Is Donald Trump is the New George Wallace?

bradl

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Most people would say yes. Others who support him are simply saying that he is "strong" and will "Make America Great".

We know we've seen and heard these things before, but when you have the parallels drawn by Wallace's own daughter, that should tell you how crazy Trump has become.

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/22/475172438/donald-trump-and-george-wallace-riding-the-rage

Is Donald Trump A Modern-Day George Wallace?
April 22, 20166:18 AM ET
Debbie Elliot

Donald Trump's enduring appeal in the Republican presidential contest has the GOP in a quandary, as it's forced to contend with voters fed up with party politics.

Some 50 years ago, another vociferous candidate put the scare in traditional power brokers. George Wallace fired up crowds with a similar anti-establishment message, and drew protests as passionate as are being seen at Trump's rallies today. Wallace also became a face of racial tension in America as the leading symbol for segregation in the 1960s.

"I want to tell these national parties this — they're going to find out there are a lot of rednecks come Nov. 5th in this country." - Former Alabama Gov. George Wallace on the campaign trail in 1968

When Wallace entered presidential politics in 1964, the then-Alabama governor was famous for declaring, "Segregation now. Segregation tomorrow. And segregation forever."

Wallace allies and family see parallels today in Trump.

"It's just a replay," Charlie Snider, one of Wallace's most trusted political aides, told NPR. "We're looking at a modern-day George Wallace."

Snider is a Trump supporter. Wallace's daughter, a Democrat, hears it, too, but in a different way.

"Trump and my father say out loud what people are thinking but don't have the courage to say," Peggy Wallace Kennedy told NPR. Wallace Kennedy was 18 when she was on the campaign trail with her father in 1968. She believes Trump is exploiting voters' worst instincts, the way her late father once did.

"They both were able to adopt the notion that fear and hate are the two greatest motivators of voters that feel alienated from government," she said.

The Trump campaign has not responded to NPR's request for comment on the comparison.

Tapping a vein of resentment

Wallace — the Southern populist and former Golden Gloves boxing champ — burst onto the national stage, tapping into a vein of resentment over the social upheaval of the day — namely new civil-rights laws.

In 1968, running as a third-party candidate, he drew large crowds to ever-more raucous rallies.

"We want Wallace! We want Wallace!" supporters would chant, as he took the stage at elaborate rallies that typically featured live country music acts.

Tens of thousands turned out in major Northeastern cities like Boston and New York. Wallace's racial rhetoric on this national stage was more coded. He berated both the federal government and the national political parties for being out of touch with average Americans.

"I want to tell these national parties this — they're going to find out there are a lot of rednecks come Nov. 5th in this country," Wallace said to a shouting crowd in 1968. "They've been used as a doormat long enough."

It was "doormats" in the '60s. Today, a "dumping ground."

"The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems," Trump declared when he announced he was running for president.

Snider, now 84, was chairman of two of Wallace's four presidential campaigns. Snider has been watching this year's race with great interest.

"George didn't have the party for him," he said. "He didn't have the hierarchy for him. He didn't have the major contributors for him. But he had the people for him. And that's exactly what's happening today with Donald Trump."


Winning the Deep South

Wallace shocked political pundits by winning nearly 10 million popular votes in the 1968 general election. He carried five states, sweeping most of the Deep South — Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and his home state of Alabama.

As the American Independent Party candidate, he won 46 electoral votes, the last third-party presidential candidate to win any electoral votes.

Wallace ran as a Democrat in 1972 and again in 1976. (During the '72 campaign, he was shot and wounded in an assassination attempt that left him paralyzed and in a wheelchair.)

Snider said watching the protesters at Trump rallies today reminds him of being on the campaign trail with Wallace. In an era of anti-war and civil-rights activism, there were always protesters in the audience.

"George kinda liked that 'cause he would badger with them," Snider said.

He said Wallace would make fun of men with long hair — or joke about them wearing sandals in the cold weather. "He kindly enjoyed it," Snider said.

Wallace, Settin' the Woods On Fire from CNAM on Vimeo.

The documentary George Wallace: Settin' the Woods on Fire by Paul Stekler and Daniel McCabe shows Wallace provoking protesters.

He toys with a shouting man who has long hair. "I love you, too, I sure do," Wallace coos. "Oh, I thought you were a she. You're a he. Oh, my goodness."

In another scene, he shouts, "Why don't you young punks get out of the auditorium?" as the crowd jeers at demonstrators.

In this year's Republican race, Trump has made throwing out disruptive hecklers part of his stump.

"Ready? Are you ready?" he asked a crowd in Iowa City, Iowa. His supporters cheered wildly. "Get 'em outta here! Get the hell outta here!" Trump yelled, as security guards took away the protesters.

Trump is no racial segregationist, but there has been race-based controversy

While their combative styles mirror one another, Trump is no racial segregationist.

Wallace drew voters alarmed at eroding white privilege. Trump draws voters worried about the erosion of blue-collar jobs and competition from immigrant labor.

But Trump has also become embroiled in controversy over race. In his announcement speech, he said undocumented Mexican immigration was bringing drugs and "rapists." And he has called for a temporary ban on noncitizen Muslims entering the U.S. Those have become lightning rods in much the way Wallace's positions did in the 1960s.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on," he said in South Carolina after the terrorist attacks in Paris late last year.

The Alabama governor's daughter, Wallace Kennedy, is a retired schoolteacher who now advocates for the very voting rights her father once fought. She's critical of the Trump campaign and says she even hears an echo of her father's campaign slogans in Trump's. They appeal to voters who think the country, as they know it, is slipping away, she said.

"My father would say, 'The federal government is not going to tell me what to do, so we're going to stand up for ourselves,' " Wallace Kennedy said. "His theme was 'Stand up for America.' Donald Trump's theme is let's 'Make America Great Again.'

"Strong" personalities

Their appeal has nothing to do with political ideology, according to historian Dan Carter, author of The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics.

"This is about style," he said. "It's about impressions. It's about a vague taking charge."

Now professor emeritus at the University of South Carolina, Carter said both Trump and Wallace come across as fighters to voters who believe the country is on the wrong track.

"There are a lot of people who essentially want the world to stop and want it to stop changing," Carter said. "And when that happens, you look for a strong individual. And to me that's the big appeal and the big similarity between George Wallace and Donald Trump."

Tension on the campaign trail — with protesters and the media

Incidents of violence at rallies are another common theme. Just as Trump supporters have turned on protesters in the crowd, Wallace rallies were known to get physical.

On CBS Evening News in October of 1968, correspondent David Dick reported from a Detroit rally, where a fight broke out between hecklers and Wallace supporters.

"The tension was so great, emotions so high, there was an inevitable melee," Dick reported. "Fistfights, chairs for weapons, and sticks — both improvised and official."

Former Alabama Secretary of State Jim Bennett was a reporter with the Birmingham Post-Herald at the time and covered the Wallace presidential rallies.

"They were wild," he said.

He recalled one particular confrontation in Portland, Ore. "Protesters were going around one way and Wallace supporters were going around the other," he said. "And when they'd clash, they'd hit each other with signs, one of which said, 'God is love.' "

Bennett wrote a column on the similarities he sees between Trump's approach and Wallace's campaign style — for instance, the way they target the media.

"Wallace used to point out the press that was there," Bennett said. "And sometimes that didn't go over so well with some of these crowds, either."

Wallace said at a Florida rally in 1968: "The average citizen in this county has more intelligence and sense in his little finger than the editor of The New York Times has in his whole head."

Trump is no fan, either: "The press is really bad," he has said. And he's taken to calling the newspaper "the failing New York Times."

At a rally in Indianapolis on Wednesday, Trump revved up the crowd against the press, calling the media "the most dishonest people in the world."

"Do we like the media?" he asked the crowd.

"No!" rose up from the audience.

"Do we hate the media?" he asked, raising his hands up to cue the crowd.

"Yes!"

There's another similarity between Wallace and Trump, too. Like Wallace, Trump may spar with the press, but he also tends to be the candidate who gets the most media attention.
Wallace is right about one thing: We have seen a lot of 'rednecks' come out of the woodwork in this country as of late. But hopefully, Trump's demise will parallel Wallace's as well.

BL.
 

haxrnick

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2011
530
1,936
Seattle
Most people would say yes. Others who support him are simply saying that he is "strong" and will "Make America Great".

We know we've seen and heard these things before, but when you have the parallels drawn by Wallace's own daughter, that should tell you how crazy Trump has become.

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/22/475172438/donald-trump-and-george-wallace-riding-the-rage



Wallace is right about one thing: We have seen a lot of 'rednecks' come out of the woodwork in this country as of late. But hopefully, Trump's demise will parallel Wallace's as well.

BL.
Why? Why does her opinion matter? Never heard of her until you made this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plutonius

bradl

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Why? Why does her opinion matter? Never heard of her until you made this thread.
Because the daughter of the first person to do this is also decrying Trump, his actions, and his followers, just as she decried her father back in the 60s. The same things Wallace did back then are the same things that Trump is doing now.

I'd be really shocked if you had never heard of George Wallace or his actions in the 60s and early 70s. Because of the people's ignorance and fear back then, and Wallace feeding off that ignorance and fear, we are seeing history repeating itself because the lessons from back then have been lost on those today.

And if Wallace's own daughter can see it, and you can't, that speaks volumes.

BL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadeTheSwitch

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,460
OBJECTIVE reality
"Trump and my father say out loud what people are thinking but don't have the courage to say," Peggy Wallace Kennedy told NPR.
The nearly 50 year time span between Wallace and Trump shows that we didn't really change hatred and ignorance, we merely drove them underground. We used peer pressure to make them socially unacceptable, but that didn't make them go away.

Now comes Trump, who finally unleashes those pent-up prejudices people have and justifies it as fighting "political correctness". The more things change...
 

thewitt

macrumors 68020
Sep 13, 2011
2,102
1,518
The nearly 50 year time span between Wallace and Trump shows that we didn't really change hatred and ignorance, we merely drove them underground. We used peer pressure to make them socially unacceptable, but that didn't make them go away.

Now comes Trump, who finally unleashes those pent-up prejudices people have and justifies it as fighting "political correctness". The more things change...
The Democrat party has spent this whole time dividing the nation with its class envy, corporate hate, policies to keep people from being successful, etc, to grow their power base.

Why would you expect there to be any less hate with half of the politicians in America in power only because they foster hate?
 

thermodynamic

Suspended
May 3, 2009
1,336
1,175
USA
Why? Why does her opinion matter? Never heard of her until you made this thread.
Ignoring the fact that in an evolved governing style such as democracy or republic, opinions matter. Even yours. If you are going to say "Why does hers matter?" then would you not be upset if you were told how your opinion should not? Or would you be upset? Somehow, it stands more reason to believe you would feel upset.

Now do you see why both yours and hers are important? It's for the same reason, or do you feel that only everyone who isn't you should be second class and walked all over or summarily disregarded?

Oh, some never heard of Prince until he died. That should explain "Never heard of her until you made this thread". Doesn't matter how famous one is, one doesn't necessarily know.
[doublepost=1461414565][/doublepost]
The Democrat party has spent this whole time dividing the nation with its class envy, corporate hate, policies to keep people from being successful, etc, to grow their power base.

Why would you expect there to be any less hate with half of the politicians in America in power only because they foster hate?
Define "success", especially involving ethics or the lack thereof. Hostile takeovers, price wars to eliminate successful competition, et cetera - are these acceptable by you? Or at least until you're hit by it, in which case it'll still be all the liberals' fault...

The GOP used to say that the US had no class system and anyone could get to the top. Explain the new change in attitude since it's pretty darn obvious they themselves now embrace a class system like they would a hundred concubines because it helps their cause of creating a class war but trying to blame everyone else for it and getting the rubes to readily believe it too. Seems to be working.

More people have seen stagnant pay or reduced pay, even before the Great Recession but even since and with the "economic recovery" workers are still hurting and it was the GR that led to the $1.34T student loan debt, because companies demand people with degrees for even entry level jobs - or do you prefer people not get degrees so we can blissfully call 'em all "lazy"?! Anyway, all that (and other facets being ignored) means more people are not succeeding. Now paired with known and very relevant and qualifying facts of job offshoring, companies not valuing work, 35 years of deregulation and union busting, you cannot blame government for that. Especially when free market representatives have lobbyists making laws, including what made "Obamacare".

How does one foster hate? By abuse, perhaps? How many more pay cuts will you endure while the top boss sees more bonuses to realize you've been abused? Or having to train replacement workers (due to ageism, H1B abuse, etc)? Or companies taking loads in corporate welfare when the same companies would, once they get done taking our money, continue the same policies that have hurt the country they take said corporate welfare from?

Lastly, it's "Democratic Party", please get the term right, or else don't even begin to get upset if people call yours "Republicant", for which most will have to look up what the word "cant" means and it is not a misspelling of "can't". Indeed, "cant" is far more apropos given what the GOP has put out over the last few decades!
[doublepost=1461415004][/doublepost]
Why? Historically speaking, one word convinces nobody, unless the one who says it is a dictator demanding subjects be sheep.
 
Last edited:

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,460
OBJECTIVE reality
LOL!

I literally said this in another thread:

Personally I can't stand the way he talks. Can't stand it. It's something I can't stand. Who could stand it? It's annoying. Really annoying. Stupid people talk that way. Really stupid people. How can anybody stand it? It's so stupid.
I hereby dub this type of speech "Trumpspeak". Its defining characteristics are bluster, the use of little words, repetition, and meaningless superlatives. :D
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,306
29,715
Catskill Mountains
I really enjoy watching how Trump's candidacy is causing some people's head to explode.
I'm not all that fond of how so many international heads of state are just sort of bobbling in disbelief. The guy's not even the nominee (yet?) but just his ascension through the ranks of the GOP candidates with at least somewhat more credibility is seen as traumatic abroad. Our ambassadors are probably earning their pay for a change, running around reassuring their counterparts that there's no way we'll elect a President Donald Trump. I can only hope they're right...
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
Most people would say yes. Others who support him are simply saying that he is "strong" and will "Make America Great".
Trump is much more dangerous than Wallace. Wallace was mainly a cynical politician willing to exploit the ignorance of rural southerners if that is what he had to do to get elected. Huey Long and Benito Mussolini are a better fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bradl

Renzatic

Suspended
The Democrat party has spent this whole time dividing the nation with its class envy, corporate hate, policies to keep people from being successful, etc, to grow their power base.
You live, quite literally, in a grossly partisan fantasy world, filled with tales of heroic Republicans taking a stand against cartoonishly villainous Democrats.

As much as I'd like to engage you in an honest discussion of your beliefs, you never respond to anything that runs counter to your strange political dogma. All you do is shout random weirdness into the forum, then run off without saying any word in response to what you've stirred up.

It makes me wonder why you even post here. You're obviously not here for the discourse. It's more like your some extremist advertising bot.
 

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
814
15,173
The Democrat party has spent this whole time dividing the nation with its class envy, corporate hate, policies to keep people from being successful, etc, to grow their power base.

Why would you expect there to be any less hate with half of the politicians in America in power only because they foster hate?
Classy envy? Nope. I don't hate rich people. In fact, a lot of rich people are in fact democrats themselves.

Corporate hate? Nope. I only hate corporations when they do something shady to boost profits. Things like tax cheating, dumping toxic chemicals into a river, destroying the environment, paying people minimum wage when they could afford to do more, paying women less to save on payroll...stuff like that.

Policies to keep people from being successful? Nope. Why would you think that? Again, there are rich successful democrats out there.

Meanwhile the Republican Party has been dividing people with their takers not makers and "free stuff" comments, their attack on women's choice, their attack on gay rights, their attack on people's healthcare and now their choice in frontrunners. If you want to see who is dividing people, look closer to home!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas Veil

aaronvan

Suspended
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
Why? Historically speaking, one word convinces nobody, unless the one who says it is a dictator demanding subjects be sheep.
Some obervations are self-evident, i.e.:

Bill Nye the Science Guy is not the new Albert Einstein.
Justin Bieber is not the new Jim Croce.
Johnny Manziel is not the new Bart Starr.
That crazy Uber lady in Florida is not the new Dr. Schweitzer.

Those fundamental axioms are understood.
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
Can't blame Debbie Elliot and Wallace for trying. We are nearing the anniversary of Trump's announcement to run for president, despite near daily predictions and wishful thinking of his dropping out or losing, atop attacks and predictions of ill will and policies gone wrong.