Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

I'd be one thing if I was saying this without also wanting to make sure the government takes care of their health, food, homes, etc, but I'm not.

...

Most of them vote against the very government programs that are keeping them alive and at least somewhat okay and not under a bridge.

The government wants to hand them that money and resources to help them and they have seething anger against them for it. They don't want help.

So, let me read you something from Obama's paper.

For the households of men not in the labor force, other household members’ and spouses’ income are the key sources of income, comprising more income than their wage income, government income, and other income combined.

The government isn't helping these people. It barely does a thing compared to what their families and communities do - probably one of the reasons these people are turning inward. They survive off 'the fortunate ones' - those who are lucky enough to still have their well-paying jobs at one of the remaining factories. They don't see any evidence of these things the government/Democrats are talking about. Instead, they get their help from their family - the family that gets hit by the tax increases. So of course when Democrats say: we'll give you handouts, they say: no. Every last time the Democrats said that, it didn't work. The hand-out made very little difference, and the hand-out money came from the rest of the support network having to face higher taxes - except now the government skimmed some off as well. It gets even worse if they feel like the reason they're not seeing any difference is because 'the favoured groups' are getting the resources before they do (even if this isn't true).

EDIT: To add to this, I went and found this article again:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...american-politics-holds-secret-trumps-success

by Arlie Hochschild, the professor emeritus of sociology at Berkeley.

The American dream is a dream of progress – the idea that you are better off than your forebears, just as they superseded their parents – and it extends beyond money and stuff. You have suffered long hours, layoffs, and exposure to dangerous chemicals at work, and received reduced pensions. You have shown moral character through trial by fire, and the American dream of prosperity and security is a reward for all of this, showing who you have been and are – a badge of honour.

The sun is hot and the line unmoving. In fact, is it moving backwards? You have not had a raise in years, and there is no talk of one. Actually, if you are short a high school diploma, or even a BA, your income has dropped over the last 20 years.

...

Look! You see people cutting in line ahead of you! You are following the rules. They are not. As they cut in, it feels like you are being moved back. How can they just do that? Who are they? Some are black. Through affirmative action plans, pushed by the federal government, they are being given preference for places in colleges and universities, apprenticeships, jobs, welfare payments, and free lunches. Women, immigrants, refugees, public-sector workers – where will it end? Your money is running through a liberal sympathy sieve you do not control or agree with. These are opportunities you would have loved to have had in your day – and either you should have had them when you were young or the young shouldn’t be getting them now. It’s not fair.

If you want them to take your promises seriously, you need to explain to them how you're going to give them support in a way that's not robbing Peter to pay Paul. In other words... run a campaign on taxing the 1%. The elite, the establishment, Wall Street, the fat cats, the robber barons. That's the kind of populist leftism you need to run.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

More of these people have insurance than ever before. Anyone can easily just point that out to them. They have better health now than they did 8 years ago. They know this and admit it, and still vote against the very thing that helped them. The thing they know helped them because we know they know because they've said so. And yet they still vote to repeal it.

If you want them to take your promises seriously, you need to explain to them how you're going to give them support in a way that's not robbing Peter to pay Paul. In other words... run a campaign on taxing the 1%. The elite, the establishment, Wall Street, the fat cats, the robber barons. That's the kind of populist leftism you need to run.

There's no real evidence this is a winning strategy for the left. On the contrary, basically every politician pushing this from the left has lost.

Populism from the right, as in, mixed with racism and nationalism, has thus far proven effective. Populism from the left, bigger government, more programs, etc, has proven to not be effective at all for winning elections. Feingold lost. Bernie lost. Where's the proof this is the right direction?

 

[sphagnum]

When did we start becoming a rightwing party?

Well you know, the Democrats have been capitalists forever so

 

[shinra-bansho]

Oh we're back to sorry blacks and women then. White people need the opportunities you stole.

I guess we'll see how much people care about Wall St!!! when the Cabinet is made up of billionaires and bankers.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So did most of the Democrats running on the "liberal-but-not-leftist/corporate-Democrat" platform. The difference is, only one of those had control over the party platform.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Well you know, the Democrats have been capitalists forever so

I don't really feel there's anything particularly bad about a well regulated capitalist society.

So did most of the Democrats running on the "liberal-but-not-leftist/corporate-Democrat" platform. The difference is, only one of those had control over the party platform.

Those Democrats won the popular vote and gained some seats in the house. The Bernie crew got destroyed and their presidential candidate didn't even come close to winning his primary. Feingold got absolutely clobbered.

 

[Totakeke]

If you want them to take your promises seriously, you need to explain to them how you're going to give them support in a way that's not robbing Peter to pay Paul. In other words... run a campaign on taxing the 1%. The elite, the establishment, Wall Street, the fat cats, the robber barons. That's the kind of populist leftism you need to run.

So more misdirection? Just because we're taxing the 1% and are against "wall street" doesn't mean the money will go to them in a way that they want. The actual solutions directed to them will never sound as good on paper.

 

[sphagnum]

I don't really feel there's anything particularly bad about a well regulated capitalist society.

The part where the means of production are privately controlled and therefore "job creators" are able to ship jobs overseas and automate them away and the workers are laid off because they have no power over their own labor is pretty bad.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Oh we're back to sorry blacks and women then. White people need the opportunities you stole.

This is boring and tedious now. It just isn't a response, at all, in the slightest, to what I'm advocating, and just seems to be a comfort blanket for you to retreat to so you can ignore everything happening in the real word. It's interesting watching soul creator and pigeon talk about this because given that soul creator makes the same arguments as I do (he gives them better if anything but they're what I would hope to say) but is also a minority, it forces pigeon to actually engage with what is being said instead of also running to the same old "you can't be a leftist and also believe in racial justice because ???".

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The part where the means of production are privately controlled and therefore "job creators" are able to ship jobs overseas and automate them away and the workers are laid off because they have no power over their own labor is pretty bad.

Hence the well regulated part

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So more misdirection? Just because we're taxing the 1% and are against "wall street" doesn't mean the money will go to them in a way that they want. The actual solutions directed to them will never sound as good on paper.

Don't make it misdirection at all! Literally do your best to actually do it. Stop the corporate loopholes, cut down on corporate welfare, put a tax on capital - and then put that towards infrastructure, put that towards public transport, put that towards healthcare.

Labour Force participation rates for non-college men haven't been as low as they are now since before World War II. It's time for the New New Deal. And market it that way! Why did the Democrats ever let Trump have Make America Great Again? That should have been their slogan!

 

[kirblar]

The part where the means of production are privately controlled and therefore "job creators" are able to ship jobs overseas and automate them away and the workers are laid off because they have no power over their own labor is pretty bad.

No, this is a good thing.

The bad thing is the lack of an adequate welfare system in the US as a safety net to help people get through times like this without having to rely on private assistance.

Labor force participation rates for non-college Men are going to be a problem when jobs that require a warm body are in incredibly short supply.

 

[sphagnum]

Hence the well regulated part

Band aid to the root cause of the problem.

 

[Got the Shakes]

The video linked in this tweet makes my head spin. There are actually people who are willing to say out loud that they think California open allows voter fraud and that President Obama at some point was encouraging illegal immigrants to go and vote illegally. People who don't trust the MSM that are citing it as their source for their crazy "facts".

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/804329657244012544

 

[Totakeke]

Don't make it misdirection at all! Literally do your best to actually do it. Stop the corporate loopholes, cut down on corporate welfare, put a tax on capital - and then put that towards infrastructure, put that towards public transport, put that towards healthcare.

Taxing the rich is a very necessary thing, I don't think anyone will disagree here. However in terms of messaging I wonder if it sounds more of an appealing scapegoat than other religions and minorities. Look at how much republicans have support in terms of lowering taxes for the rich (which WWC aspire to be?). In the end, it's just a group of people to blame in terms of messaging.

 

[shinra-bansho]

This is boring and tedious now. It just isn't a response, at all, in the slightest, to what I'm advocating, and just seems to be a comfort blanket for you to retreat to so you can ignore everything happening in the real word. It's interesting watching soul creator and pigeon talk about this because given that soul creator makes the same arguments as I do (he gives them better if anything but they're what I would hope to say) but is also a minority, it forces pigeon to actually engage with what is being said instead of also running to the same old "you can't be a leftist and also believe in racial justice because ???".

I'm referring to the passage you decided to quote about affirmative action and the view that liberals are propping up blacks and women and immigrants at their expense.

It's correct in that this is a view held by these people. And your post implied pandering to this view by instead talking up a different bogeyman, and by corollary talking less about the minorities they view are taking away from them.

If you didn't want repetitive, boring and tedious you didn't need to lead everyone down the winding road of being empathetic towards Bernie against Wall St 2020. Because it will invariably rehash the same arguments.

 

[sc0la]

Since we are talking extreme hypotheticals of recess appointments that aren't happening: If Obama did recess appointed Garland, and it was challenged, and went to the Supreme Court, would Garland have to recuse himself? ;p

 

[Pixieking]

Don't make it misdirection at all! Literally do your best to actually do it. Stop the corporate loopholes, cut down on corporate welfare, put a tax on capital - and then put that towards infrastructure, put that towards public transport, put that towards healthcare.

Which was all Hillary's policies. Her messaging sucked, but dig deep into it, and this is what she was advocating (even the "Buffet Tax").

Labour Force participation rates for non-college men haven't been as low as they are now since before World War II. It's time for the New New Deal. And market it that way! Why did the Democrats ever let Trump have Make America Great Again? That should have been their slogan!

Because for a lot of the Dem base, America was never great. African-Americans, LGBTQ, abortion - all these things sucked 50+ years ago.

But, again, we're back to being able to market a specialised targeted message at different demographics. Unfortunately, the WWC base reacts positively to racism and blaming The Other, and negatively to talk about retraining and renewable energy jobs.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Since we are talking extreme hypotheticals of recess appointments that aren't happening: If Obama did recess appointed Garland, and it was challenged, and went to the Supreme Court, would Garland have to recuse himself? ;p

Obviously

Don't make it misdirection at all! Literally do your best to actually do it. Stop the corporate loopholes, cut down on corporate welfare, put a tax on capital - and then put that towards infrastructure, put that towards public transport, put that towards healthcare.

Labour Force participation rates for non-college men haven't been as low as they are now since before World War II. It's time for the New New Deal. And market it that way! Why did the Democrats ever let Trump have Make America Great Again? That should have been their slogan!

Because for Democrats America isn't really that bad right now and was much worse in the past. To be honest, if Hillary was nothing but pure status quo for 8 years, this country would have been fine and most people likely would have had decent lives.

But why would an African American want to make America great "again?" Or gay people?

Also the slogan implies Obama was a failure of the president, and that's not true and he's super popular.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Those Democrats won the popular vote and gained some seats in the house. The Bernie crew got destroyed and their presidential candidate didn't even come close to winning his primary. Feingold got absolutely clobbered.

Feingold got 46.8% of the vote in Wisconsin compared to 46.4% for Clinton - he only had less votes than her overall because lots of people don't bother voting for anyone other than President. So he's only clobbered if Clinton was even more clobbered; whereas you've been trying to sell me for the last 200 pages that Clinton was only barely beaten and needed minor structural changes at best.

But it's also some massively selective cherry-picking. Murphy was the centrist Democrat choice for Florida. He trailed Clinton by even more. Or Barksdale, in Georgia! But I note you're not citing this. I'll be fair to you though: I'm not going to cite them either. Why?

Because, in presidential election years, who a Senate candidate is doesn't matter. It accounts for a tiny fragment of the variation in how they perform. There were only two Democratic Senatorial candidates who outperformed Clinton by more than a standard deviation. Every Democratic candidate, regardless of their individual stances, is usually defined by the top ticket. And the top ticket was the liberal-but-not-leftist/corporate-Democrat.

 

[sc0la]

Obviously

But does he HAVE to? or is it just "visually important" to borrow phrase from the esteemed president elect.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Taxing the rich is a very necessary thing, I don't think anyone will disagree here. However in terms of messaging I wonder if it sounds more of an appealing scapegoat than other religions and minorities. Look at how much republicans have support in terms of lowering taxes for the rich (which WWC aspire to be?). In the end, it's just a group of people to blame in terms of messaging.

It's because of what that paper I linked to. Basically, for white men who are not participating in the labour force, over 60% of their 'income' comes from their household. The government is barely over 10% - they don't notice government support. It may as well not exist to them. But if you raise taxes, well, if someone in their household had money to support them they had money to be taxed, so they notice that indirectly. The Republicans win on this issue because people worry the taxes are going to hit your brother who still works at the steel mill and sends you a little bit of his paycheck on the weekends because you're family. That's why stressing the 1% is absolutely essential. It's what makes it work.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Because, in presidential election years, who a Senate candidate is doesn't matter. It accounts for a tiny fragment of the variation in how they perform. There were only two Democratic Senatorial candidates who outperformed Clinton by more than a standard deviation. Every Democratic candidate, regardless of their individual stances, is usually defined by the top ticket. And the top ticket was the liberal-but-not-leftist/corporate-Democrat.

If we stick just to presidential candidates, than we need to look no further than Bernie losing his primary for presidency. If the future of the party was Bernie's ideals, why did he lose by so much?

The primary is the time when the core Democrat base votes on who they want to be their candidate. They overwhelmingly picked Hillary and her ideals over Bernie and his ideals.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Because, in presidential election years, who a Senate candidate is doesn't matter. It accounts for a tiny fragment of the variation in how they perform. There were only two Democratic Senatorial candidates who outperformed Clinton by more than a standard deviation. Every Democratic candidate, regardless of their individual stances, is usually defined by the top ticket. And the top ticket was the liberal-but-not-leftist/corporate-Democrat.

Eh, we have a bunch of red state Democrats that got elected in places Obama lost in 2012, including McCaskill, Tester, and Heitkamp. The two Democrats who outran Clinton were Kander and Bayh, right?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Feingold got 46.8% of the vote in Wisconsin compared to 46.4% for Clinton - he only had less votes than her overall because lots of people don't bother voting for anyone other than President. So he's only clobbered if Clinton was even more clobbered; whereas you've been trying to sell me for the last 200 pages that Clinton was only barely beaten and needed minor structural changes at best.

But it's also some massively selective cherry-picking. Murphy was the centrist Democrat choice for Florida. He trailed Clinton by even more. Or Barksdale, in Georgia! But I note you're not citing this. I'll be fair to you though: I'm not going to cite them either. Why?

Because, in presidential election years, who a Senate candidate is doesn't matter. It accounts for a tiny fragment of the variation in how they perform. There were only two Democratic Senatorial candidates who outperformed Clinton by more than a standard deviation. Every Democratic candidate, regardless of their individual stances, is usually defined by the top ticket. And the top ticket was the liberal-but-not-leftist/corporate-Democrat.

Because god knows a further left wing maybe even socialist Senator candidate would have won in Florida...

Murphy under-performed Clinton because Rubio is a special case.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Because for Democrats America isn't really that bad right now and was much worse in the past. To be honest, if Hillary was nothing but pure status quo for 8 years, this country would have been fine and most people likely would have had decent lives.

These people were Democrats. They're no longer Democrats because America is rather bad for them right now.

Democrats aren't just middle class white suburbanites and black Americans. Or at least, if they are, then Democrats aren't going to win elections.

But why would an African American want to make America great "again?" Or gay people?

They don't, but bluntly put, this is politics. If you take gay Americans and black Americans and liberal city Americans and put them in a coalition, do you win the key swing states? If the answer is "no", you need to add to your coalition.

 

[mo60]

The video linked in this tweet makes my head spin. There are actually people who are willing to say out loud that they think California open allows voter fraud and that President Obama at some point was encouraging illegal immigrants to go and vote illegally. People who don't trust the MSM that are citing it as their source for their crazy "facts".

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/804329657244012544

A lot of the people that spout this stuff don't seem to understand that the main reason to why donald trump lost CA by nearly 4.2million votes and the national popular vote is not because of illegal immigrants but because he and the current brand of the republican party are really toxic to voters that live in states like CA. I don't expect Donald trump to win the popular vote in the next election if CA stays as blue as it is now.

 

[kirblar]

They do not want to be part of a coalition with minorities.

Period. Point blank. WWC unions didn't want a thing to do with BWC unions. Racial animosity and resentment has been THE thing that holds back progress in this country when it comes to the welfare state. These people live in areas that are super-segregated.

You have to ride the normal backlash wave, push a ton of stuff through, because they will turn on you the moment you haven't given them a unicorn shitting gold.

 

[pigeon]

Democrats aren't just middle class white suburbanites and black Americans. Or at least, if they are, then Democrats aren't going to win elections.

Right. We keep being on the same page. Except then your next step is "therefore we have to find a way to include people who support white nationalism" and my next step is "therefore America just doesn't work for people of color as currently constituted."

I think my analysis is stronger assuming that civil rights are relevant.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Eh, we have a bunch of red state Democrats that got elected in places Obama lost in 2012, including McCaskill, Tester, and Heitkamp. The two Democrats who outran Clinton were Kander and Bayh, right?

It wasn't just outran - most Democratic senatorial candidates (including Feingold) actually outran Clinton, she was clearly a drag on the ticket. It was outran by more than a standard deviation, so: if you suppose that someone is x% likely to vote Clinton and y% likely to vote for (D) candidate, can we conclude that y>x. I must admit, when I read this I was lazy and just assumed it was Bayh as well (and I think I said as much incorrectly 50 pages back or so) but he was actually just inside the margins, not quite outrunning Clinton significantly enough. Surprisingly, it was Kander and Blumenthal.

I'll admit I know absolutely nothing about Blumenthal, but DW-Nominate tells me he's quite leftist. As I said though, I'm not going to use that as evidence, because I think the overwhelming case is that the party is defined by their top-ticket and it takes an exceptional sequence of events for that not to be the case.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Seriously, that you think MAGA is something the Democrats should have run on basically highlights why your campaign on the 1% is never going to fly if that's how at odds it is with a big chunk of the base and how despite saying no minorities aren't going to be left out, in practice it doesn't work.

MAGA is catchy as a slogan.
It's a catchy coded language slogan. To white people, in particular men.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Band aid to the root cause of the problem.

Not necessarily. The workers having "control of the means of production" via strong rules and regulations imposed by their duly elected government as to how businesses may operate is a perfectly viable solution to most of the major problems of capitalism, and it's not like socialism has acquitted itself as somehow less free of problems.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Right. We keep being on the same page. Except then your next step is "therefore we have to find a way to include people who support white nationalism" and my next step is "therefore America just doesn't work for people of color as currently constituted."

I think my analysis is stronger assuming that civil rights are relevant.

They don't support white nationalism as white nationalism, though. They're not saying: Trump is a white nationalist, therefore I will vote for him (I mean, some of them are, but we're never winning them and I don't ever want to have to win them). They're saying: Trump says some bad stuff. But he'll bring the jobs back. And I've done my dues and I've worked hard my life and I always played by the rules, and so damn right I deserve my job. I'm sorry for the blacks, but they're not offering me a job.

So... offer them a job. And no, that's not an end to racism. They're not supporting you unconditionally. They don't have any intrinsic care for your cause. They probably don't care too much if you're racially discriminated against. But they'll still vote for the coalition that does care about those things, and will bring them to you. And that's probably the best you can do.

 

[pigeon]

The part where the means of production are privately controlled and therefore "job creators" are able to ship jobs overseas and automate them away and the workers are laid off because they have no power over their own labor is pretty bad.

Seems fine, just have the government buy all the labor.

 

[pigeon]

They don't support white nationalism as white nationalism, though. They're not saying: Trump is a white nationalist, therefore I will vote for him (I mean, some of them are, but we're never winning them and I don't ever want to have to win them). They're saying: Trump says some bad stuff. But he'll bring the jobs back. And I've done my dues and I've worked hard my life and I always played by the rules, and so damn right I deserve my job. I'm sorry for the blacks, but they're not offering me a job.

So... offer them a job. And no, that's not an end to racism. They're not supporting you unconditionally. They don't have any intrinsic care for your cause. They probably don't care too much if you're racially discriminated against. But they'll still vote for the coalition that does care about those things, and will bring them to you. And that's probably the best you can do.

In other words, spend the rest of my life living on the knife's edge, worried that the Nazis will make these people a better deal than I will one year, and give my daughter the same life.

Not appealing.

 

[mo60]

I don't know if this was posted here yet but another elector a democratic elector in washington state plans to not vote for hilary clinton and instead to vote for a moderate republican.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ovement-seeking-to-deny-trump-the-presidency/

 

[excelsiorlef]

They don't support white nationalism as white nationalism, though. They're not saying: Trump is a white nationalist, therefore I will vote for him (I mean, some of them are, but we're never winning them and I don't ever want to have to win them). They're saying: Trump says some bad stuff. But he'll bring the jobs back. And I've done my dues and I've worked hard my life and I always played by the rules, and so damn right I deserve my job. I'm sorry for the blacks, but they're not offering me a job.

So... offer them a job. And no, that's not an end to racism. They're not supporting you unconditionally. They don't have any intrinsic care for your cause. They probably don't care too much if you're racially discriminated against. But they'll still vote for the coalition that does care about those things, and will bring them to you. And that's probably the best you can do.

If given a choice between

Trump: Magically I'll give you your jobs back and minorities are to blame btw

and someone like Sanders:Magically I'll give you your jobs and the rich and wall-st are to blame btw...

I think I know who a lot of them would pick...

 

[Deleted member 231381]

In other words, spend the rest of my life living on the knife's edge, worried that the Nazis will make these people a better deal than I will one year, and give my daughter the same life.

Not appealing.

What's your choice? Poor people live with that too - they spend most of their lives in Western economies hoping that they can make the middle classes a better offer than the rich classes do. Frequently, they lose, and you get governments that give not a damn about them. Their jobs go overseas, their houses get repossessed, their children die due to drug abuse, their communities fall apart. I hate to break it to you, pigeon, but blackness is not the only way to suffer in modern America.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I don't know if this was posted here yet but another elector a democratic elector in washington state plans to not vote for hilary clinton and instead to vote for a moderate republican.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ovement-seeking-to-deny-trump-the-presidency/

What kind of weed are those electors on?

 

[shinra-bansho]

When did they say they're sorry for the blacks? ANES data, PRRI survey, other studies from this election don't show remorse for having to vote against the interest of minorities. It shows it as motivator. It is an implicit part of the appeal of MAGA.

WWC are more aligned to the GOP when it comes to racial issues. Even separating out the Southern from memory.

 

[dramatis]

I don't know if this was posted here yet but another elector a democratic elector in washington state plans to not vote for hilary clinton and instead to vote for a moderate republican.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ovement-seeking-to-deny-trump-the-presidency/

They have a strategy that hinges on the Republicans wanting to compromise, which has about as good of a track record as a pig managing to fly.

What sort of dumb idiocy is it that you don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton because of Bernie Sanders, but then you're super willing to give your vote to a moderate Republican?

 

[Veritigo_X]

The part where the means of production are privately controlled and therefore "job creators" are able to ship jobs overseas and automate them away and the workers are laid off because they have no power over their own labor is pretty bad.

I feel like automation was going to be a problem regardless of who controlled production. Even the idea of automating some tasks while keeping those same workers on to do other non-automated tasks can only go on for so long as those tasks then become automated (and so on). Kicking those workers along just seems like another band aid of sorts.

 

[RastaMentality]

Warren says she'd support Scott Brown for VA secretary.

Elizabeth Warren tells @JimandMargery she would support Scott Brown, her long-time nemesis, for VA; says he’d put his heart into it #mapoli

https://twitter.com/kseelye/status/804362921950269440

 

[Deleted member 231381]

When did they say they're sorry for the blacks? ANES data, PRRI survey, other studies from this election don't show remorse for having to vote against the interest of minorities. It shows it as motivator. It is an implicit part of the appeal of MAGA.

WWC are more aligned to the GOP when it comes to racial issues. Even separating out the Southern from memory.

This is from a radio quote I've tried to make a transcript from, so excuse me if a few words aren't right. It's from Dan Cassino, looking at data from the 2012 and 2016 American National Election Survey.

in the 2008 and 2012 data we have, you didn't see much of a unification of people with racial resentment, economic resentment and gender based resentment and by 2016 we're seeing all of those seem to be forming one dimension. That is, people who in the past were against gay rights weren't necessarily showing levels of racial resentment, by 2016 we're seeing those attitudes are starting to merge and we're getting one coherent political dimension that looks like the alt right.

in 2012 we asked in the american national election survey whether men were being discriminated against (which seems like an odd thing to ask in America that's why we didn't ask it before), and we found that somewhere around 20% of republicans said that men were being discriminated against in America. In 2016 that number more than doubled, we're up to about 45% of republican men say that men are facing discrimination in America. The idea is that white men, driven largely by economic resentment are being driven to accepting all of these views that were previously very very fringe views held mostly by white nationalists. The idea that jews and women and homosexuals are corrupting the political system and getting all of these extra benefits from it, that was not something we were seeing in mainstream ideology before.

But what's happened is that we have enormous levels of economic resentment, the way we haven't seen previously since we've been doing these studies since the 1960s, [my note: I actually checked the data and economic resentment is at its highest in the postwar period] by economic resentment I mean people saying that the economic system is rigged against them, people like them cannot find a job, and that level of economic resentment that we saw coming out of the 2008 recession (remember that early on sociologists called it a 'mansession' and it was disproportionately white men losing their jobs, that has lead to this racial gender and other resentments coming forward.

So people have been trying to sell this alt right ideology for 20, 30 or more years, pat Buchanan has been trying to sell it personally for 20 years and it never got any traction until very recently, and it turns out what was missing was that economic resentment where white blue collar men no longer feel like they can get ahead in society, increasingly they are blaming what they feel are special interest groups...[and that ties into all these other groups, we're seeing...] higher levels for instance of anti Semitism which is something we actually took off most of these surveys because no one was admitting to anti-Semitic attitudes any more, and we're now seeing people on surveys saying that 'Jews tend to stick together', that 'jews are greedy'. People are willing to say things to an interviewer that simply weren't socially acceptable before.

What you're seeing - this conflation of racism and economic anxiety amongst white people without college degrees - is fundamentally new. It's not the normal state of affairs. And it is happening because only one group told them they had the answers to economic anxiety, and it told them the answer was to get rid of the Other.

That is why it is *enormously* important that the Democrats come up with their own answer. Because otherwise, neofascism will grow and spread and it will be terrifying.

 

[pigeon]

What's your choice? Poor people live with that too - they spend most of their lives in Western economies hoping that they can make the middle classes a better offer than the rich classes do. Frequently, they lose, and you get governments that give not a damn about them. Their jobs go overseas, their houses get repossessed, their children die due to drug abuse, their communities fall apart. I hate to break it to you, pigeon, but blackness is not the only way to suffer in modern America.

Comparing poverty to legitimized state violence and repression is beneath you.

Also, as always, this ignores the degree to which poverty in America is explicitly designed as state violence against people of color. I think you could make a strong argument that, to the degree poverty exists in America AT ALL, it is as a component of the ongoing campaign of repression of people of color.

 

[sphagnum]

Not necessarily. The workers having "control of the means of production" via strong rules and regulations imposed by their duly elected government as to how businesses may operate is a perfectly viable solution to most of the major problems of capitalism, and it's not like socialism has acquitted itself as somehow less free of problems.

There's a difference between ownership over and regulation over the MOP though. The latter continues to allow the capitalist class to exist, hence the contnual, neverending struggle between labor and capital.

I feel like automation was going to be a problem regardless of who controlled production. Even the idea of automating some tasks while keeping those same workers on to do other non-automated tasks can only go on for so long as those tasks then become automated (and so on). Kicking those workers along just seems like another band aid of sorts.

If the workers ran the show, they'd be able to use automation to scale back the amount of hours they have to work while still getting to maintain or even better their standards of living. String this out long enough and you might even get communism if post scarcity is actually possible/sustainable. We're already heading in that way in a moderated form with talk of basic income, it just would've been an easier transition without two classes in opposition to each other.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Comparing poverty to legitimized state violence and repression is beneath you.

Poverty is legitimized state violence and repression. The state enforces the private property system through force, and poverty is when it uses that force to repress you. They're not separate. I'd rather be black and middle class than white and with no job (or hope for one; I'm talking about being the economic dropout the paper mentions here). Now, that's overly facile - the two are deeply interconnected. Poverty is the main means through which blackness is oppressed. But the comparison is absolutely valid.

Also, as always, this ignores the degree to which poverty in America is explicitly designed as state violence against people of color.

No, actually. See above. I do think poverty is a weapon used against black people. But it is also a weapon used against the poor in general.

 

[Drakeon]

Breaking from LATimes, Xavier Becerra to be tapped to replace California AG Kamala Harris as California's new AG.
link

 

[nature boy]

P.S.: Also the fear that United had that it would lose federal contracts.

 

[kirblar]

Ben Sasse ‏@BenSasse 2h2 hours ago

In thinking about manufacturing job change, consider history of ag:

1790: 90% of workers were farmers
1840: 69%
1900: 38%
1960 8%
1980s: 3%

We should be honest that there will be more, not less, job change in the future. We should be encouraging prep for disruption & retraining.

His idea that politicians should be honest about this is hilarious, but change is the way of the world. Need to get policies in place to help smooth it for people.