise en place d’un \u00ab\u00a0nouveau syst\u00e8me qu’on ne peut encore concevoir\u00a0\u00bb…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

« Comment les partis r\u00e9publicain et d\u00e9mocrate arriveront-ils \u00e0 se refondre et \u00e0 se relancer eux-m\u00eames est une partie du drame de cette saison sans pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent qui force \u00e0 des d\u00e9cisions politiques collectives capitales. Ou alors les deux partis seront-ils supplant\u00e9s par un nouveau syst\u00e8me politique qu’on ne peut encore concevoir ?<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Nous dirions que l’hypoth\u00e8se Sanders-Trump n’est qu’une partie du texte, finalement, disons l’hypoth\u00e8se attractive et sensationnelle qui invite \u00e0 la lecture. D’une fa\u00e7on transversale \u00e0 ce texte, c’est l’analyse de la \u00ab\u00a0r\u00e9volution en cours\u00a0\u00bb qui est conduite, selon le pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9 qu’il y a effectivement r\u00e9volution, sans le moindre doute. Parmi les th\u00e8mes \u00e9voqu\u00e9s, il y a cette constante d’une v\u00e9ritable insurrection contre l’establishment<\/em>, qui se fait par les urnes, par le surgissement de candidats correspondant \u00e0 cette insurrection, – ainsi, Sanders et Trump pouvant \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9s autant sinon plus comme des \u00ab\u00a0cons\u00e9quences\u00a0\u00bb de cette insurrection, avec leurs r\u00f4les de catalyseurs, bien plus que des causes. <\/strong>Une des sources cit\u00e9es observe qu'\u00a0\u00bbaucun candidat, y compris ceux qui sont les favoris de leurs partis, ne fait campagne pour son parti ; et nombre d’entre eux font campagne pour le d\u00e9truire\u00a0\u00bb…\u00ab\u00a0Comme toutes les vieilles institutions ou les industries d\u00e9pass\u00e9es, le syst\u00e8me des partis lutte pour survivre \u00e0 la r\u00e9volution de la communication\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

… En effet, le deuxi\u00e8me point c’est la reconnaissance que l’outil essentiel de cette insurrection est la \u00ab\u00a0r\u00e9volution de l’information\u00a0\u00bb, ou la \u00ab\u00a0r\u00e9volution des technologies de l’information\u00a0\u00bb, ou encore si nous employons notre propre langage, pour une bonne part la communication et la presse antiSyst\u00e8me dans leur sens le plus large<\/strong>. L’article cite le professeur d’Histoire de Harvard Jill Lepore, \u00e9crivant dans le New Yorker<\/em> : « Ceux qui votent pour Sanders et Trump… se r\u00e9voltent contre les \u00e9lites des parties, particuli\u00e8rement ces candidats qui font partie des familles qui occupent le leadership des deux partis : Clinton et Bush, l’\u00e9pouse et le fr\u00e8re d’un ancien dirigent u parti et ancien pr\u00e9sident. L’insurrection a pu se d\u00e9velopper, en bonne part, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 la r\u00e9volution des technologies de communication de ces derni\u00e8res d\u00e9cennies<\/em>… »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Tout cela ayant \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9crit avec la vigilance antiSyst\u00e8me qui convient et qui nous caract\u00e9rise, il convient \u00e9galement d’ajouter une observation favorable, qui implique au moins que le Syst\u00e8me (le NYT, ditto<\/em> l’establishment<\/em>, par l’interm\u00e9diaire de l’un de ses collaborateurs r\u00e9guliers) prend acte du courant puissant qui se manifeste sans lancer le moindre anath\u00e8me contre lui, sans prononcer aussit\u00f4t le moindre codamnation sans appel contre lui ; au contraire, on aurait plut\u00f4t l’impression d’une certaine bienveillance, ou bien est-ce le fatalisme devant ce qui est per\u00e7u comme in\u00e9luctable<\/strong>… On pourrait mesurer ce que vaut cette attitude en envisageant une hypoth\u00e8se analogique : quel serait le pendant fran\u00e7ais de l’hypoth\u00e8se Sanders-Trump ? La similitude est aveuglante, il s’agit bien entendu de l’hypoth\u00e8se M\u00e9lenchon-Le Pen. Il est alors remarquable, par rapport aux us et coutumes fran\u00e7aises aussi bien que par rapport aux positions g\u00e9n\u00e9rales des candidats fran\u00e7ais les un vis-\u00e0-vis des autres, qu’un journal du statut de porte-drapeau du Syst\u00e8me par excellence aux USA envisage tr\u00e8s s\u00e9rieusement une telle hypoth\u00e8se pour les USA. En France, tout cela, c’est-\u00e0-dire l’\u00e9vocation s\u00e9rieuse d’une telle hypoth\u00e8se pour le champ \u00e9lectoral fran\u00e7ais, serait balay\u00e9 par la diabolisation r\u00e9gnante, par les anath\u00e8mes archa\u00efques, par la terreur intellectuelle r\u00e9gnante, et le courant populiste que de tels candidats repr\u00e9sentent chacun dans leurs camps seraient quasiment ni\u00e9 et dans tous les cas consid\u00e9r\u00e9s comme indigne de toute repr\u00e9sentation pseudo-d\u00e9mocratique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Bien que les USA soient la patrie du politically correct<\/em> en tant que processus quasiment institutionnalis\u00e9, on doit leur reconnaître cette vertu inattendue et comme par surprise, on pourrait m\u00eame dire le fameux \u00ab\u00a0\u00e0 l’insu de leur plein gr\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong>, qu’ils ne font pas scandale d’envisager une formule qui serait, \u00e0 Paris et avec les noms d\u00e9j\u00e0 cit\u00e9s, absolument sacril\u00e8ge. C’est la m\u00eame chose d’ailleurs pour les candidats, puisqu’aux USA l’un et l’autre ne perdent gu\u00e8re de temps, sauf en de tr\u00e8s rares occasions, \u00e0 s’exclure l’un l’autre, \u00e0 se condamner, \u00e0 s’excommunier. Toute leur \u00e9nergie est tendue contre l’establishment<\/em>, ou le Syst\u00e8me, par l’interm\u00e9diaire des attaques qu’ils lancent effectivement contre les autres candidats en ce qu’ils deviennent automatiquement, par rapport \u00e0 eux-m\u00eames, des repr\u00e9sentants de l’establishment<\/em>…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Il convient d’observer la tournure g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement neutre, sinon favorable, de la pr\u00e9sentation que cet article du NYT fait du mouvement en cours, ce qui d\u00e9note une attitude diff\u00e9rente par rapport aux positions habituelles du journal. (Et bien entendu, avec la r\u00e9serve que cet article ne peut \u00eatre \u00e9videmment pris pour un \u00e9ditorial engageant la ligne du journal.) Ce n’est pas que nous jugions qu’il y ait des vertus inattendues dans le Syst\u00e8me (le NYT) mais principalement que le Syst\u00e8me (le NYT, ditto<\/em> l’establishment<\/em>) est pour le moins pris compl\u00e8tement par surprise par le parcours de Trump et l’excellente tenue de Sanders, par contraste avec la m\u00e9diocrit\u00e9 pesante de leurs adversaires, et qu’il reconnaît ou qu’il est contraint de reconnaître la puissance du courant qui les porte<\/strong>. Il n’a absolument rien \u00e0 opposer \u00e0 ce courant et ne recule pas devant la citation des constats les plus m\u00e9prisants pour la direction politique (\u00ab\u00a0Comme toutes les vieilles institutions ou les industries d\u00e9pass\u00e9es, le syst\u00e8me des partis lutte pour survivre \u00e0 la r\u00e9volution de la communication\u00a0\u00bb, – excellent jugement qui pourrait aller \u00e0 la perfection dans tant de cas dans notre contre-civilisation.) Cela n’est en rien un jugement isol\u00e9 et l’on trouve actuellement nombre d’institutions et de personnalit\u00e9s qui se d\u00e9couvrent brusquement, comme emport\u00e9es par la force de cette dynamique, dans la m\u00eame position que le NYT. On mentionnera comme exemple assez ironique ces d\u00e9clarations de l’ancien candidat r\u00e9publicain (2012) Mitt Romney, pourtant arch\u00e9typique du politicien-Syst\u00e8me ; ainsi, le Washington Examiner<\/em> note (le 24 f\u00e9vrier<\/a>) que Romney critique durement le comportement de Trump, un peu comme un \u00ab\u00a0minimum syndical\u00a0\u00bb, mais d\u00e9nonce par ailleurs si vivement la situation et l’action du syst\u00e8me washingtonien qu’il pourrait aussi bien voter pour… Trump.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

« Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has criticized Donald Trump’s brash behavior, denounced his controversial policies and even suggested the billionaire won’t be the GOP nominee. Still, the former Massachusetts governor appears to share the same frustration that has driven so many voters right into the palm of Trump<\/strong>. \u00ab\u00a0We’re just mad as hell and won’t take it anymore, Romney reportedly said during a recent appearance at Babson College in Wellesley, Mass.<\/em> […] [T]he former GOP nominee was particularly critical of \u00ab\u00a0the failure of current political leaders to actually tackle major challenges, or to try at least, or to go out with proposals.\u00a0\u00bb \u00ab\u00a0Think for a moment about the major challenges you believe this country faces and tick them off in your mind and ask, ‘Are we making any real progress on any of them?'\u00a0\u00bb he said<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Voici donc cet article du 24 f\u00e9vrier, de Thomas B. Edsall dans le New York Times<\/em>, si caract\u00e9ristique et d’une fa\u00e7on si surprenante et si rapide de la prise en compte de l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement formidable qui secoue le monde politique aux USA… Exemple typique d’une sorte d’insurrection de membres de l’establishment<\/em> contre l’establishment<\/em>, selon l’id\u00e9e que ce sont la d\u00e9cr\u00e9pitude et la corruption de l’establishment <\/em>qui sont \u00e9videmment la cause de cette insurrection populaire et populiste.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n

_________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Trump-Sanders Fantasy<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

The emergence of strong populist insurgencies in both parties has raised the hope that the two constituencies could be joined to create a genuine left-right populist alliance. There are compelling arguments for and against this proposition. First, the case for a cross-party populist movement. The electorates of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders<\/a> overlap in four important ways<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

• Both candidates have tapped into the frustration of those stuck on the middle and bottom rungs of the economic ladder.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

• Both reject the free trade agreements of the past two decades, including the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership<\/a>, the largest trade deal <\/a>in a generation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

• Both reject mechanisms to limit spending on Social Security and Medicare — and each supports<\/a> his own version<\/a> of \u00ab\u00a0health care for all\u00a0\u00bb (although Trump has issued contradictory statements<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

• Both reject the use of super PACs to raise large political contributions and are convinced that politicians in Washington have sold out to powerful interests that contribute huge sums to campaigns.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The similarity between the two candidates was highlighted at a televised town hall<\/a> in South Carolina on Feb. 17. Mika Brzezinski, the MSNBC host, asked Trump to identify a candidate who fit the following description: \u00ab\u00a0The candidate is considered a political outsider by all the pundits. He’s tapping into the anger of the voters, delivers a populist message. He believes everyone in the country should have health care.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0This candidate, Brzezinski continued, advocates for hedge fund managers to pay higher taxes. He’s drawing thousands of people at his rallies and bringing in a lot of new voters to the political process, and he’s not beholden to any super PAC. Who am I describing?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Trump replied: \u00ab\u00a0You’re describing Donald Trump.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Actually,\u00a0\u00bb Brzezinski declared, \u00ab\u00a0I was describing Bernie Sanders.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The uniting of the Trump and Sanders electorates under a common banner in a future election has strong appeal, especially to Democrats on the left. \u00ab\u00a0For decades I’ve believed, and voter research bears out, that there is a great majority of Americans who would flock to vote for a progressive who runs on a populist economic message and talks in simple terms,\u00a0\u00bb Steve Rosenthal, president of the Organizing Group<\/a>, a political consulting firm, and former political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., wrote in response to my email inquiry:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Cobble together Trump’s older, less educated, lower income, white soft-Republicans, Independents and his less hard-line conservative voters with Senator Sanders’s younger, white, less than $100K family income, Dems and Independents — along with historic Democratic base constituencies and you’ve got a potent formula for success. The candidate is fighting first and foremost for American jobs, is pro-choice, supports marriage equality and makes raising wages central to her\/his campaign — speaks truth to power in a blunt way — and is real. Sign me up.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Jill Lepore, a professor of American history at Harvard, writing in the Feb. 22 issue<\/a> of The New Yorker, also describes the similarity of the Trump and Sanders campaigns: \u00ab\u00a0The people who turn up at Sanders and Trump rallies are wed, across the aisle, in bonds of populist unrest. They’re revolting against party elites, and especially against the all-in-the-family candidates anointed by the Democratic and the Republican leadership: Clinton and Bush, the wife and brother of past party leaders. This unrest has been unleashed, in part, by the information technology<\/a> revolution<\/a> of the past several decades,\u00a0\u00bb Lepore writes:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

None of the candidates, not even the party favorites, are campaigning on behalf of their party; most are campaigning to crash it. The \u00ab\u00a0party system,\u00a0\u00bb Lepore continues, \u00ab\u00a0like just about every other old-line industry and institution, is struggling to survive a communications revolution.\u00a0\u00bb The \u00ab\u00a0ill effects\u00a0\u00bb of the revolution include the atomizing of the electorate. There’s a point at which political communication speeds past the last stop where democratic deliberation, the genuine consent of the governed, is possible.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

While there are obviously striking differences between the supporters of Trump and Sanders, Troy Campbell<\/a>, a professor of marketing at the University of Oregon, argues that: \u00ab\u00a0Many, but not all, Trump and Sanders supporters have similar concerns and are drawn to a similar candidate with a change-preaching, anti-Washington, entertaining, take-no prisoners, apologize-for-nothing personality. More and more Americans are becoming less identified with a party and more generally anti the political establishment. This anti-political-elite sentiment runs deep in both the Sanders and Trump community.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Sean Trende, senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, noted that Senator Sherrod<\/a> Brown<\/a> of Ohio might be the kind of politician who could appeal to voters on both the left and the right<\/a>. Brown, Trende said, \u00ab\u00a0holds a longstanding skepticism of trade and has more blue collar appeal than I could see Elizabeth Warren having.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0On the right, someone like Trump is probably the best bet, to be honest,\u00a0\u00bb Trende argues in his email: What makes Trump interesting is that he appeals to this outsider, blue-collar base, but does so from a secular basis, which theoretically broadens his appeal. If a \u00ab\u00a0more politically savvy version of Trump emerges, we could see our politics upended,\u00a0\u00bb Trende added, with the emergence \u00ab\u00a0of a ‘real’ European-style right candidate: traditionalist (but oftentimes secular), nationalistic, and in favor of increased social expenditures.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Enthusiasts aside, substantial structural and ideological problems are certain to emerge for any movement or individual attempting to tap populist sentiment in order to construct a bipartisan presidential coalition. I talked with Bill McInturff, co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling company that conducts national polling for NBC and The Wall Street Journal together with the Democratic company Hart Research Associates. McInturff examined recent NBC\/Wall Street Journal surveys to find how many of the voters said they could support both Trump and Sanders.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Six percent of all voters said they would consider voting for both men. This is hardly encouraging for those who would like to use the 2016 primaries as the basis for a hybrid populist movement. A quarter of all surveyed voters — Democrat, Republican and independent — would consider voting for Trump but not Sanders, 33 percent would consider voting for Sanders but not Trump, and the rest were undecided.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

At McInturff’s suggestion, I asked pollsters at the Pew Research Center what they had found. Jocelyn Kiley, associate director of research, provided data reinforcing McInturff’s analysis that a left-right populist alliance faced insurmountable difficulties. \u00ab\u00a0In our January survey,\u00a0\u00bb Kiley wrote, we asked if people thought each of the candidates would make a great, good, average, poor, or terrible president. Among all voters, just 4 percent said both Trump and Sanders would be either great or good. If you expand that to include average, just 15 percent said both would be at least average.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Kiley made the point that another revealing way of interpreting the data is that 77 percent of those who thought Sanders would be good or great thought Trump would be poor or terrible, and 60 percent of those who thought Trump would be good or great thought Sanders would be poor or terrible.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Scott Keeter, senior survey adviser at the Pew Research Center, added that research conducted in recent years showed that both parties have potential class cleavages in them that a candidate with the right mix of policies could exploit. Trump’s support has shown that not all of the G.O.P. electorate shares the party’s orthodox views about limited government, and his views on trade could have appeal to some Democrats. But it’s hard to find data to suggest that a large coalition could be formed that would unite the harder core supporters of Trump and Sanders, given the many things they disagree on.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

There is additional research documenting the incompatibility of Trump and Sanders supporters. Emily Ekins, director of polling at the Cato Institute, and Jonathan Haidt, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, examined the results of a November 2015 You.gov survey of 2,000 respondents<\/a> and summarized their findings in a smart Vox essay<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The You.gov<\/a> poll identified the moral values<\/a> of supporters of each of this year’s presidential candidates. The survey results provide a measure of the strength of current support for each of four values: care\/empathy; proportionality\/just deserts; liberty; and loyalty\/authority\/sanctity. The results — explained and illustrated in the accompanying chart — show that supporters of Trump and Sanders oppose each other on three out of four of these moral values: care, proportionality, and loyalty\/authority. They agree only on their support for liberty.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In other words, Trump and Sanders partisans, despite converging economic concerns, are like oil and water. Any politician seeking to enlist them in a political collaboration faces major obstacles. \u00ab\u00a0Their political personalities are radically different,\u00a0\u00bb Haidt wrote in an email. Sanders’s supporters are \u00ab\u00a0bleeding heart\u00a0\u00bb liberals, \u00ab\u00a0while Trump supporters have a personality style that is closer to the prototypical authoritarian pattern.\u00a0\u00bb Haidt saw other key differences: the moral narratives that they believe in, about America, and how we got here, and what we must do to get out, are completely incompatible, except for a shared sense that the elites are corrupt.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

What might be the long-term ramifications of the populist, information-fueled<\/a> dynamics of this election cycle? We have not seen the present levels of intraparty polarization since Barry Goldwater’s challenge to Nelson Rockefeller in 1964<\/a> or George McGovern’s to Hubert Humphrey<\/a> in 1972.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The establishment wings of both parties \u00ab\u00a0will have a very hard time accommodating the blue-collar native-born American who is the core of Trump’s constituency and a vital part of Sanders’s,\u00a0\u00bb Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank, wrote in reply to my email. But, Olsen observed, \u00ab\u00a0political death has a tendency to concentrate the mind. A failure of the G.O.P. to win the presidency this cycle would force the G.O.P. to rethink its core assumptions.\u00a0\u00bb (One could even argue that the presence of two Hispanic contenders for the nomination reflects a concentration of the conservative mind on expanding the Republican electorate.) A failure of the Democrats to win the White House, or \u00ab\u00a0to make meaningful gains in Congress or the states\u00a0\u00bb over the next four years, Olsen suggested, might have a comparable effect.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

This intraparty division, compounded by the animosity of the emergent populist wings toward their respective establishments, threatens to undermine the underlying premise of the presidential nomination process: that internal factions compete in caucuses and primaries until a winner emerges, at which time losers lick their wounds and fall in line.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

If either Trump or Sanders loses the fight for the nomination, or if both go down to defeat, the question in November will be: Do their supporters fall in line? Do a substantial number stay home? Or will they vote for the opposition?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In 1964 and 1972, bitter intraparty conflict resulted in landslide defeats<\/a> for both Goldwater and McGovern, losses that forced radical changes in the constituencies of the two parties, in their respective ideological appeal and in their geographic bases of support. After 1964, in the midst of racial upheaval, the Republican Party shifted<\/a> to become the party of white America. Anchored in the South, the party evolved into the adversary of all the emerging rights movements<\/a> — most notably civil, women’s, gay and reproductive rights. The Democratic Party, in turn, became the political ally of emerging rebellions<\/a> — moving sharply to the left of American opinion, until American opinion shifted<\/a> to embrace these very insurgencies.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

How the Republican and Democratic parties will remake or reset themselves is part of the drama of this unprecedented collective decision-making season. Or will the two parties be supplanted by an as yet unimagined political system?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Thomas B. Edsall<\/h4>\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sanders-Trump, la Fantasy du New York Times Voici que le New York Times, l’\u00e9tendard absolument sacr\u00e9 de l’establishment de l’am\u00e9ricanisme et du Syst\u00e8me, publie une analyse d’un de ses collaborateurs r\u00e9guliers, d\u00e9taillant une hypoth\u00e8se qualifi\u00e9e certes de Fantasy, – mot que nous aurions tendance, dans une premi\u00e8re approche, \u00e0 interpr\u00e9ter dans ce cas dans le… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[3109,10715,7258,17360,4118,8698,3256,3340,7347,6776,8327,3145,2852,2639,3257],"class_list":["post-76438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-b","tag-bernie","tag-donald","tag-edsall","tag-establishment","tag-insurrection","tag-new","tag-presidentielles","tag-primaires","tag-romney","tag-sanders","tag-thomas","tag-times","tag-trump","tag-york"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76438"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76438\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}