Younge writes: "So white people who are struggling financially are going to vote Republican. And not by a narrow margin."
The late author, Joe Bageant, who wrote a book on how Democrats have lost the political support of poor rural whites and how the Republican Party has convinced these individuals to vote against their own economic self-interest. (photo: Joe Bageant.com)
Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
27 May 12
The white working class is said to 'vote against its own interests'. This only exposes the patronising assumptions of their accusers.
o white people who are struggling financially are going to vote Republican. And not by a narrow margin. Asked in a recent Washington Post poll which candidate would do more to advance their families' economic interests, middle-class white voters who said they were struggling to maintain their financial positions chose Mitt Romney. And not by a small margin. In this category he beats Barack Obama by 58% to 32%.
Such news is generally greeted on the left by a mixture of despair and ridicule. Here is a group of people, it seems, who simply do not understand what's good for them. Whites without college degrees, as reasonable if flawed an indicator of "class" in this country as exists, backed John McCain by 58 to 40 in 2008 and George W Bush in 2004 and 2000 by similar amounts. Failing to sense the liberation the Democrats have in store for them, they have been seized by a collective bout of false consciousness and are once again set to vote against their own interests. Having thus infantilised them as ostensible adults in need of protection against themselves, progressives will then wonder why this particular group of people do not flock to them at the polls.
There are several problems with this response - not least the condescension towards a group that too many liberals feel too comfortable disparaging - but for now let's just concentrate on two.
First, it interprets interests too narrowly. As a well-paid journalist, I vote against my economic interests when I support parties that favour wealth redistribution. That's because my own economic interests are not the only things that interest me when I vote. I have a vision of a society that I'd like to live in that goes beyond my own bank account.
It's patronising in the extreme to assume that poorer white people don't understand that. I may disagree with their decisions to vote on issues like abortion and gay marriage, but it's a different thing entirely to suggest that when they prioritise those things it's because they don't know what's best for them. Paradoxically, given that this argument comes from liberals, it is underpinned by an insistence not that they be less selfish, but more.
Secondly, if they were voting on economic issues alone, that might be a reason not to vote Republican but it's not necessarily a reason to vote Democrat. With unemployment still about 8%, many of the benefits of healthcare reform still to kick in and bankers still running amok, it's not like Democrats are offering much that would support the economic interests of the poor, regardless of their race. It was Bill Clinton who cut welfare, introduced the North American Free Trade Agreement and repealed the Glass-Steagall Act - which helped make the recent crisis possible. If you were going to trade your religious beliefs for economic gain, you could be forgiven for demanding a better deal than that.
Indeed, the people most likely to have voted Democrat four years ago - the young, the black and Latinos - are among the groups that have fared worse under Obama. And all the polls suggest they're about to do it again, albeit in lesser numbers. One could just as easily argue that they are the dupes. Democrats have no god-given right to the votes of the poor of any race and for the past 30 years can hardly claim to have earned them.
In a country where class politics and class organisations are weak, it's too easy to dump on the white working class as a bunch of know-nothings when the problem is a political class that is a bunch of do-nothings. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem here. When asked which candidate is most likely to advance the economic interests of you or your family, white people backed Romney 50 to 37 while non-whites backed Obama 71 to 22. That kind of discrepancy cannot just be put down to white people being better off.
Since the mid-60s Republicans have seen an electoral opportunity in appealing to the basest, racist sentiments of a section of the white electorate. What became known as the "Nixon strategy" aimed to use the dog whistle of racial symbolism - like "Welfare Queens" and "Willie Horton" - to draw white southerners into the Republican fold and peel off disaffected whites in the north too. It worked. Since the second world war, Democrats have won the presidency with the white vote alone only once - in 1964. One of the appeals for some whites of voting Republican is a desire to maintain whatever limited racial privileges they have acquired over the years combined with a fear that what little they have will be taken away by feckless non-whites and undocumented migrants. While in Nevada in 2010 I asked a white Republican without health insurance why she wouldn't support a candidate who might give it to her. "I never really got into that Obamacare insurance stuff," she said. "My mind is focusing 250% on this illegal immigration."
None of this means all Republican supporters are racist. But it does suggest they make their appeal on racial grounds and, as the poll shows, it is effective. But it won't be for ever. Whites will be a minority in the US in about 30 years. Republicans' appeal to Latinos is already pitifully low and has made several western states, including Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, extremely competitive.
Nonetheless, time and again during the Republican primaries Republicans evoked racial themes in the whitest places. "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," said Rick Santorum in Sioux City. "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."
"Right," said one audience member, as another woman nodded.
"And provide for themselves and their families," Santorum added.
The black population of Sioux City is 2.9%. In Woodbury County, in which Sioux City sits, 13% of the people are on food stamps, an increase of 26% since 2007, with nine times as many whites as blacks using them.
Just a few days later, in Plymouth, New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich said: "I will go to the NAACP convention and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks [instead of] food stamps." African-Americans make up 0.8% of Plymouth's population. Food stamp use in Grafton County is 6% - a 48% increase since 2007.
Those who are struggling and believe Romney will improve their economic lot are wrong, regardless of their race. Eight years of George W Bush proved that. But it does not follow automatically from that that their home should be supporting Democrats under whom things have gotten less bad less quickly. True, those are the only two choices on offer. But if you're poor they are not great choices. What they need is a party that represents their interests. In a country where corporate money chooses the candidates and therefore shapes the debate that will demand a change in politics, not just politicians.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 23 May 2013
|
 24 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
|
23 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
You are wrong!Clinton's eight years were great for the country! He even left us with a surpplus deficit! Have your memory cells gone to sleep? REPUBLICAN administrations all have made things worse! Bush II worst of all. Obama is still trying to clean up his mess but the idiot republicans in the house block him at every turn. Vote Democratic!
I totally support Obama but he's republican the way they were before radicals stole the party. Aside from his many personality flaws, Nixon was left of Obama. I don't have a solution as long as rethugs have $$, power, and a propaganda network. They want to destroy public education so they can implement their Fascist agenda. As long as
population is constantly mis informed, besides being racist and afraid of anyone who doesn't descend from the Mayflower, we are doomed.
Unfortunately for many of us, the right wing controls almost ALL the media, print AND TV, so they can get their message out. It is a lot harder for the democrats to be heard. And the republicans in any discussion on TV talks nonstop, they don't let the democrat get a word in edgewise. They are ruthless and rude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vlxJXfdemW8
It is cowardly; it is wrong; it is apparently "American".
Clinton had to play the only game in town and it was the R's game.
When Obama lost the majority in the House, he lost control of the agenda. He had a majority for a while (a very short while) but it was not filibuster proof. We need to get the House and the Senate a Democratic super majority in order to get Obama's agenda passed. It is then we can judge his motives and if his agenda works.
I believe if we preserve the constitution we can avoid totalitarianism . There are checks and balances inherent in that document.
True, the immediate and short term costs associated with 9/11, as well as the negative economic fallout from that (in tandem with the recession caused by the dot.com collapse) added a bit more to the inevitable reversal of fortunes.
And Bush's stimulus (tax cuts - and the D's tax rebates of 2001) added a bit more (during this 2001-2003 stretch). At the end of 2003 - the deficit stood at $378 billion (had little to do with Bush).
Bush is more responsible for the longer term costs associated with the Iraq War - the continued costs (minus stimulus effect) of the tax cuts - sizable increases in entitlement spending, as well as education and veterans (right out of the starting gate), and of course the historic first of providing Seniors with their first Rx drug benefit w/Medicare.
I personally hold him responsible for not pulling the plug on the housing bubble - as I hold Clinton for the dot.com bubble.
Then why did "that" suddenly stop working in March 2000 forward? Why isn't it working now?
Because the 1% wanted to grab the increased revenue for themselves and no, 1%ers hoard money, they don't spend it on what makes the economy go round.
You say: "the immediate and short term costs associated with 9/11,"
SHORT TERM costs?
http://costsofwar.org/
Don't forget the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and now Pakistan. How about $3-4 Trillion?
The stock market has basically recovered and corporations are sitting on a lot of cash. (From NPR)"1,600-plus U.S.-based companies it (Moodys) rates had $1.2 trillion in cash at the end of 2010."
Currently, it is Republican obstructionism that I hold responsible for not getting us out of the economic ditch we are in, however it is we got here.
I'd ask you read more carefully what I offered. We were talking of why the Clinton era surpluses - and projected future surpluses - vanished almost over night, and were replaced by huge deficits.
The surpluses turned into massive deficits by 2003. They were long gone.
The total cost of the Iraq war through the end of 2003 was roughly $54 billion. The total cost of the stimulus (tax cuts - the static cost - was about $325 billion thru the end of 2003 (less than 1/2 the cost of the Obama stimulus, if you will). However, the shift in fortunes - the delta - from the projected surplus to realized deficits was $1.3 Trillion.
From that point on - yes - one can associate much of the continued piling on of debt to Bush policies (or lack of policies) and war costs.
The important point to understand is that the surpluses were turned into massive deficits almost overnight "mostly" because of the economic fallout from the collapse of the Clinton era economy (the dot.com bubble).
The "short term" I referred to is the 2001-2003 stretch (3 yrs). The claim for the past 10 years has been that Bush caused the surpluses to disappear and turned them into massive deficits. That view holds little to no truth. Any economist will tell you the same thing - if they were asked. Krugman and Baker are on record in agreeing.
My point was to look at the total history and where we are now. We are in this ditch due to war spending and tax cuts policies of the Republicans.
Since you want to invoke Krugman: “EGTRRA (Bush’s 1st tax cut package) arrived in the middle of a recession (2001), but that was an accident. It was devised in 1999, when the economy was booming, to defend Bush’s right flank against Steve Forbes. During the 2000 campaign, Bush sold it as a way of returning budget surpluses to the people, with not a hint that it had something to do with fighting recession. The recession story was an after-the-fact reinvention.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bush-tax-cut-mythology/
Clinton’s and Reagan's lowering of cap gains taxes encouraged investment along with the fall of the Asian currencies. Many investors pulled their money out of Asia and into American companies, a lot of them into .coms.
Clinton ended "Welfare as We Know It" which didn't lift welfare mothers out of poverty but made care of children even more difficult with low paid jobs and child care expenses NAFTA was a disaster as susienoodle observed.
It was also 47 Democrats who made passage of S1789 possible in the Senate on April-25-12.
This bill,if passed would further weaken the chance of OTHER workers to work for a living wage rather than work for a barely surviving wage.
This bill and HR2309 would eliminate 100,000 postal jobs, further cripple the USPS unions who CANNOT legally strike,cut compensation for injured workers,and end it for those 65 and older.
As for the public, curb side delivery, post office box rental will be encouraged, smaller post offices closed,200+ distribution centers closed.
Congress passed a law in 2006 that mandated the USPS to fund 75 years of retiree health benefits in 10. The USPS had managed to have income=costs until this law saddled them with 5.5 billion a year above their operating expenses.
So the point of all of this if possible is to check the voting record of Congress members. Too often there seems to be NO good choices.
I do recall that 13 Republicans voted against S1789.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsPIY9bFFZY
After the housing bubble got started - as with any bubble - everyone piled on to make money; real estate brokers were deeply involved in most every deal. Those who were re-financing to pull equity out for whatever -- everyone.
Here's a piece of the timeline - in addition to Cuomo ordering banks to lower lending standards to linoleum level:
Countrywide, Fannie Ink Pact Nat'l Mortgage News/SourceMedi a, Inc., July 9, 1999
http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/dailybriefing/1999_131/-388557-1.html
How'd that work out for Mozilo?
Well, by the end of 2000 -- Mortgagestats.c om Ranks Countrywide Home Loans No. 1 in Lending to minorities
http://www.minorityprofessionalnetwork.com/News/Countrywide.htm
Now read this one - just two pages - Massive - historic stimulus, it is:
Oct. 2000 - HUD ANNOUNCES NEW REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE $2.4 TRILLION IN MORTGAGES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 28.1 MILLION FAMILIES
http://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/pr00-317.html
Those who created the bubble - which led to this immense pain and suffering - should be held accountable.
Separate the entire saga - from the mid-90's to the collapse of the housing bubble - to the credit meltdown in the fall of 2008 - into stages.
Wall street was not out peddling homes to poor minorities, in 1999.
The housing bubble was created by the federal government ordering up lower standards on lending requirements - from banks; ordering Fannie/Freddie to guarantee "$trillions" for those loans; and from the immense organized effort on the ground (yes ACORN and local organizing - knocking on doors, handing out flyers, etc., telling tens of millions of poor minorities that they could now purchase a home with little or no income. Major goals were set by HUD. Fannie/Freddie were to package up (by order of HUD) these mortgages into portfolios and ordered to peddle them to Wall Street - to spread out the risk.
Next - everyone jumps on the bandwagon, as interest rates are pushed lower (country was reeling from the dot.com collapse - then 9/11) and because of the "tens of millions of new home buyers in the market (think supply demand curves) prices of R/E continued to rise meteorically (they were already too high in 2000). As prices rose - everyone wants in - jumps in. It's a frigging feeding frenzy.
The twin financial deregulation's only play a role in the other sector of this game - later on. Clinton still argues that it did not. But that had nothing to do with the housing bubble.
Perhaps - and only later on - your point adds to the top of the housing bubble.
But obviously when the government is seeking to push 28 million poor minorities into buying a home for the first time, and they lay out the new financing rules for them - you're going to have a bubble. Then the greed - I want in too - factor play in.
NAFTA? NAFTA could only be a drag on that housing bubble - as it probably cost us jobs.
Congress wanted housing but relied on a false sense of security that banks had integrity since the banks supplied them with favors and helped them get elected. Banks were in this housing bubble for their own profit - nothing else... No humanitarian deed was to be fullfilled by Wall Street greed - just flat out rape of the American public handed to them on a silver plater with no oversight by dimwitted lightboobs sitting in federal and state House and Senate seats. Much like the bailouts.
Now there is a difference. Bush did attempt to reign in some of the risk from the housing bubble early on (2003-2005 stretch, well, according to the NYT's --
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." NY Times Sept. 10, 2003.
But the progressive left blocked this and all other efforts.
In the end, however, this housing bubble he inherited was about all the economy we had going. (Obama's to have the same problem - what economy?)
My point with Baker was, both w/ Clinton and Bush, as they approached the end of their respective terms - clearly understanding the danger of the bubbles - they couldn't bring themselves to go public and pull the string. Obviously, in both, the earlier they pop, the less damage will result.
But then you erred - if Bush played it the way you seem to imply (as would have Clinton), why not help the bubble continue into the next administration - so it can collapse on their watch - let your economy grow all the way up to the end.
Then, the dot.com (Enron) crash could have been Bush's, and the housing collapse and resultant credit crisis - Obama's?
The three co-sponsors of the Gramm-Leach-Bli ley Act were:
Sen. Phil Gramm - R
Rep. Jim Leach - R
Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. - R
The Republicans held a majority in congress at the time, 1999.
The final version of the Gramm-Leach-Bli ley Act passed the House by a vote of 362-57 and the Senate by a vote of 90-8. The bill was "veto proof".
Clinton would not have been able to stop the dismantling of G-S even if he wanted to.
Reply to Smiley
As for the poor whites voting Republican, that has always surprised me, I saw that with Bush Cheney, I was driving through Las Vegas in the poor part of the city and there were Bush/Chaney bumper stickers in the windows...and I thought at the time they were idiots voting against their own best interest...
As I have said before, the IQ level in America is low in comparison to Europe, and that is the reason advertisements are geared to a high school level! We are dealing with what the Banks refers to as “the poor white trash”, Joe six pack. Poorly educated as they want the rest of America to be, that way they control as we don’t have the intellect to think for our selves, and will work for peanuts.
Americans also don't have the ability to see the BIG picture and so vote narrowily on one issue that interests them instead of looking at ALL the issues.
As it stands now, I don't see any hope of turning this around. Not when most of the "news" people get is from pundits rather than real news sources. Of course, the latter requires the ability to think and analyze, which is in short supply.
He is absolutely wrong when he says the two choices offered to the poor are poor ones, if you were to completely remove the obstruction of the Republicans, the Democrats would offer a much better choice.
When Mr. Young points out Clinton's welfare reform, he fails to mention that Clinton was forced into it by the Republican majority in Congress. With Democrats controlling Congress, that would have had an entirely different outcome.
Remember that saying that the left made fun of "keep your government hands off my medicare and medicaid?" No socialized medicine they would say because Obamacare is in their minds socialized medicine and that means the poor get less of what was inadequate to begin with.
It didn't happen when GWB was president, gee, there was still dental and vision care, now nada, zip, zilch, unless you have a few hundred dollars left over from your below poverty level income from SS or disability. So go figure why many poor people vote for Republicans because the poor fare worse under democrats.
People do vote against their own interests, but the key is that they (we) have not one interest but many. The GOP realizes the false assumption is that we don't really vote to support certain interests (usually nebulous & longer term) than we do in fear of losing other interests (values) in the near term.
Beyond that, it's that people's values can be determined (response) with propaganda (stimulus), again it's usually about promoting irrational fears. The irrational actor is far more powerful than the rational actor -- especially an ignorant rational actor.
The GOP understands this idea (which Lakoff speaks of as framing). The dems (and those this author attacks) seem fixated on the rational actor fallacy.
More than that, what's happening is that it's easier to frame irrational values when the political choices are pretty nebulous themselves: known evil (GOP) vs. lesser evil (dems). People (even those that vote GOP) feel screwed by both sides. Once such confusion & anarchy exists, demagogues are quick to exploit it.
Big fat guess as to whether, if folks take the time and make the effort to vote, their vote will honestly be counted. And, no consequences for all the election fraud/disenfran chisement, only "Well, the polls told us it was going to be a close election." Duh. Like polls can't be a too often are rigged by the 1%, to assist in the election fraud.
Evil is nothing new, and the evil takeover, worldwide, by the evil 1% greed and power addicted villainaires has been a longtime coming. And, I honestly don't think this country can stand 4 more years of neither Romney nor Oh Bomb Ah. OWSers, many of whom are among the poor, chant it best:
GLOBAL REVOLUTION IS THE SOLUTION !!!
What happened in 2010, the virtual slaughter of the Dems at the polls, was easily predictable because of Obama's failure to come across with his promise of change, & please don't put all of the blame on the Repubs as obstructionists . The Repubs made no attempt to hide their goal & their strategy early on. What was it that the Dems didn't understand about Mitch McConnell's threat in Jan of 2009 to do whatever was necessary to make Obama a one-term pres?
Ask yourself why Bush was able to ramrod his agenda thru Congress, not just over the objections of the moderate Repubs, but even over what is supposed to be the opposition party, the Dem Party? Bush & Cheney were ruthless in their efforts to achieve their agenda, & 9/11 sure helped them in that effort. They had no intentions of cooperating or compromising with the Dems.
After McConnell's threat in Jan of 2009, Obama & the Senate Dems should've done to the Repubs what Bush & the Repubs threatened to do to the Dems if they blocked any of Bush's nominees for the SCOTUS, kill the filibuster via the nuclear option, kill the 60 vote requirement to pass anything in the Senate, but, being gutless wonders, they failed to do this.
I have tried to find any of my right-wing friends who will admit that any of the traditional GOP policies were a mistake. The hawkish overreaction to perceived threats from abroad is my favorite example that brought us the Iraq war. I also am alarmed at the blanket notion of casting aside any and all environmental regulation (for instance the environmental review of the Keystone Pipeline.) We are having to tippy-toe out of Iraq. Some of us are realizing that we will probably have to help with the so far uncalculated clean-up costs of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Consequences of GOP like behavior never seem to form themselves into anything that looks like a lesson.
Dems know this without crowing much about it amd I agree with you that they should. The GOP never get it at all. Past failures should give us that tingly feeling that we might just have been here before. This only happens when we admit that we have.
By avoiding obvious facts (think global warming denial) and blaming only your opponent for all of life’s problems (think the economy) the GOP demonstrates why we should not give them any more power or any sharp tools either.
Having stated what I just did, I'm vehemently disgusted in what the Republican Party has turned into over the decades, especially since Nixon was president, and, coming in a close 2nd, I do not like what the Democratic Party has turned into. What this country dearly needs is a strong 3rd political party, or perhaps a 4th to compete against the 2 current political parties that have become completely corrupted.
In a twisted sense, since the Republican Party has become so evil in their policies, my posting actually glorifies them in that for the past 4 decades, they in fact have known exactly what they were doing & what their agenda would bring about, but they didn't care. They weren't acting in a naive & stupid sense as you seem to imply in your posting. It is the Democratic Party that I truly condemn for being so stupid & naive in not seeing what the Republican plans were and, in the end, allowing the Republicans to get away with those plans.
The biggest & most fatal mistake the Democratic Party made was allowing the Bush admin to completely corrupt & destroy our federal court system with Bush's crony judges, most especially the SCOTUS. That was the last nail in the coffin for us.
RLF, I don't disagree with you in what you say, but the Democratic Party is not nearly as monolithic as the Republican Party. The Republican Party has succeeded in wringing out almost all semblances of moderation & morality, most especially under the Bush administration. It is almost impossible now to find even one Republican in Congress that will vote against the common agenda of their own political party.
In terms of your implication that perhaps Obama is getting exactly what he wants when he's acting like a DINO instead of a strong progressive Democrat (and I do hate labels), I had come to that conclusion a long time ago. Unlike the Republican Party, the Democratic Party is not nearly as monolithic as the Republican Party. There are still a lot of decent progressive Democrats in Congress, unfortunately not enough anymore to make a difference. It seems that, as happened with the Republican Party, the Democratic Party is losing these progressive members almost everyday now, people like Dennis Kucinich for example, as well as others.
Unfortunately, the Congressional Democratic leaders in Congress, the ones with power & influence, people like Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid, seem to hang around like bad apples. If it wasn't for them & their support of Obama's bad leadership, we might not be in the situation we're in today.
Ok but I will put the blame on the Republicans for pulling the race card to shellack Obama.
I wish the Dem's would have used the nuclear option, too.
- One one side, the trolls split the GOP battle to re-define "conservative" between the laissez-faire status quo fascist folks and their brownshirt teabag radicals who keep trying to chew through their leash.
- on the other side, the battle to define "progressive" between the 2-party status quo ("we still believe in the democrats even when they are indistinguishab le from repubs because 'progessive' is a fashionable buzz-word'") and the chicken-littles who believe there's either an apocalypse or a totalitarian govt coming because rational dialogue has just about ceased to exist (count me in the latter group)...
Justice Ginsberg, now in her 80s is most likely the next justice to retire, so just replacing her with another 'liberal' simply maintains the current 5-4 conservative majority!
Should the SCOTUS 'devolve' (pun intended) into a 6-3 or 7-2 conservative court during 4 yrs with Romney in the White House, I'd suggest we replace the American "eagle" with a "vulture".
We should also acknowledge our collective hypocrisy & dismantle the Statue of "Liberty" - an oxymoron if ever there was one, considering the anti-immigrant vitriol of so many in "amurika" - including Romney's suggestion that "They" should just 'self-deport!
We could sell it as scrap metal to the highest bidder & use the funds to reduce the budget deficit! I'm sure Donald Trump would see "Liberty Island" as a great location for one of his future hotels!
I'm HOPING Romney WON'T even BE elected since I don't think Romney would need 2 terms! Even in 'just' 1 term, I think perhaps 3 justices could retire. That's why I wrote that the shift could go 6-3 or worse yet, 7-2!
The long term effect of a super-conservat ive SCOTUS would, in my opinion, have far greater detrimental effects on our country than any other single issue, 'economic' or otherwise!
IVO "Citizens United" & what I expect will be at least a partial repeal of the Health Care Act currently being reviewed by the SCOTUS, I shudder to think what additional extra-Constitut ional powers might be granted to the Executive/Congr essional branches of govt ...& what additional civil restrictions might be 'legalized', such as even greater authorizations of "no warrant required" wire-tapping/tr acking of citizens...incr eased voter registration &/or petition requirements... even more ID "papers" to be carried by us all... along with who knows what additional intrusions into our everyday privacy such as our internet use of sites such as RSN!
(Actually, I suspect we're already being followed.)
The usa would make the "Casablanca" of Rick Blaine & Nazi Major Strasser seem like a paradise by comparison.
It works because it IS propaganda. That's what propaganda is meant to do, deceive the target audience.
As it is money can buy a lot of propaganda and it is very convincing to many and sways their vote.
And that is the second point, it is all about the vote. They can't lead unless they win and mostly the "political class" (thanks Joe B) will do anything to win and stay won.
I hate to say this in this America now it's vote for the GREAT WHITE HOPE, true or not
Really? What about Arizona?
Not much of a difference so why not vote for the party that hates the brown and black people just like you do and get some satifaction by sticking it to someone else worse then they stick it to you.
Banks/elites fear one thing - the people united together removing all of their money from the banks, including mutual funds and stock investments - which will cause a run on the banks and a domino of collapse.
In order to endure this we have to be prepared because it will be an extreme depression. We can only pray that Obama is prepared to handle this.
We're on the brink of it, but at least if the will of the people remove their money, we're in control. The best thing to do is to invest in tangibles - plant a big garden, buy solar power panels for the home, solar generators, etc. and be where you want to be when you retire now, because you may not be able to afford to get there later - cash will not be worth what it is today.
Encourage state banks - but know that our U.S. currency has rapidly devalued and will be come even less. And no politician or President can stop what is already in motion because they are bought and paid for by the banks/elites.
Don't vote based on "hope" that he'll do better or is the lessor of the evils. Vote with the thought in mind of who works with and/or succeeds any President because that is the voice of reason and intelligence factor we may have to live with in a time of turmoil.
I have no problem voting for the lesser of two evils and there are very real reasons that Democrats should appeal to poor white voters when 40 million people get food stamps.
We can't blame it all on Obama and Clinton. To get anything done, you have to be able to work with Congress, that's why Johnson was so effective, and was able to get the Civil Rights Act through. He had many years of experience in Congress, and knew how to play the system. That's Obama's biggest downfall, lack of experience.
The current Republicans have made it clear, they will NOT cooperate, for any reason ... not even for the good of the country, or the Constitution.
It could be argued that he was embracing the will of the people, the whole country bought into this economic bunk for 30 years while so many got rich in the bubble economy that appeared to be growing with no end in sight. Any and all critics were ignored or smeared by the media when they tried to warn us.
To suggest that Dems back stab poor white voters is simplistic. The problem is conservative ideology, political party is largely irrelevant but Democrats are in a much better position to change course. Republicans are stuck in their extremist corner.
By using a broad brush to paint lawmakers in Congress as a class of do nothings,is just plain wrong!
There has been a group of lawmakers in Washington DC who have been obstruct-ionist s for a well known reason. They have been successful in squashing most of the bills sent for a vote in Congress both, by the President and Democratic leaders in both houses, that would help the middle-class and poor.
It's very convenient by many who try to put all the blame on Obama for our sluggish economy, to forget the role a majority of Republicans played to create this mess!
What's missing in this report is the answer from poor white voters as to WHY they are flocking, against their best interest, to vote for Romney.
Failing to make this point, makes this article, pointless!
They refuse to see that the problems date all the way back to Reagan (their god), or that the things that have made the struggle worse have _always_ been done by Republican presidents and/or a Republican controlled Congress.
www.joebageant.com/
He may enlighten you.
RIP Joe!
Come on, Thumbs up for Joe Bageant!
Bill Clinton, whom he excoriates for doing harm to the poor, was doing political battle with Newt Gingrich at the time. This is the real political system we have, and anyone who thinks we are going to somehow magically wipe it away and replace it with "people power" is living in fantasy land. Let's do all we can to reduce the corrosion of big money in politics, but let's not pretend it's just going to go away with a new political party.
Big money has always affected politics in the U.S. Things get better when popular pressure is strong enough to counteract its lies. Elitist that I no doubt am, I will say that the voters to which Mr. Younge is referring are not, on the average, terribly smart. But they can act sensibly when given good information. The critical job of progressives is to counteract Fox News.
That's going to be tough to do, given the corporatization of the media and the compartmentaliz ation of the 'Net. I agree that the incessant drumbeat of Fox needs to be countered... but how? It's going to take a whole lot more money than progressives are likely to have to buy back anything loud enough to do that.
I have given up on even trying to explain these things and decided just have fun with it.
So, I get in a discussion with someone who is adamant and very vocal about his conservative leanings.
I tell 'm I am from Europe.
And ask this good fellow what makes him think he is a true conservative.
His answer: "Because I am the one holding down a real job and am expected to pay for all the stupid stuff".
And I followed up, if he meant that: The people that actually worked should be the ONLY ones making the decisions and that the people that didn't work should have to keep their mouth shut.
He wholeheartedly agreed that such would indeed be "the thing".
I continued: And have a little less of that touchy feely democracy and a little more blunt decision making like in a dictatorship. Again, he agreed that such might be "way to go", as far as he was concerned.
And I finally asked him: How should we call such "dictatorship of the workers" ? Communism maybe ?
You should have seen the disbelief on his face.
So there you have it, American Republicans are closet Communists by their own admission.
The democrats are fairer with the labor unions. The republicans openly say they are out to destroy unions, which will result in falling wages and benefits for everybody. The labor unions are the best thing that ever happened to labor. Working men stuck together and got fair wages and safe conditions.
Democrats will regulate the banks again. Before Reagan banks were regulated and our nation prospered. Deregulated banks do things like wrecking the economy. With the few big banks we have monopoly credit card systems which gouge you.
Democrats will invest in infrastructure, which will stimulate the economy by creating jobs, and will keep us moving efficiently by improving our trains and roads. Republicans bring austerity and penury.
It was after Reagan got in power that I started feeling like there had been a fundamental change, and I wasn't going anywhere in my work. Prices were going up, and I was struggling to make ends meet, because wages were stagnant. I never understood how so many people felt they were better off under him, because I certainly didn't feel that way.
Recently I read an article that said, it really started ten years before Reagan, when a group of conservative businessmen got together and decided that they had to take control. They started maneuvering and manipulating within the Republican Party, through the Chamber of Commerce. (Not sure if the Koch's were involved yet or not.) For 40 years, the Chamber of Commerce has been a prime player in the corporate takeover.
You have to hand it to corporations: they control people like master puppeteers along with the narrative...
Never ascribe to malice what can be explained with stupidity.
They may believe that, but those who do, do so in spite of all the evidence to the contrary - as evidenced by the numbers cited by the author.
You pose a good question with some insight. Perception is it, I have met a lot more whites that scam the system but the right is always slamming the welfare queen...people don't want welfare...it is demeaning to the spirit.
May be their perception, but poor whites have the same access to the programs. Government programs are based on income not color of skin...
What about all those conservative whites and pundits who regularly assert that Blacks vote against their own self interest because they vote for Democrats. That is equally if not more patronizing as far as Blacks are concerned. No one ever bothers to think the reason may be that Blacks find that Democratic policies and programs are more aligned with their constitutional self interest than those set forth by the Republicans.
So don't get your dander up if I do not feel too sympathetic to your outrage at the so called liberal patronization of you and "poor whites".
To excuse "poor whites" for voting Republican even though Democratic policies might truly help them more in the long run, just validates that their vote is based on race and not on logic. So even if the full effects of their economic and healthcare progress are yet to come, at least there is a chance it will come to them under the Democrats led by a Black President. There is no chance in h3ll their lot will improve under Republicans as led by the current pack of takers, except perhaps by accident (ie. definitely not because Republicans will have any programs aimed at improving the lot of "poor whites").
Republicans will just keep convincing them they are better off because "at least" they are white.
The rancor and hate directed at Obama is racial pure and simple. When the Repugs state that their HIGHEST priority was to defeat Obama, the message was well received. They will continue to obstruct and defeat ANYTHING that is proposed or supported by that Black man(from Kenya) is occupying their WHITE House.
Progressives do not need to kiss the butts of racists but we do need to make a better case to working class voters. The culture war is a distraction and progressives play into it. As a gay person, I'm not in any way suggesting that these issues don't matter but they distract from the economic agenda of the conservative side that has destroyed opportunity for working people.
Check out the results of the vote
to recall Walker.
Before that: check out the ownership of the Milwaukee Journal, that just endorsed him.
A viable Progressive Party is probably the ONLY possibility of saving this nation from being 99% under-employed renters in debt up to their eyeballs with NO civil rights, a state-imposed religion and perpetual war. It IS headed in that direction, and even though the author thinks that we should cut them some slack because they are too stupid to consider that the choices COULD BE something other than chocolate or vanilla, in 2014 and 2016. It really ticks me off that 46% of our population IS that damn stupid, and lazy
and is ultimately responsible for the crummy economy due to electing Republicans who actually only care about 1% of the population, but pander to these yahoos regarding their racist and fundamentalist "social issues" in order to get more than 1% of the vote.
*** RSN MODERATOR'S NOTE ***
Our comments are moderated by real people, not a software program, so it does take some time before they are live on the site. Also, we have a very small staff and do not have an "overnight" shift, so comments made after midnight Eastern will usually not be approved until the next morning.
Thank you for your patience.
Lets start with 91% of all talk radio is republitard - continue with the rampant racism that is encouraged by it - where there is zero progressive radio in the vast majority of the nation...then, there are too many errors to even begin counting in this article.
What is amazing is that with that kind of blanketing with lies and propaganda, that democrats get even a fraction of the vote they do. Amazing that so many people still see through their evil.
With truth on our side, we may still prevail.
The truth is you've won the war against union labor to the extent that even young liberals have misinformed opinions about union organizing, buying into all the bull crap propaganda we've been hearing since Reagan was elected. Rather than claim victory, you blame Democrats.
When things get bad enough for millions of more workers and recent college grads as they will, we will have another labor movement. If history is any indication, it's inevitable.
Truth is, the dems screwed labor over just when labor's victory was within reach. Many Dems were only interested in votes and contributions. Dems controlled congress for how many years? And last time I checked, the dems controlled congress most of the way through the dismantling of the unions since raygun. what has your precious obama done to fix that? what did slick willie do to fix that? how many of your dems have consistently voted with the minions of evil (gop) against labor?
Too many journalists do not stop or counter republicans when they are spouting lies.... Either they don't care or they are not bothering to inform themselves about the important issues we are facing.
A case in point is that blasted Tar Sands Oil Pipeline. they obviously don't know or understand that, that oil is more than twice as polluting as regular oil having a lot more led and a lot of other destructive stuff. It will NOT create a lot of jobs, the Canadians admit and many are highly specialized, Canadians can do them.
Also the oil will be shipped from the Gulf to other countries, China one of them. So WE risk a lot of pollution, AND the danger of spills. The aquifers could suffer a lot of damage if there are spills. It is a loose loose situation.
The tar sands should stay in the ground. We don't want more pollution in the world. It is not just the US we want to protect we MUST work to protect THE WORLD, for there will be nowhere to hide if we destroy our environment.
the poor whites may be ignorant, but probably not more ignorant that the "progressives" who just know that what they know is what there is to know.
and the progressives can be counted upon to stick their finger in the eye of the poor whites and call them ignorant superstitious racists and lose their votes when you ought to be getting together with them and figuring out how to get out from under the RepublicanDemoc rat good cop - bad cop act.
I don't disagree with you that progressives help to lose votes by demeaning conservative voters but I do not see both sides as exactly the same.
as for an issue... one I know a lot about... is Social Security, which the Dems are working as hard to destroy as the R's.
but the Dems don't hate us the way the R's do. They just don't think very hard and want to win elections by going along with the bought and paid for consensus. I've left a couple of comments here with more details, but the bottom line is that SS is not welfare. and its not going broke. it has nothing to do with the deficit. that can all be shown beyond any doubt if people would just take the time to look at the facts (real facts, not think tank factoids). but even the "progressives" are keeping the facts from you because they seem to think they can turn SS into welfare, and they'd rather have the rich pay for it than have the workers pay for it themselves. that is suicide, and FDR knew it.
I don't believe that Dems are working as hard to destroy SS as Republicans. No, it's not broke, and it would take little to make it solvent for the next 75 years but at least the Democrats will stand in the way of Republicans who want to privatize it, another trillion dollar giveaway to Wall Street.
I wish we could find a non-condescendi ng way to say it, when people are voting against themselves. One question to ask may be: What is the government's job? Religious matters? Moral issues? Economic questions? What should be left to other players? Should religious issues be just for churches to decide? (I think yes but maybe you don't.) Should corporations have all the say over economics? (Well, they don't and can't, one way or another, figure it out, no matter how much they want de-regulation). ..Maybe Those are questions we need to focus on. What do you think? By the way, when poor and middle-class white people are being racist, they're shooting themselves in the foot---because they're driving a wedge between groups of us who need each other, if ever we can successfully "demand a change in politics!!!" Is that condescending? Heck. Let's find a way to show that is true and be convincing!
The fact of the matter is that most of these people get their "news" from FOX TV, which means that they have a faulty and inaccurate view of the world and why it's so screwed up.
Until FOX is pulled from the air (and the other "news" outlets start provided accurate reporting on politics and the economy, instead of the newest shake-and-bake recipe and pet grooming tips), then you can expect this state of affairs to continue all the way to the time the oath to Der Führer is required at daily school homeroom class, coming soon.
The press has made America ignorant: www.thenation.com/blog/167999/its-official-watching-fox-makes-you-stupider?rel=emailNation
Fox News' simplistic sloganeering contributes much to this disparity.
The Dems did themselves no favors by buying into the DLC's exhortations to move right, thus blurring distinctions between centrist repubs and Dems. But the Repubs' strategy of playing on white fears has been working very well since LBJ left office--there won't be a counter-narrati ve as long as the Democrats' leadership keeps thinking the trick is to move right.
Well, they did do it when Obama was running: he had compelling themes - hope, confidence, and an expectation of fairness - and I believe he won support largely because people could understand, and explain to others why they support Obama.
However, Democrats usually don't bother doing this. Why? Because it's not something they feel comfortable doing. It's like lying, being false and all. The working-class, so the story goes, should realize that they should support us liberals themselves. After all the good we've done for them.
And the Republicans simply point out how elitist the Democrats are, and how different they are compared to the average white man (oh yeah, that's racism, but in stealth mode), and look, those poor whites support the hand that is robbing them.
So, DNC, start talking to the working-class. Start saying what they want to hear, especially if it's true (the Republicans don't seem to have a problems with lying, so why should the liberals). Stop talking to show off your learning and your sophistication. Start showing your passion to do what's right, and what's good economic policy for America.
And if you can't say it in short sound bytes, hire a Rap Singer to do your speeches!
See the International Monetary Fund report "Leveraging Inequality"
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2010/12/pdf/kumhof.pdf
{THE United States experienced two major economic crises over the past 100 years—the Great Depression of 1929 and the Great Recession of 2007. Income inequality may have played a role in the origins of both...Policy Options:
There are two ways to reduce ratios of household debt to income. The first is orderly debt reduction...The second possibility, illustrated in Chart 4, is a restoration of workers’ earnings—for example, by strengthening collective bargaining rights—which allows them to work their way out of debt over time.}
For the most part, the DCCC and the DSCCC do not recruit economic progressives as candidates in those areas where white males of modest incomes predominate. Most progressive Dems come from pretty safe seats. If the DCCC and DSCC recruited more progressives for swing seats, I think they would be seriously surprised. But they just have no stomach for a contest. They seem to prefer the easy and gimmicky, the supposed slam dunk (like promoting Tammy Duckworth instead of Christine Cigelis for retiring Henry Hyde's seat in Illinois in 2006, which Tammy lost anyway).
If the Dems continue to ignore economic realities, they deserve to be ignored by those voters most disadvantaged by economic conservatism. Most Dems are as bad as most Repugnacants when it comes to economic issues.
"The Democrats offer me nothing but higher taxes for social welfare programs that reward, enable, and promote pathological behaviors and dependency for those who don't want to work. They care about women, minorities, illegal immigrants, criminals, and those who don't play by the rules than those who do. I work hard, pay my taxes, and do the right thing; but the Democrats don't seem to care about me because I'm white and not part of an 'oppressed' group".
The problem is that, when white men hear the words "social justice", they think it applies to everyone else but them. That's why they spurn the Democratic Party.
When one is fighting to keep a roof over their head and food on the table and lacks the financial wherewithal to pay others to push their interests forward, one can’t help but be confused, perhaps even overwhelmed enough to mistake what is to their own advantage.
Second, super-rich right-wingers know this and do--especially now, after the flood gates for unlimited contributions to political campaign spending have been opened up via the SCOTUS' "Citizens United" opinion--spend uncounted millions, perhaps even billions, to buy off elected officials and pay for propaganda selling the idea that their own economic well-being is less important than whom their neighbor is sleeping with/married to, whether a zygote conceived is brought to term, or what the skin pigment is that others bear….continued
The subheading has at least two pejorative terms aimed at political progressives, i.e., they make "patronising assumptions" and are "accusers" of less advantaged white folks. This is an instance of "patronising," like beauty, being "in the eye of the beholder," Mr. Younge. To state one's opinion that other individuals' voting preferences are counter to their own economic advantage or interest is not an accusation, but merely an opinion--or even a statement of fact….continued
And Obama's anemic, pathetic, contrary to all good advice, so called Stimulu$ is a major reason for lack of Recovery. Where is the indictment of Wall St. criminals? The guy's POINT is that Dems have not done much lately for the economics of the non-rch, & it's true, other than saving the auto industry. READ the article. It's the dimwit commentary that's muddled, dead wrong.
The good-old-boy network of Repugnicans is visible and rampant in places like Wisconsin... take a good look ....
The DemocratIC [not 'Democrat' party -- a by-the way deliberate Rovian illiteracy] party has its propaganda, but Faux 'News' is often the only pseudo-news available in places like NEastern Wisconsin and elsewhere. And slap-on-the-bac k cronyism is often tghe order of the day.
One thing this author neglects is trade policy. the Democrats have been just as guilty of pursuing ruinous free trade policies that have shipped millions and millions of decent factory jobs overseas. Always with some empty promise about retraining, or claims about how Atari or solar energy was going to create a new middle class future for the country and this class of people. Look at the results. The US middle class is shrinking, and large numbers of middle class Americans are experiencing downward mobility. So they vote based on resentments, or based on issues that symbolize the Democrats' refusal to address their concerns (=illegal immigration). Ross Perot was right - this country needs middle class factory jobs.
Karl Rove quite effectively added homophobia to the list, not to mention the fog of religious fundamentalism.
As a Canadian now living in the American South, it took me several years, a couple of civics classes and a lot of reading of local history to fully grasp effect the effect racism has had on the U.S. narrative. I had followed U.S. politics for a long time from Canada prior to moving here, but never really understood the code words -- or why racism remains such a poisonous force.
Most foreigners who haven't lived in the States miss this nuance. Younge's article is filling that gap.
The Dems are portrayed as wanting to destroy business, destroy morality and give everything to minorities. The Dems need a strategy that counters this in a clear, compelling way. Obama's "Fair Shot" approach is a good start but more has to be done. The Dems need to show that fair business is good business -- good for the jobs, good for the economy, good for growth -- and do it in 10 words or less. Social issues like abortion and gay marriage have to be shown to be issues of Liberty and Freedom.
The clock is ticking. The Repubs are well organized and always on message. The Dems are anything but.
Most Americans would prefer to see a much better candidate than Romney, but it is what it is. Rpmney would begin with a clean slate whereas Obama has used to many tricks and ploys in the job. He has issued far to many executive orders as a means of bypassing the legislative agenda of Congress.
It sometimes feels like the election process is akin to a cattle drive. We are herded together, corralled, branded and driven to visions of fresh water and green pastures, but end up in stockyards and the slaughterhouse ... and we pay for it with tax money that significantly goes to corral other humans on other ranches - often half a world away.
Corporations and governments are TOOLS created to address our interests. Neither is inherently good or evil as concepts. Neither is a PERSON. Neither thinks, acts or has conscious intent. Neither "wants" to hurt or help as a matter of intent.
In my view the corporation was created with the lure of choosing, owning and participating in the profits of economic endeavors. However, its primary function is to maximize excess income over cost. Of even more importance, it is legally designed to insulate the individuals who run the show from liability and responsibility for their actions, failures and transgressions.
Government, as I learned it, should be the mechanism by which citizens identify, priorities and implement their solutions to societal aspirations, differences and problems - hopefully democratically. Both tools have been personalized by the people who control them - and us. As we allow ourselves to be alienated from one another by a barrage of false propaganda aimed at growing their power and diminishing OUR influence ... lobbying for GAIN.
2. MAKE the TV stations provide FREE air time for all qualified candidates.
3. SHORTEN the election period to 90 days.
4. ABOLISH the Senate "filibuster" law which (under recent Republican leadership) has turned it from a 50% vote to a 60% vote.
5. MOVE election day to a Saturday.
6. STOP all efforts to disenfranchise a large number of voters based on age or race.
And THEN we will be closer to what some refer to as "Free Elections", where corporate interests are no longer served, and where elected officials no longer have to spend 2/3 of their terms "begging" for re-election funds from corporate types. They will have NO ONE to serve but their own constituents.
I have voted in every election since I was old enough to vote (a year after I came home from Vietnam).
I would vote for a Republican I thought I could trust, or who I thought gave a shit about Working People. I just haven't seen any of them yet----Maybe next Century?!?!
The Republicans will destroy them along with every other poor and middle class member as they turn this country into a tyrranical oligarchy. Of course the inevitable outcome of that will be the destruction of the country and their fortunes as nobody can afford their junk any longer.
The real tragedy here, however, is that Mr. Obama let us down on multiple occasions when he had golden opportunities to square off with the opposition in favor of the 99%...in true FDR style! Yet he didn't! The wars, Guantanamo, real health care reform, Bush tax cuts, the debt ceiling, NDAA, etc. His winning in 2008 was a strong message that the people were looking for real change they could believe in, but they saw differently afterwards.
Let's hope the same people realize the opposition he has had and give him another chance. But more importantly, let's hope he can deliver in a second term. We need his promised change badly.
1) Some states it will pass through still don't want it coming through their state.
2) The construction represents only about 20,000 jobs (not that that is insignificant in the labor market today, but truly nothing tremendous when one considers points 3 & 4)
3) There is no guarantee oil coming out at the other end will stay in the US, even though it would be us who have exposed ourselves and our neighbors to the danger of its transport.
4) Indeed Republicans have blocked all legislation that would guarantee the pipelines oil would stay in the US or that at a minimum we would have first "dibbs" on it.
By golly we can't even get the media or all those who refuse to be able to vote in their own self interest to understand any of these points.
They both merely fall for and repeat ad nauseum the Republican drivel aimed at the ignorant and propogated by the complicit, everything is morally equivalent media.
I'm tired of seeing this false equivalence drawn between the two parties. Some of the tactics used in this article are like those of Fox News. Pointing out that the young, blacks and Latinos are worse off under Obama while not acknowledging the reasons for it. We're lucky to not be facing 25% unemployment with the economy that Obama inherited and a debt that has made it impossible to invest in society.
I agree with almost every criticism of the Democrats that I come across but we also need to acknowledge that there are stark and consequential differences. If nothing else, Democrats have managed to protect much of the progressive movement's accomplishments of the last century from destruction by the extreme right. The accomplishments of the Labor Movement, the social safety of the New Deal.
Both parties have embraced the conservative ideology that brought us to this place but Republicans want to continue down this failed path and they, more than Democrats, are responsible for the debt. They've become even more extreme since the recession while the Democrats seem willing to reverse course on deregulation and taxation.
OWS has shifted the debate in a better direction which has empowered the Democrats, we need to continue.
This assumes that poor whites are aware of these facts. Most are not. They live in a fact-free world where Rush tells them everything they need to know about Democrats, and if they think there's more to learn they turn on Fox. Get rid of that poisonous indoctrination, and Democrats will do much better.
"What they need is a party that represents their interests. In a country where corporate money chooses the candidates and therefore shapes the debate, that will demand a change in politics, not just politicians."
While the thought of a Romney presidency is appalling, Obama's performance has been underwhelming and there's not much hope of improvement. What we all need is a strong leader with the balls to stand up against corporate money and special interests who will do what is right for the country.
Sadly, I don't see anyone like that on the horizon.
Too many who do vote, do so only with a 'vote the bums out' mentality. Too many cast their votes based on feelings rather than facts, because facts are difficult to come by and to process in the chaos of 'fictions' and personal opinions that constantly flood the infotainment industry, especially when campaigns and special interest groups are so effective at stirring up emotions which then confuse a voter's ability to process any facts they may have available to work with.
Too few vote with real knowledge and understanding of how our political process and government work - and don't work. Too few vote for their real, long-term best interests because they are too distracted by and focused on what they feel are their best short-term interests. Too few vote with a vision for the greater good of all - the greater good of the country.
When liberals complain that the poor and ignorant do not vote in their self interest, it is a statement of truth, not opinion. Self interest is NOT doing what you want, but getting what you need.
Be fair, reread the article. The author isn't really saying or implying that poor whites are correct to (or that they should) reject the dems. He's just saying that's what they are doing and why they are doing it. And he's right, they are. But there's no justification for it, and the author's not implying that there should be.
I'm guilty of it myself, it's difficult to not react to the mass amount of ignorance out there but I'm disturbed that it has become such a part of our culture. I don't recall this phenomenon in my youth, prior to Reagan's Presidency. This works in the Republican's favor. Despite their undeniable failures in government, they're still thriving because of this cultural division.
The author is right that progressives need to offer some sort of message to the working poor. Criticizing the ignorance and the racism may be unavoidable and even warranted but it only feeds the hate.
The white working class that votes republican can't make that statement. I have no doubt that they will vote in a republican government in all three divisions of government (they already have a far right SC), and the country will go to hell, but that won't convince them. The uberclass will convince them that the Democrats are responsible and they will continue voting against not only their OWN interests, but against the interests of the country as a whole.
I'm not sure that there is anything that can be done to save the US, and anything that we do is merely putting the brakes on the downhill ride that is inevitable.
Sadly, much of the populace go along in a somnambulistic "wanna-be-rich- and-powerful-to o" mode and are deeply offended if the following conventions are not followed.
The ubiquitous hand-on-heart whilst the "Stars and Stripes" are being played and sung. Also "America the Beautiful", another glowingly-worde d false picture of a once-beautiful country that is being, and has been for a long time now, systematically raped, pillaged and left to rot for profit of the new self-styled Monarchy.
To assume this ridiculous position is to me, at base, approval of the huge military-power- worship culture that goes out and invades other nations to perpetrate the glutted power of the same few, with their corporate slogans not unlike the former British Empire, spread in "Rule Britannia" and "Land of Hope and Glory" in the name of Victoria, the British East Indian Company and the former Anglo-Iranian Oil Co (now BP and still as destructive).
There is a tendency here to glorify the CEO's of huge multi-national corporations, four-star generals encouraged by an almost wholly-owned and infotainment-dr iven, privately owned, monopoly media.
He ignored gender. Affirmative action and other equating policies brought opportunities to people of color and women. What that is well and good, the result has been the angry white male and the Republican party in particular has adaquately exploited that as part of their plan to be the only political party in America.
Ah, yes. If I had my way.
Impatience reigns--and certainly must be nourished at least in part by obliviousness.
What on earth does Romney offer the poor? Or for that matter, the middle class? Decline toward oblivion, I'd say.
The great gains - the income share of the top1% soared from 13.7% to 21%, under Clinton.
The ration of average CEO pay to average worker pay soared over 500%, to 525:1, under Clinton. Fell considerably during the Bush years.
Other than that, ole Clinton turned his back on Bosnia for too long - turned his back on Rwanda, the DR Congo (millions died 1997-2000), Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Afghanistan (1995-2000 stretch was pure horror), Blood Diamonds, and of course, the HIV/Aids pandemic in Africa. I think David Corn summed it up best - "It didn't poll well for him."
It wouldn't have polled well for Bush, either, but he wanted to address it. So, he gathered up a few willing able bodies of support quietly from around the world, and in Congress - put the plan together - and without telling Congress - without polling - presented it to a shocked nation, and a shocked Congress, in a STOTU address in 2003 - and made it happen.
The plan came in on time, on budget, and is credited with saving well over a million lives - not to mention preventing millions of infections. Geeze - he handed out more than 2 billion condoms in Africa.
That's where the rubber meets the road.
Social Security is not going broke, and it is not causing any deficits. It is paid for by the workers who will get the benefits.
It is not welfare. It works because it is not welfare. Workers don't like welfare.
If those workers are going to live longer than their grandparents and still want a decent retirement, they would need to pay a little more on the payroll tax: about forty cents per week more each year.
Yet the Democrats, including the "progressives" are trying to turn SS into welfare by making "the rich" pay for it.
And most of you, by far, don't understand why this is a fatal mistake, and will cost you your retirement.
The Democrats are part of the problem. So are the progressives. So are the 'workers' who don't understand this.
The SS trust fund is a note.
you must have misunderstood krugman, who, after a bad start has come around to almost understanding SS. which is more than can be said for 99% of the people. the 1% understand it and want to kill it because they like having a desperately poor worker pool. what is tragic is that "liberals" think that they can change SS into welfare and make the rich pay for it.
the fact is that the workers have always paid for it and that's why it has worked so well.
i can't convince you if you aren't willing to think carefully. read the CBO Options for Social Security numbers 2 and 3. if you need help understanding it, write coberly@peak.org and i will try to explain it in a way you will agree with.
Perhaps the REAL CHANGE that voters are seeking out is not support for the current incumbent but just getting rid of lying a self seeking current politicians.
What we need to do is stop blaming voters and start putting the blame on our current politicians in politics.
That includes ALL of them.
In any case, if a robust version of it is not reinstated immediately the derivatives market will cause a total collapse of the economy that will make 1933 look like boom times. Will Obama stand for reinstating Glass-Steagall? I highly doubt it.
We're stuck with Obama, best hope is to continue with the OWS movement which has changed the debate in a better direction and exposed the Democrats as well as the Republicans.
The other thing is that a lot of these voters don't think the Democrats offer them anything but higher taxes for social programs that, in their mind, reward, enable, and promote pathological behavior. When they hear the words "social justice", to them, it means "social justice" for everyone else except them because "they don't need help".
The bottom line is that they don't think the Democrats offer them anything because they aren't minorities, low income, or in the inner-city. That's why they vote Republican.
In reality we're broke because of unfunded tax cuts, corporate welfare, unfunded wars and Medicare Part D, unfunded. An outrageous military budget that both parties refuse to reign in for fear of being called unpatriotic by the far right.
Have Republicans even offered to roll back prescription drug coverage for seniors to maintain those tax cuts for the top 1%? Of course not, conservative voters love their socialism and Republicans maintain it all to stay in office.
These are my people and they embarass me. Intellectual laziness, desperate clinging to superstition and propaganda, a hysterical belief that a "real American" must think, act and believe exactly as they do or else it's a plot by commies, muslims or atheists to destroy America is only a part of what drives them to vote as they do. Bigotry is a huge part. Anyone who is different than them, even if they're trying to help, is the enemy.
Spending tax money to help people is bad, unless it's for themselves because they're patriots and deserve it. Spending it on education and health care is a socialist plot to destroy America, so we need to spend it on the military instead b/c without that, America would fall to the ever growing number of enemies that are intent on destroying democracy and who are infiltrating our gov't in the form of democrats and liberals.
The ignorance is astonishing. The self-righteous, self-deluding chanting of propaganda is turning our country into a true Idiocracy.
you are right about those people. what you may not realize is that the "left" suffers from the same style of thinking. the only thing different is their reference group. this is not a put down. it is just a fact about human cognition. the answer is for those of us who think we have thought a little deeper is to find a way to reach those who have not. so far my own efforts have not been brilliant. but that's the way the world works.
I was highly skeptical of reform until two social workers I know who work intimately with welfare recipients convinced me that it's actually working. People have been forced to get training and find work. They share the same far left politics as myself.
what you are not considering is that "the devil made me do it" is part of the charade we call politics in this country. i have no doubt the R's and the D's really do compete... the way poker players at the country club compete. but when it comes time to get serious, neither of them is going to give the "help" a raise, much less let them "into" the club.
all of the comments here are about people voting against their own self interest, and decrying the "ignorance" of the other voters.
i offer an example: Social Security is under serious attack today. The attack comes from "the right" who have always hated Social Security and spent a billion dollars telling lies about it, and controlling the "news" so that all you hear are the lies, and all "everyone knows" is the lies.
the "progressives" on the other hand, seem to think the answer to this is to "fix" social security (it ain't broke) by turning it into welfare by taxing the rich to pay for it, and even to make it cost even more.
the rich won't pay for it. and if they did it would only be so they could "own" it and destroy it later.
i don't know how to explain this to you, but you could find it out for yourself if you read CBO Options for Social Security number 2.
SS can be "fixed" if the workers raise their own payroll tax about 40 cents per week each year to cover the cost of their longer life expectancy. Understand that and the "SS crisis" disappears.
Or you can stand around and shout sound bites at each other.
My sister was on Medicaid, Medicare, in and out of hospitals her entire life, and she was a staunch Republican all the way.
Oh, and I did I forget to say. She was a totally indigent ward of the state.
Bless his almost redneck heart.
Sure, but here in the US, that is called Socialism. And socialism is the kissing cousin to communism. And communism is godless. End of story.
2. "What they [the poor] need is a party that represents their interests." Sure, but the State and Federal laws that make it difficult, if not impossible, for a viable third or fouth party to emerge in this country must be changed for this possibility to become a reality.
3. "None of this means all Republican supporters are racist. But it does suggest they make their appeal on racial grounds and, as the poll shows, it is effective." Not all, certainly, but racism is exactly what the evidence suggests. Racism is at the heart of the Republican Party, especially in an era of teabagging social conservative fundmentalism. Joe Wilson would never have dared interrrupt the President and call him a liar during a State of the Union Address had it been anyone other than Barack Obama, but he could and did because Obama is a black men.
It's easy to vote against your own best interests when your are a white cracker and the choice is between a black man or a rich 1%er. Or, imagine, a xtian fundmentalist who would raise taxes on the working poor and cut them for the wealthy versus an atheist who would slash taxes for 99% of all Americans and cut subsidies for Big Oil. Who would Republicans vote for?
'godless communist' not been a catchphrase for self-righteous xtian Americans since the '50's? And to distinguish ourselves from these atheistic heathens the Congress added it to the Plege of Allegiance and adopted "In God we trust" as the official motto of the United States in 1956. That's what I was referring to.
Socialism is an economic system:
(distribution of the resouces on the basis of NEED)
Communism is a political system:
(dictatur of the proletariat)
Their prejudices trump their self interest.
Obama did not endear himself to many voters when he said that working class people "cling to guns or religion". He reinforced the view of many that he is an elitist, condescending liberal who will take their guns if he gets half a chance. That view may be wrong in Obama's case, since gun control does not seem to be on his agenda. But, apart from Obama, the gun controllers are almost entirely on the side of the Democrats. That, much more than racism, is the reason many poor whites feel a deep antipathy toward Democrats. There are many African-America ns who treasure their guns, such as the Deacons for Defense, who used guns to protect their communities from the Klan. We will gladly make common cause with them.
I voted against Al Gore in 2000 only because he participated in the Million Mom March. I was at the counter-demonst ration a few blocks from the White House when I saw that elitist's police convoy shoot past, sirens blaring and lights flashing. If I were faced with choosing between an African-America n candidate who pledged to protect our gun rights and a white candidate who supported gun control, I would without hesitation vote for the African-America n.
It is not that we cling to guns or religion. For many of us, guns ARE a religion.
The NRA has extreme power and it's driven by money, not principle. When surveyed, the majority of gun owners support some very sensible gun control legislation to help law enforcement but the NRA will attempt to destroy any politician who tries to advance this same legislation and most conservative voters refuse to question their actions.
Your post only validates Obama's moment of truth which was not a threat to take away anyone's gun or religion.
Moving on to the younger folks-much less political and, hence, much more difficult to reach with rational argument. Their belief system is deeply ingrained by a 20-30 year bombardment of right wing radio and news. These news outlets meet their entertainment needs much more than anything that might be reality based. It is so much easier to blame others when one's own life is going badly. Who to blame? The old stand bys-Blacks and other minorities who appear to be more in favor of "big government."
Reps have been incredibly effective at hammering home the four following points:
1. Gov't action= Gov't take over/Communism
2. Taxation= taking my money
3. Any issue that didn't exist before 1700's and that is not included on the scrap of paper called the Constitution is not a valid area of government action
4. Scientific and economic facts are leftist propaganda and should not be trusted because of media and elites.
Until Liberals can effectively counter these ideas with EFFECTIVE and CONSISTENT messaging, we will ALWAYS have this problem.
Who are he real terrorist of the Country?
RSS feed for comments to this post