Support NeoGAF

[injurai]

Start being racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic.

Honestly, the left needs to feel comfortable criticising those on their own side of the watershed. Instead of always projecting coded language onto the disdain and challenge that comes their way.

 

[aeolist]

actually i didn't realize but his tax plan is even more regressive than any other GOP contender. and lol @ this:

Mr. Trump's plan would compress today's seven individual income-tax brackets into three and set a top rate of 25%, down from 39.6%. It would exempt each person's first $25,000, or each married couple's first $50,000, from income taxation. The plan would cut rates on business income to 15%, eliminate the estate tax and curb some deductions.

On average, each household would get a $5,144 tax cut in 2017, increasing after-tax income by 7.1%. The gains are highly concentrated among the highest-income households, which would get a bigger percentage of the tax cuts than the share of taxes they pay now. The top 1% of households, those making over $732,323, would get 35% of the tax cuts.

Mr. Trump has said his tax plan would cost him a fortune and has pointed to his plan to tax carried interest as ordinary income, not capital gains, as a way to raise taxes on some wealthy investment managers, who he said are “getting away with murder” by paying so little.

But carried interest minimizes taxes now because the top capital gains rate of 23.8% is so much lower than the top tax rate on business income of 39.6%, and the gap makes it attractive for private-equity managers to convert ordinary income into capital gains. Under Mr. Trump, capital gains would be taxed at 20% and business income would be taxed at 15%.

“There would be a huge windfall for private equity and hedge funds,” Mr. Burman said.

 

[LegendofJoe]

We have become too politically correct. There shouldn't be anything wrong with expressing disleasure that illegal immigrants getting paid under the table are depressing wages for citizens because it's the truth. The level of welfare abuse has always been greatly exaggerated and used as a racist dog whistle, but it does happen. There should be no hesitancy to denigrate that behavior.

On the flip side there should also be no hesitancy to forcefully and with passion call out how damaging the pathetically low minimum wage is to working class incomes. And to actually discuss how crippling the cost of childcare is for young families. Hitting on all of these points without holding back would go a long way towards appealing to working class white voters.

 

[ezrarh]

Read the article yesterday, it's a good one. I think another factor that may have been glossed over is the increasing inequality between the cities and the smaller towns. With the loss of a lot of manufacturing facilities, many small towns have nothing left. It also used to be that smaller towns could have their own self contained economy but our economic structure with large chains essentially sucks up the wealth. If you go to any of our smaller cities or towns that haven't benefited from this new economy, they look like bombed out wastelands (partly because we have too much infrastructure to pay for it all)

 

[7DollarHagane]

We have become too politically correct. There shouldn't be anything wrong with expressing disleasure that illegal immigrants getting paid under the table are depressing wages for citizens because it's the truth. The level of welfare abuse has always been greatly exaggerated and used as a racist dog whistle, but it does happen. There should be no hesitancy to denigrate that behavior.

On the flip side there should also be no hesitancy to forcefully and with passion call out how damaging the pathetically low minimum wage is to working class incomes. And to actually discuss how crippling the cost of childcare is for young families. Hitting on all of these points without holding back would go a long way towards appealing to working class white voters.

The immigration thing is huge for me. There is a legal means to become a citizen in this country and become a member of society. I have relatives who have accomplished this and have become tremendously successful in creating businesses and are very well off for themselves.

I don't see why we should pay for those who won't orcant go though the legal means to become citizens. And why it should be so offensive to think that if the law calls for it they should be deported. If the law is unreasonable, change the law.

I'm personally for simplifying the entire welfare and entitlements system to go to a state mandated minimum income. Something like $20k/yr per citizen with a clean record of any non-minor criminal offense. Raise the minimum wage alongside that and fund it by taxing the highest earning people.

Ensure that any living citizen with a clean criminal record has a baseline income to survive and I think it would improve every person's situation in this country.

Theres a lot of wrinkles to figure out (I think the severity of the crime would carry certain penalties for receipt of the minimum income, violent crimes prioritized over non-violent ones) but I think it would solve a lot of problems and curb a lot of abuse. Theres also kids- I think that income should start at birth and increase per year until it reaches the normal amount, but you only get it when you turn 18. And the government gives you half if you don't use it for higher education and complete high school.

 

[Slavik81]

Honestly, the left needs to feel comfortable criticising those on their own side of the watershed. Instead of always projecting coded language onto the disdain and challenge that comes their way.

Oh, they do quite a bit of infighting. Some of the most bitter fights are between Democrats who basically agree with each other.

 

[AndyD]

White folks afraid of having their white privilege revoked. I'm being simplistic here, but that's the aspect that bugs me. But maybe I missed the part where the article explicitly says its referring to "middle class republicans".

It refers to people who used to form the successful middle class of the 50s-70s, not rich, not poor, vastly white and conservative.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I' don't think Democrats should court these voters, tbh.

They're going to have to. Reading the article reminded me of the early days of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, which had the same appeal to 'the underbelly' of society as many sociological articles refer to it. I thought that was the religious right of Bush jr., but apparently it's just happening ten years late in the USA. The same thing has been happening in most other European countries too: a disillusioned middle wanting to see different politicians with different takes that they can actually relate to rather than the way competent and old school politicians tend to be: boring.

I noticed with the badlipreading video of the Democrat debate that despite all the nice ideas, Sanders is effectively too much like that to be electable versus the relaxed Clinton. As long as her staff can stay off the Twitter that is.

 

[wildfire]

We have become too politically correct. There shouldn't be anything wrong with expressing disleasure that illegal immigrants getting paid under the table are depressing wages for citizens because it's the truth. The level of welfare abuse has always been greatly exaggerated and used as a racist dog whistle, but it does happen. There should be no hesitancy to denigrate that behavior.

On the flip side there should also be no hesitancy to forcefully and with passion call out how damaging the pathetically low minimum wage is to working class incomes. And to actually discuss how crippling the cost of childcare is for young families. Hitting on all of these points without holding back would go a long way towards appealing to working class white voters.

The immigration thing is huge for me. There is a legal means to become a citizen in this country and become a member of society. I have relatives who have accomplished this and have become tremendously successful in creating businesses and are very well off for themselves.

I don't see why we should pay for those who won't orcant go though the legal means to become citizens. And why it should be so offensive to think that if the law calls for it they should be deported. If the law is unreasonable, change the law.

I'm personally for simplifying the entire welfare and entitlements system to go to a state mandated minimum income. Something like $20k/yr per citizen with a clean record of any non-minor criminal offense. Raise the minimum wage alongside that and fund it by taxing the highest earning people.

Ensure that any living citizen with a clean criminal record has a baseline income to survive and I think it would improve every person's situation in this country.

Theres a lot of wrinkles to figure out (I think the severity of the crime would carry certain penalties for receipt of the minimum income, violent crimes prioritized over non-violent ones) but I think it would solve a lot of problems and curb a lot of abuse. Theres also kids- I think that income should start at birth and increase per year until it reaches the normal amount, but you only get it when you turn 18. And the government gives you half if you don't use it for higher education and complete high school.

Thank you guys for participating because Dragonsworne seems to be away on personal business for now.

@LegendofJoe you make a reasonable point but by and large the conversation about illegal immigrants don't evolve that way. The effect of being paid off the record isn't something that comes up after we make the point that most jobs immigrants take aren't one neither of us would want. You bring up a perspective that I believe is something we can agree on but our proposed solutions to them, stronger unions or minimum wage increases aren't appealing to your peers.

@Tokkum explains pretty nicely why minimum wage increases is undesirable beyond only disliking minorities from benefiting from it. These people aspire to be wealthy and they sympathize with the realities of a small business needs more control on their wages to better meet the demands of the market. Most of these people if they want to become wealthy will have to start out as a small business so this idea sucks hard.

@7DollarHagane A lot of democrats also believe the immigration laws should be preserved but there are various entanglement issues that make deportation undesirable. For starters we hire a lot of the illegals to work at very low wages and it's disingenuous to say to them we are happy exploiting you now get the fuck out because some of our fellow citizens don't like you. Whether you like it or not, they helped contribute to the way our country has grown and that should be respected. Otherwise how can we respect ourselves if we did successfully kicked them out and took on those jobs at similar but still very low wage and complain about how these jobs suck?
Another entanglement issue is how citizenship works for newborns. Many of us aren't in the mood to splitting up families by force.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/analysi...-big-cuts-in-taxes-federal-revenue-1450807194

trump's tax policy is as regressive as the rest of the GOP candidates, it hugely benefits the wealthy and cuts revenue by something like $10 trillion over the next decade

that he's been able to push this and still sell himself as the anti-establishment candidate is one of the greatest political con jobs i've ever seen, and a sad indictment of the american electorate's love of spectacle over substance

You are too focused on why Trump is harmful. The art of any good con job is provide a proper distraction. That is caused by 2 things, "Trumps "I Win" income for people during tax season and Congress enabling Trump by accident by lying about why corporate taxes from overseas aren't being collected.

 

[aeolist]

You are too focused on why Trump is harmful. The art of any good con job is provide a proper distraction. That is caused by 2 things, "Trumps "I Win" income for people during tax season and Congress enabling Trump by accident by lying about why corporate taxes from overseas aren't being collected.

no i get that, i was just correcting misinformation that his tax policy is somehow "progressive." it's part of the con that he's able to convince people of that.

 

[Byakuya769]

I'm tired of hearing about how great the economy is doing. Virtually all of us make roughly the same amount as we did thirty+ years ago but prices continue to rise.

edit: What am I saying. Just gotta hold on for a few more years and all that extra money will trickle right down.

Welcome to the global economy that's to the benefit of a new global elite. Less abject poverty across the globe for the price of exploding inequality.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Imagine growing up in an america were your parents paid taxes all their life, and lived relatively well-off. Then imagine you being a second generation X, realizing that you are nowhere as well off as your parents were. After a bit, you realize you are getting actually screwed and when you ask your governement for help, they say that you're still too rich compared to the new poor immigrants and you don't get any help. They get help with the taxes you and your parents paid for dozens of years.
This lead to a lot of frustration in those people that see those new citizens as screwing them over the benefit them and their father worked for and think if they stop coming, they'd be better off. Obviously this is not true because the rich realized that having a bigger low income class (often immigrants) is a good thing because it become a race to the bottom, lowering wages and depressing the middle class into the new more general "not rich" class. In the meanwhile, the super rich with the new money acquired from this trickle up money from the middle class, have no longer any enemy at a political level and can lobby much more efficiently and swiftly, increasing at the same time the way for them to gain even more money, or in other words, to corrupt and bog down the sistem of society.


One big issue is that immigration has never actually been seriously discussed, the right can't articulate a decent argument (or simply couldn't because of lobbies pushing the blame from the rich to the immigrants), and the left just call them racists without acknowledging that a race to the bottom for salaries and the consequential death of the middle class are a real thing and instead just ranting about general "civil freedoms" and shit (except Sanders which is more economical issues based but he's a black sheep as far as i can see). That's why Trump is getting so much steam, because he's both against rich interests (as in, he's not financed by corps but by himself), and against immigration as a source of cheap labour and as an inequality increasing device.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/analysi...-big-cuts-in-taxes-federal-revenue-1450807194

trump's tax policy is as regressive as the rest of the GOP candidates, it hugely benefits the wealthy and cuts revenue by something like $10 trillion over the next decade

that he's been able to push this and still sell himself as the anti-establishment candidate is one of the greatest political con jobs i've ever seen, and a sad indictment of the american electorate's love of spectacle over substance

actually i didn't realize but his tax plan is even more regressive than any other GOP contender. and lol @ this:

Well I wasn't aware of how disingenuous he was being, and I'm not even a Trump fan.

 

[theignoramus]

Seems like the GOP is headed for an inevitable split between the populist far right and the establishment right. Entirely of their own creation of course.
The " Freedom Party" or whatever they end up calling themselves will likely settle on aiming for success at the local and state levels and wrecking havoc on Capitol Hill.

 

[Abinash117]

Honestly, the left needs to feel comfortable criticising those on their own side of the watershed. Instead of always projecting coded language onto the disdain and challenge that comes their way.

About what? Many people on the left already agree with each other on many things

We have become too politically correct. There shouldn't be anything wrong with expressing disleasure that illegal immigrants getting paid under the table are depressing wages for citizens because it's the truth. The level of welfare abuse has always been greatly exaggerated and used as a racist dog whistle, but it does happen. There should be no hesitancy to denigrate that behavior.

On the flip side there should also be no hesitancy to forcefully and with passion call out how damaging the pathetically low minimum wage is to working class incomes. And to actually discuss how crippling the cost of childcare is for young families. Hitting on all of these points without holding back would go a long way towards appealing to working class white voters.

No, nothing is wrong discussing that. The problem is many people who talk about 'too much PC' are the people who are lean or are sexist and racist and say ignorant things. With majority of it being white people saying that stuff with mostly other white people a lot of it turning into circlejerking. Sometimes they don't even have to say it in an aggressive way it is sometimes even in a passive-aggressive, pretentious way. You can talk about stuff like that without being pretentious and very offensive, the problem is many people don't want to or don't how to talk to other people without talking down on them. What happens after you start acting like that?


When Donald Trump say things like the country has too much PC. It is one of the coded vague worlds that many people has their own definition of that might be similar, but they all agree with him.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Honestly, the left needs to feel comfortable criticising those on their own side of the watershed. Instead of always projecting coded language onto the disdain and challenge that comes their way.

Democrats criticize each other ALL the time, even when they're in agreement with one another.

@Tokkum explains pretty nicely why minimum wage increases is undesirable beyond only disliking minorities from benefiting from it. These people aspire to be wealthy and they sympathize with the realities of a small business needs more control on their wages to better meet the demands of the market. Most of these people if they want to become wealthy will have to start out as a small business so this idea sucks hard.

To paraphrase a President; if you can't afford to pay your employees a livable wage then your business doesn't deserve to stay as it is. Suppressing wages to start/keep a small business going isn't the way.

Also everyone aspires to be wealthy. Difference is some people have been convinced that they're already millionaires just temporarily embarrassed.

 

[PopeReal]

This article is less about garnering sympathy for white middle-aged people, and more about how the demographics and dynamics within the Republican Party have changed.

Good post though.

It is also about how white people want to go back to "the good old days".

We all know what that means. It spells it out in the article.

 

[LosDaddie]

Frum is typically great, but this article has far too much projection than anything else. When the top 3 candidates for the GOP are Trump, Cruz and Rubio, there's no anti-rich movement in their ranks. The GOP's man in 2012 was a silver spoon baby in Romney.

I mean, just talk to any conservative about this issue, and I doubt you'll find many that will want to overturn Citizens United. That is, if you can get any conservative to admit money may be a problem in politics in the first place.

I just don't believe this article.

Seems like the GOP is headed for an inevitable split between the populist far right and the establishment right. Entirely of their own creation of course.
The " Freedom Party" or whatever they end up calling themselves will likely settle on aiming for success at the local and state levels and wrecking havoc on Capitol Hill.

Not at all. And people keep saying this every election.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Nothing will change in the GOP until they stop winning midterms in landslide fashion. They'll get angry over losing the White House, but they'll be happy to continue controlling state legislatures in historic majorities.

 

[jimbobsmells]

It's a very interesting article, and echoes what we're seeing in European politics too.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

I mean, just talk to any conservative about this issue, and I doubt you'll find many that will want to overturn Citizens United. That is, if you can get any conservative to admit money may be a problem in politics in the first place.

No that part is easy, it's just that it's George SOROS and THE UNIONS that are the problem with money in politics. It's never a problem with America's systems, it's a problem with those damned LIEberals.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

They're going to have to. Reading the article reminded me of the early days of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, which had the same appeal to 'the underbelly' of society as many sociological articles refer to it. I thought that was the religious right of Bush jr., but apparently it's just happening ten years late in the USA. The same thing has been happening in most other European countries too: a disillusioned middle wanting to see different politicians with different takes that they can actually relate to rather than the way competent and old school politicians tend to be: boring.

I noticed with the badlipreading video of the Democrat debate that despite all the nice ideas, Sanders is effectively too much like that to be electable versus the relaxed Clinton. As long as her staff can stay off the Twitter that is.

Do they? The Democrats have lost these voters in huge margins for decades. Dems have stopped losing in 45+ state landslides and the McGovern coalition is finally large enough to make presidential elections competitive even with the exodus of working-class whites from the Democrats. It would be great if Dems could somehow appeal to these voters without abandoning the marginalized but I just don't think that's possible.

 

[SimleuqiR]

Republican because they fear the Democrats want to take from them and redistribute to Americans who are newer, poorer, and in their view less deserving

I swear people need to learn the history of this country.
You all fucking come from immigrants. Unless you are native american or African american (who were brought over against their will) your ass don't deserve any extra special treatment.

 

[Abinash117]

I swear people need to learn the history of this country.
You all fucking come from immigrants. Unless you are native american or African american (who were brought over against their will) your ass don't deserve any extra special treatment.

That doesn't matter to them I think.

 

[Rayis]

I really dislike how those disenfranchised voters are scapegoating immigrants, undocumented or not, I might agree with them in the fact that we're being stretched thin and all that but it is not because of immigrants that we are this way.

I' don't think Democrats should court these voters, tbh.

I think they should but it should be drilled into their heads that immigrants are not to blame for this and they'll keep suffering if they're unwilling to adapt to the changing demographics.

 

[danm999]

Blaming outsiders and newcomers for problems or misfortune is a tale as old as time.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Do they? The Democrats have lost these voters in huge margins for decades. Dems have stopped losing in 45+ state landslides and the McGovern coalition is finally large enough to make presidential elections competitive even with the exodus of working-class whites from the Democrats. It would be great if Dems could somehow appeal to these voters without abandoning the marginalized but I just don't think that's possible.

White working class voters are marginalized as well. Finding a way to unite the white and minority working class is the panacea we need to restore sanity to our political system. A truly great leader would absolutely be attempting to accomplish this.

 

[Aurongel]

I swear people need to learn the history of this country.
You all fucking come from immigrants. Unless you are native american or African american (who were brought over against their will) your ass don't deserve any extra special treatment.

"Well my ancestors worked hard and came here the right way"

-actual response I usually get when debating that fact.

 

[Abinash117]

"Well my ancestors worked hard and came here the right way"

-actual response I usually get when debating that fact.

Worked hard killing people.

 

[Griss]

Amazing article. Essentially the Republican base needs a leader so charismatic that he can get through to white america that theirs is a class struggle rather than a racial or religious one, and that inequality is the enemy. Essentially that the interest of white america no longer aligns with the interest of corporate america, which was long an accepted wisdom for Republicans.

He'd then need to use that wave of support to reform the Republican party from within without the help of the rich donors.

Trump is showing that the support is there for a candidate who goes against the party elite and addresses the concerns of the rank and file working american, but can it be turned to real reform of the party? Can the donors be beaten? And could someone who is less of a blathering pandering fool like Trump garner that support?

It's hard to imagine, but I'd like to think so. A good Republican party and strong Republican leader would surely have a positive effect on inequality in America, race relations, all sorts of things. Even if it was by not getting elected, but rather allowing the Dems to move rightwards.

I saw Cameron doing a lot of this in the last UK election.
-What Labour wanted you to believe: Tories are for rich people and big business only. We will help the disenfranchised and create a fairer society.
-What Cameron wanted you to believe: Tories are for the normal working man, not the oligarch. Anyone who works will do better under us. We won't give your money to those who don't work (those who don't deserve it), unlike the other crowd.

Ultimately Cameron's argument won the day pretty convincingly and Labour suffered an utter meltdown. The Republicans need to use a very, very similar argument to Cameron's to get their core base back, imo. And yes, that will mean being anti-immigration to a certain extent and willing to tax the richest higher than they'd like.

If the Republicans don't get back on track, you're going to see more and more nonsense like Trump and his call for a ban on Muslims. In european countries where the centre-right is weak the far-right has flourished. A centre-right that represents right-leaning people and prevents any being sucked into the far-right maelstrom of racist idiocy is really, really important imo.

I swear people need to learn the history of this country.
You all fucking come from immigrants. Unless you are native american or African american (who were brought over against their will) your ass don't deserve any extra special treatment.

It is not an unusual thought that a citizen deserves more rights with respect to his status in his own country than a non-citizen. It is the very basis of the idea of a nation and borders. The fact that America has historically had very open borders and was settled and built by immigrants doesn't change that.

Also, circumstances change. If unchecked immigration is being used to keep wages down while corporations profit and working class people suffer, then perhaps it's time for america to change its ways or try something different. Countries do not stay the same for their entire history, and do not have to.

 

[aeolist]

"Well my ancestors worked hard and came here the right way"

-actual response I usually get when debating that fact.

ignoring the fact that we had basically no immigration limits or controls until the early 20th century

america was built on open borders, but we need to build that wall now that white people have theirs

 

[AndyD]

"Well my ancestors worked hard and came here the right way"

-actual response I usually get when debating that fact.

ignoring the fact that we had basically no immigration limits or controls until the early 20th century

america was built on open borders, but we need to build that wall now that white people have theirs

I think recent immigrants have the strongest "right" to this mindset. I mean those who came in the past 10-20 years. They are also the likeliest I have heard to use it.

 

[Slayven]

They aren’t the hashtavists of #BlackLivesMatter

So unnecessary

 

[Maximus.]

Boggles my mind how politicians that's don't have the interests of the majority win power and make policies that benefit the few.

 

[pa22word]

I spoke in an earlier thread about trump being nothing more than a reflection of mass hysteria from red state voters in the form of pure populism in the face of being screwed over by establishment gop. Good to finally see the press paying attention to something that has been brutally honest to people who've been actually on the ground dealing with the movement for the last 5 years or so.

Also, it always makes me laugh when people dont understand why people who align themselves against a govermental expansion oriented party have problems with said party emphasizing the pc movement as a good thing...

Especially when you have crap like that yale headline floating around about students who want to curtail the first amendment. I mean seriously, that shit will win votes all on its own against the democrats regardless of the platform a candidate is running on.

 

[pgtl_10]

Honestly, the left needs to feel comfortable criticising those on their own side of the watershed. Instead of always projecting coded language onto the disdain and challenge that comes their way.

No offense but your being vague and coded with this post.

 

[Abinash117]

Amazing article. Essentially the Republican base needs a leader so charismatic that he can get through to white america that theirs is a class struggle rather than a racial or religious one, and that inequality is the enemy. Essentially that the interest of white america no longer aligns with the interest of corporate america, which was long an accepted wisdom for Republicans.

He'd then need to use that wave of support to reform the Republican party from within without the help of the rich donors.

Trump is showing that the support is there for a candidate who goes against the party elite and addresses the concerns of the rank and file working american, but can it be turned to real reform of the party? Can the donors be beaten? And could someone who is less of a blathering pandering fool like Trump garner that support?

It's hard to imagine, but I'd like to think so. A good Republican party and strong Republican leader would surely have a positive effect on inequality in America, race relations, all sorts of things. Even if it was by not getting elected, but rather allowing the Dems to move rightwards.

I saw Cameron doing a lot of this in the last UK election.
-What Labour wanted you to believe: Tories are for rich people and big business only. We will help the disenfranchised and create a fairer society.
-What Cameron wanted you to believe: Tories are for the normal working man, not the oligarch. Anyone who works will do better under us. We won't give your money to those who don't work (those who don't deserve it), unlike the other crowd.

Ultimately Cameron's argument won the day pretty convincingly and Labour suffered an utter meltdown. The Republicans need to use a very, very similar argument to Cameron's to get their core base back, imo. And yes, that will mean being anti-immigration to a certain extent and willing to tax the richest higher than they'd like.

If the Republicans don't get back on track, you're going to see more and more nonsense like Trump and his call for a ban on Muslims. In european countries where the centre-right is weak the far-right has flourished. A centre-right that represents right-leaning people and prevents any being sucked into the far-right maelstrom of racist idiocy is really, really important imo.

As explained in the article any real reform that includes taking steps helping the middle class is going to be pushed back by a quite few Republicans and plus many Republicans already believe that cutting taxes, getting rid of certain government programs, etc will help the middle class. I don't think any of that will happen. Many donors, elites, and organizations already have tons of power inside the party. I think if the Trump loses the primary or even a general, it might just decrease the trust in the party even further, so I think it would very hard for Republicans to get on track. Many forces are against them for that to happen with many and/or big downsides if they take any path.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

White working class voters are marginalized as well. Finding a way to unite the white and minority working class is the panacea we need to restore sanity to our political system. A truly great leader would absolutely be attempting to accomplish this.

I just think that's impossible.

 

[Guevara]

The craziest thing is: these angry people are right.

Things really did used to be better for the white working class. Real income was better, the cost of everything from housing to education was lower, job security was more stable (which is very important for the working classes).

They tend to be wrong about the reasons though.

 

[LegendofJoe]

I just think that's impossible.

It isnt, incredibly difficult yes, but not impossible.

 

[jWILL253]

While I'm sympathetic to their qualms about income inequality and a dwindling middle class, the moment they start blaming it on people they view as "less deserving" (read: Blacks, Hispanics, etc.) and political correctness, my "negative fucks to give" mode activates.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I just think that's impossible.

As far back as Reconstruction, it has been a viable voting tactic to distance less than affluent whites from the less than affluent "others" by convincing white voters that there is a) solidarity in their whiteness and b) their daily calamities can be blamed on the "other".

The problems affecting the white middle class are the same affecting the black and Hispanic and Asian middle class. The reason the average office worker cannot afford a house in the neighborhood you went to school in is not because of affirmative action, planned parenthood, annual checkups for the poor, gay weddings, inner city drugs, and gardeners making pennies on the dollar.

But it's easy to convince people that making suppressed wages that every penny paid towards social services is preventing them from reaching the American dream.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

The immigration thing is huge for me. There is a legal means to become a citizen in this country and become a member of society. I have relatives who have accomplished this and have become tremendously successful in creating businesses and are very well off for themselves.

I don't see why we should pay for those who won't orcant go though the legal means to become citizens. And why it should be so offensive to think that if the law calls for it they should be deported. If the law is unreasonable, change the law.

I'm personally for simplifying the entire welfare and entitlements system to go to a state mandated minimum income. Something like $20k/yr per citizen with a clean record of any non-minor criminal offense. Raise the minimum wage alongside that and fund it by taxing the highest earning people.

Ensure that any living citizen with a clean criminal record has a baseline income to survive and I think it would improve every person's situation in this country.

Theres a lot of wrinkles to figure out (I think the severity of the crime would carry certain penalties for receipt of the minimum income, violent crimes prioritized over non-violent ones) but I think it would solve a lot of problems and curb a lot of abuse. Theres also kids- I think that income should start at birth and increase per year until it reaches the normal amount, but you only get it when you turn 18. And the government gives you half if you don't use it for higher education and complete high school.

Where did your relatives come from? Because, if my relatives wanted to come from Mexico the legal way, it can take 10+ years to do so.

 

[aeolist]

i have less sympathy for their anti-immigration policies just because mexico's problems are in large part thanks to america fucking them up for decades and empowering the cartels with money and guns

i can't see a good reason to refuse citizenship to someone who wants to come to america and contribute after we aided in the destruction of their homeland

 

[TyrantII]

It's true, partly because the country as a whole is more polarized towards extremes. Candidates reflect that. It wasn't always that way. You could be a "blue dog" democrat and stand to win in an ostensibly conservative state in the past. There aren't a lot of headlines to be grabbed by being a moderate nowadays. A moderate is what the republicans need, because their extremist candidates are completely unelectable.

The electorate, not the country. People don't realize it, but if more people vote, it has a moderating factor on both the politicians and the ability for single monied interests to wield power.

Sure your 1 vote might not win your guy the election, but its more importantly canceling out the vote of that bat shit insane asshole who thinks Armageddon is coming and will be swell. It also ensures both people running don't have to listen to him.

 

[Angelus Errare]

As far back as Reconstruction, it has been a viable voting tactic to distance less than affluent whites from the less than affluent "others" by convincing white voters that there is a) solidarity in their whiteness and b) their daily calamities can be blamed on the "other".

The problems affecting the white middle class are the same affecting the black and Hispanic and Asian middle class. The reason the average office worker cannot afford a house in the neighborhood you went to school in is not because of affirmative action, planned parenthood, annual checkups for the poor, gay weddings, inner city drugs, and gardeners making pennies on the dollar.

But it's easy to convince people that making suppressed wages that every penny paid towards social services is preventing them from reaching the American dream.

Yup.

 

[pa22word]

The craziest thing is: these angry people are right.

Things really did used to be better for the white working class. Real income was better, the cost of everything from housing to education was lower, job security was more stable (which is very important for the working classes).

They tend to be wrong about the reasons though.

The thing is, both sides are wrong about the reasons. At least in how they go about it on the stump.

Globalization and neoliberalism has killed labor in post industrial societies. Democrats tend to kind of just ignore this while speaking about better welfare so that people who get left behind might actually still be able to eat. The right has typically gone in the direction of pushing harder for market liberalization while spreading the message that everything will reach equilibrium eventually as long as we get the government out of the way.

To say that the working class people who swung right in the last 30 years are "voting against their interests" are missing a key point in that the latter actually /did/ work for the redder states as the cutting of business oriented taxes or outright tax breaks for corporations did bring industry to the smaller, more rural states over this time frame away from the bigger states. As the northest rusted, the mid and south west actually expanded industrial output as the lower cost of living per capita and the aforementioned tax breaks resulted in industrial labor that was vastly cheaper to produce in a rural state and export to a more expensive state. The key change is that the rise of china and other economies like it plus the hyper advancing of the actual logistics of moving things around have resulted in tipping the balance out of the favor of rural industrial output in the us and instead pushed it over to China, Vietnam, etc. What this has resulted in are these states going through essentially the same economic crisis that the northest did in the 70s "rust belt" era within the last 10-20 years, and as more jobs get lost the working class whites have been left holding the bag as labor moved away from them.

As things worse and worse in these states over time (oklahoma and kansas both are completely falling apart right now economically) I think these areas will undergo the same swing left that the northeast did, eventually. Trump's populism is just the birthing pains of it starting on the national stage, really.

At the end of the day what's caused all of this is that neoliberalism in the Milton fashion has just run its course in the us, and as the us moves further and further into post-idustrialism big government is going to have to pick up the slack. Establishment free market republicans have no where else to turn in the us anymore. They're a dying breed and they probably are finally starting to realize that in brutal fashion this time around. Personally, I say good fucking riddance

 

[TheFatOne]

It isnt, incredibly difficult yes, but not impossible.

Disagree it's an impossibility given all the racism in the U.S. That dream is long dead.

 

[Slayven]

 

[ezrarh]

Disagree it's an impossibility given all the racism in the U.S. That dream is long dead.

I agree with you, it's like a 300 year old strategy to pit poor whites against minorities - I don't think any one human will be able to overcome that.

 

[ISOM]

Basically can be summed up as, "They've been voting against their best interest for so long just so they can keep the others down that they didn't realize how badly they had fucked themselves too."

Now they're at a conflicting moment in their life. Continue to vote against their self interest and in the process fuck themselves over, or vote in their interest which also means the "others" benefit.

Pretty much. I can't sympathize with people who vote against their own self interest then complain about it afterwards.