Reich writes: "The vitriol is worse than I ever recall. Worse than the Palin-induced smarm of 2008. Worse than the swift-boat lies of 2004. Worse, even, than the anything-goes craziness of 2000 and its ensuing bitterness."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
We the People, and the New American Civil War
06 November 12
he vitriol is worse than I ever recall. Worse than the Palin-induced smarm pf 2008. Worse than the swift-boat lies of 2004. Worse, even, than the anything-goes craziness of 2000 and its ensuing bitterness.
It's almost a civil war. I know families in which close relatives are no longer speaking. A dating service says Democrats won't even consider going out with Republicans, and vice-versa. My email and twitter feeds contain messages from strangers I wouldn't share with my granddaughter.
What's going on? Yes, we're divided over issues like the size of government and whether women should have control over their bodies. But these aren't exactly new debates. We've been disagreeing over the size and role of government since Thomas Jefferson squared off with Alexander Hamilton, and over abortion rights since before Roe v. Wade, almost forty years ago.
And we've had bigger disagreements in the past - over the Vietnam War, civil rights, communist witch hunts - that didn't rip us apart like this.
Maybe it's that we're more separated now, geographically and online.
The town where I grew up in the 1950s was a GOP stronghold, but Henry Wallace, FDR's left-wing vice president, had retired there quite happily. Our political disagreements then and there didn't get in the way of our friendships. Or even our families - my father voted Republican and my mother was a Democrat. And we all watched Edward R. Murrow deliver the news, and then, later, Walter Cronkite. Both men were the ultimate arbiters of truth.
But now most of us exist in our own political bubbles, left and right. I live in Berkeley, California - a blue city in a blue state - and rarely stumble across anyone who isn't a liberal Democrat (the biggest battles here are between the moderate left and the far-left). The TV has hundreds of channels so I can pick what I want to watch and who I want to hear. And everything I read online confirms everything I believe, thanks in part to Google's convenient algorithms.
So when Americans get upset about politics these days we tend to stew in our own juices, without benefit of anyone we know well and with whom we disagree - and this makes it almost impossible for us to understand the other side.
That geographic split also means more Americans are represented in Congress by people whose political competition comes from primary challengers - right-wing Republicans in red states and districts, left-wing Democrats in blue states and districts. And this drives those who represent us even further apart.
But I think the degree of venom we're experiencing has deeper roots.
The nation is becoming browner and blacker. Most children born in California are now minorities. In a few years America as a whole will be a majority of minorities. Meanwhile, women have been gaining economic power. Their median wage hasn't yet caught up with men, but it's getting close. And with more women getting college degrees than men, their pay will surely exceed male pay in a few years. At the same time, men without college degrees continue to lose economic ground. Adjusted for inflation, their median wage is lower than it was three decades ago.
In other words, white working-class men have been on the losing end of a huge demographic and economic shift. That's made them a tinder-box of frustration and anger - eagerly ignited by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and other pedlars of petulance, including an increasing number of Republicans who have gained political power by fanning the flames.
That hate-mongering and attendant scapegoating - of immigrants, blacks, gays, women seeking abortions, our government itself - has legitimized some vitriol and scapegoating on the left as well. I detest what the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Rupert Murdoch, and Paul Ryan are doing, and I hate their politics. But in this heated environment I sometimes have to remind myself I don't hate them personally.
Not even this degree of divisiveness would have taken root had America preserved the social solidarity we had two generations ago. The Great Depression and World War II reminded us we were all in it together. We had to depend on each other in order to survive. That sense of mutual dependence transcended our disagreements. My father, a “Rockefeller” Republican, strongly supported civil rights and voting rights, Medicare and Medicaid. I remember him saying “we're all Americans, aren't we?”
To be sure, we endured 9/11, we've gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we suffered the Great Recession. But these did not not bind us as we were bound together in the Great Depression and World War II. The horror of 9/11 did not touch all of us, and the only sacrifice George W. Bush asked was that we kept shopping. Today's wars are fought by hired guns - young people who are paid to do the work most of the rest of us don't want our own children to do. And the Great Recession split us rather than connected us; the rich grew richer, the rest of us, poorer and less secure.
So we come to the end of a bitter election feeling as if we're two nations rather than one. The challenge - not only for our president and representatives in Washington but for all of us - is to rediscover the public good.
Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
|
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. |













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
In 1970 I made $10,000/year and lived well, if simply, with a nice home, a stay-at-home wife-&-three-ki ds and no debt. That was the year that middle class wages hit the still-solid-in- 2012 plateau. Today - with (typically) a couple-with-two -kids working, living in the obligatory a big house and driving the obligatory an SUV - are deep in debt and are never more than just-a-few paychecks away from LIVING in that SUV. . . and, relatively, the socioeconomic crunch on lower economic levels is as-bad-or-worse .
With universal pressure like this, patience and temper run shorter & shorter and the search for scapegoats becomes irrational. Realizing this, the oligarchy---whi ch IS the logical scapegoat---con stantly throws us tasty, malignant bones to divert our attention ONTO one another and AWAY FROM the reality that Corporate America- aided by Congress - is systematically looting our treasury.
The subjective "bones" that we routinely & futilely fight over? How about: "women's health issues", "Obamacare", gay rights, gay marriage, DADT in the military, various church vs. state issues, the mythical 47%, Islam, race . . . . . (n).
We CAN do better!
These people believe so strongly in their opinions, many of which are supported by these idealogues, that they find it impossible to say "I might be wrong." It is also possible that many peopkle have a fear of being "wrong."
It's not a crime to be wrong; the bigger crime lies in not being able to admit it.
Believing that one is not WRONGH, one then gets the luxury of believing that everyone els IS. Because a person is in denial of facts that don't fit their ideology, they then get to blame everyone who sees things differently.
As was put by the A.A. people, denial is the disease that doesn't allow a person to name the disease. Anytime you run into denial or blame, I think that is where most people get stuck.
Some battles aren't worth fighting to an agreement while others that will carry some weight in the outcome of things definitely are.
The Democrats have a great deal to offer, but it takes two to tango. It is the Republicans who have forgotten that compromise and respect is the soul of a democracy, as you have so eloquently pointed out in your post.
Dems include most people, hence the demographic shift which helped Obama win.
Republicans seem to only want to be involved with people who are mirror images of themselves. I am guessing that it makes the person feel better about themselves to not be confronted with someone "different" than they are.
If we did the correct and inclusive thing, the third party candidates would automatically become part of the solution. Maybe we should all start writing to our congressmen, and to the president, wsupporting the idea that these thrid party people AND independents, need to be brought into the dialogue that needs to start taking place.
I think this is an old-fashioned crisis of morality and integrity, and the failings of man, greed, selfishness, sloth, etc.
We did not really have this so much until the 70's when our media started to be very cynical. It went from showing for example, families like "Leave It To Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" to families like "All In The Family" and "Family Ties" where the children, the favorite marketing demographic were catered and condescended to. We had the rise of the anti-hero and criminal, and morality seemed to exit the scene in media.
Also the rise of pornography in the mainstream with Playboy and then Penthouse and their "articles" in addition to their pictures that gave them some kind of legitimacy ... all marketing and manipulation technologies.
1. What you describe in your first paragraph could fit lots of people, or just a few. Any numbers?
2. "I think this is a crisis of..."
What is "this?" Polarization, discrimination, the over-all problems we're dealing with. Define "this."
3. "Leave it..., Father Knows...," etc. One could easily argue that the earlier shows had nothing to do with the reality of what most families were really about. I didn't know any families like any of those mentioned.
The first two you showed a glorified. but unrealistic picture of family life, and the second two, I think, showed a more realistic picture of some families.
I don't know if morals had anything to do with any of these shows. If the show didn't hold an audience, how long did it last? The question then becomes why did they hold an audience? The era had much to do with their success.
As far as defining Playboy and Penthouse as porn, I think that is, as with most everything else, in the eye of the beholder. Again, I think both mags were based on the idea of de-mystifying the whole subject of sex and sexuality. What had been in the closet for so long, was brought out in the open.
Because of the regressive attitudes of the US at the time, this was shocking to many. In other places in the world, sex is seen as a fact of life. In so many cases, life is 5% what we make it, and 95% how we learn to take it.
.
I recall when a shock jock, Joe Pine, took to the air on independent tv stations. It struck me as the first exposure to the kind of heated intolerant and intemperate rhetoric that is now commonplace on cable news. Network TV news provides little more than infotainment and hasn't mattered to me since 1975.
I believe our greatest priority as a nation would be a constitutional amendment aimed at a total restructuring of our electoral process. Imagine a six week publicly financed campaign, a variety of candidates that must participate in public debate, equal political ad time on media, ranked choice voting. Or, no doubt, many of you have excellent ideas. But I can't take many more of these elections, and neither can our country.
That's actually a very big deal. McCain/Palin's certainly wasn't. McCain had no control over the audience when they booed.
Governor Romne came prepared. When the slightest hint of a "boo!" from the white guys in back started, he just talked right over them with his next comment. It stopped them in their tracks. I heard something remarkable and beautiful. Republicans cheered for President Obama, after one of Mitt's comments.
CONT.
Obviously Mitch McConnel doesn't share his sentiment. Then again, these concession speeches are important historically. They'll be remembered for years to come. Everyone remembers McCain's.
I hope everyone remembers Mitt Romney's. It gave me a respect for him as a human being I've never had before. It's not much, but it shows that it is possible to behave with a little class. For once, I don't even care if Mitt was faking it. This was worth faking for the good of our country.
I know a lot of right-wingers. I'm related to most of rush limbaugh's audience. The rest of them live in my neighborhood. One thing I do know about my right-wing relatives is that they'd be capable of showing respect for the left. They're kind of like children who will be naughty if they see the other kids in class getting away with it. If a major Republican public figure followed Romney's lead, they'd follow.
I have wondered what he was allowing himself to become because of his intense or fanatical desire to win.
I also hope this concession speech will allow him to reach out to Obama, or vice-versa.
Yes indeed-- The trend line is quite disconcerting.
BUT..!
This was the first election to take place under the dark shroud of ''Citizen's United'' as defined by the 5 SCOTUS CorpoHactavista s. The Big Business/Global Corporate Flood Gates poured forth tidal waves of '$Corp-$peech$' ... Money flooded the People's (Real People) Election Process.
And also, there is the continuing tragedy where the ownership of Media is even more narrow and Global Corporate owned and exploited than ever. Fox IF Fox.., and so on.
AND YET...!
Even with ALL that Money and ALL that Propaganda, Obama was reelected. Warren Won. Baldwin won.
The American People still Won..!
1.Take All But Public Funding Out of OUR Elections- OR - Limit ALL donations to $500, whether actual, Real Persons or the CorpoHactavista -Defined 'Persons'... Which would mean that even a MultiBillion Dollar Global Corpo-Person could not donate more than $500..! -OR - Use their entire Media Empire as a 24/7 Campaign Donation.
2. Break up the extremely narrow grip just a very few
Global Corporations have on almost all Media Enterprises in OUR Republic and bring back a strong Fairness Doctrine in Media.
"We can’t let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty,” Trump continued. “Our nation is totally divided! Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us. This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!
“Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble…like never before. Our nation is a once great nation divided! The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. Hopefully the House of Representatives can hold our country together for four more years…stay strong and never give up! House of Representatives shouldn’t give anything to Obama unless he terminates Obamacare.”
“This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!”
It may have been Rove's insistence that kept Romney form conceding for as long as he did.
I had also heard that Romney had written a victory speech, but not a concession speedch. It is also possiblle he took the extra time to write that speech he gave.
Both Rove and Trump, and possibly all the other big spenders were probably in denial of the results. And possibly Romney for awhile,)too.
And, as was said about Linda McMahon, and all the money she spent on her campaign, this money is all gone, and they have little to show for it. I'd guess Trtump lost a bunch too.
Breaks my heart. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of rich, older white male control freaks. ;-)
Both sides contribute to this culture war that has made our politics so dysfunctional and has helped the conservative movement gain power despite its toxic economic policies.
A look at a detailed electoral map paints a different picture. Almost every urban area in the country votes 'blue', even in the South. In CA, rural areas vote 'red'. We're basically the same across the country, states with huge urban populations are 'blue', states with small urban populations are 'red'.
What strikes me as odd in this is how does Obama win amongst those individuals making under $50,000 and families making under $100,000 and yet lose the rural vote? does this mean that rural incomes are alot higher on average than i would have thought?
Nowhere in my post did I suggest that some southerners are not idiots, I even admit that a whole lot of them are but I think we'd do well politically to look for our similarities and stop focusing so much on our differences, it only helps the conservative cause.
Why do you think you have to go and make such of a point of attacking me for telling you the truth of my experience. Seems to me like you are just looking to babble or pick a fight. Ever think about why you do that, or why you do in the way you do you it?
We are not basically the same all throughout the country, and if you actually went all throughout the country you'd find that out. It's not so simple as you apparently want it to be.
I've lived all over this country, and yes, I see many similarities. Rural CA and Orange Co are not much different than the rural South. Rural Oregon and Idaho and Phoenix, AZ are practically identical. My liberal neighborhood in Louisville, KY is not much different than Portland, OR. It's a matter of percentages. A slight majority in a state votes conservative and that state and all of its residents are dismissed as 'red'. This is a phenomenon created by the conservative movement and it helps them to maintain power.
My main point is that the progressive movement does not help itself by participating in the culture war. This does not mean we have to embrace the hate and bigotry of the south and elsewhere but it does mean that we should not dismiss an entire region as hopeless when practically every urban center votes 'blue'. There are large percentages of African Americans and a growing Latino population. There has even been an influx of people from the Northeast, seeking a much lower cost of living.
When you say you do not have an accent, then you are also saying you have chosen to lie outside the class of southerners who self-identify as red-necks, much as blacks who do not speak ghetto dialect have decided it does not help them to be identified with groups who do choose to speak like that,
Your argument, at least as you expressed it to me is frivolous and based on shaky logic and things you do not know about, like me. The reason you decided to jump in there is that you probably have unresolved mixed feelings about the whole issue.
One other thing that you do not know about me is that when I was a kid I lived and grew up in Texas, so I don't have a lot of irrational stereotypes about southerners, in fact I have quite a full spectrum of understanding about the kind of people and attitudes I'm likely to encounter from Southerners, good and bad.
I think my reasoning is very sound based on the information you've provided. You seem to be illustrating my point very well. Thank you.
In both cases, yours and kyzipster, the real problem is xenophobia - the fear of anything that is alien to one's norm. In your case, it was your license plates, and Kyz's case, it was his accent.
In both cases, the people involved made judgments based on superficial information, and then pigeonholed both of you, without EVER trying to get to know the person behind that superficial information. Frist impressions based on assumptions that have been learned, repeated, and reinforced, probably by most of the people in their peer group.
As I said in an earlier post, this kind of unconscious prejudicial socialization is what keeps these people excluding others that are just as human as they are, but who happen to be different.
The bottom line, the place eery human being on earth needs to start from, is the idea that we are ALL human beings first. Everything else is nothing more than a sub-heading under the main heading of "human being."
Even as much as the barber and the people in S.F. were jerks, they were still himan beings too. When we are discriminated against, it becomes harder to remember that.
Because they have learned to exclude everyone they think is different, they assume we are not all in this together, and then scapegoat or discriminate against anyone different.
Act different, think different, speak different, be of a different gender from the norm in power, and you are automatically excluded.
The fact that the people in rural areas who tend towards Republicnaism is, I believe, connected to the idea they learn that they don't have many other people to rely on, that they have to be "rugged individulaists. " They don't look for help, and their pride probably wouldn't allow them to take it, if offered.
People like Rove and Trump ignore all the contributions that the middle clase and public sector made that allowed them to get rich. They got rich from the labor and sacrifice of others. They have to deny that information in order to keep telling themselves how indepencent they are.
In fact, they are probably more dependent on others doing things for them than are most of the people in the rural areas. But it's the lie they tell themselves, THE FACADE OF BEING RUGGED INDIVIDUALISTS, the people in the rural areas identify with.
I'll put people like you in a class that I would call self-righteous speechifiers. You tend to use your ideas which you think are worked out .. and they may well be ... to want to take on self-righteousn ess for self-validation , then you can tell others where they are wrong and what to do.
The problem with this is that while you may even be right, conceiving of a kind of different zone of stability in human interactions does not mean it can be implemented. A good example is Christianity. Try as we might it seems that Christianity as it is practices in real life is a nice romantic idea, but it is often so impossible to implement that it is unworkable, yet people feel self-righteous enough to preach to others about how great it is.
For example you started out your last post with a flat judgement statement of me which you proceed to justify, yet you know virtually nothing about me. The other human characteristic is to fill up our world with conclusions based on incomplete ideas, without doing a reality check on how full of holes those conclusions may be. It's the same things as bias, prejudice, whatever - the problem is not being biased or prejudiced, the problem is when people are unconscious of it.
Sometimes I am and sometimes I am not, and sometimes it is correct to be and sometimes not, but you cannot dissect me and make conclusions about me without exposing your own absurdities.
Calling me xeno* is uncalled for too.
Because you assumed your assumption about xenopohobia was correct, look what it led you to believe. Please reread what I wrote from this different point of view, and tell me if your point of view has changed.
I and my Dad never agreed about politics – even his old aunt called him a died-in-the wool reactionary! Yet we could and did talk, endlessly. And all this only increased our deep underlying esteem for one another. It also meant that there WAS a real exchange of ideas, despite apparently incompatible views and prejudices. Thus, I still cleave to some of his fine, old-fashioned values, despite having now been more partisan than I’d ever been on behalf of views Dad could never have understood.
Meanwhile one of his grandchildren insults the other as un-American and the two won’t even speak to one another. But then the first believes the famous 47% aren’t worth considering…
We all know there’s “something rotten in the state of Denmark”, and that’s deeply disturbing to us. It makes people feel very insecure, and then we take to the bunkers, hunkering down in our egos and prejudices, listening to strident propaganda that supports our fragile, threatened sense of identity. Then striking up passive-aggress ive macho poses… It would be farcical if it weren’t so sad and so scary. WE NEED HEALING. WE NEED WHOLENESS. AND BALANCE.
That is the essence of the change we’re crying out for.
[Continued]
Climate change is one issue to consider. For the most part, it was ignored by Obama. In fact, he said very little about energy issues - although he likes "clean coal" - and he ignored FEMA until Hurricane Sandy arrived..... If you want progress with Obama, stay active. Organize.
Even with all that, though, I believe that he actually IS a whole lot better than Rmoney. And that's pretty frightening.
But Reich is correct about the huge gap between "us" and "them". My wife voted for Obama, and she's pissed that I "never called Bush a mass murderer". I called him every derogatory thing i could think of, but perhaps she's right...
At the same time, I do want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what all the circumstances might be. I can't imagine what it must be like dealing with McConnell and the obstructionist congress. Nor can I imagine what it must be like getting death threats on a regular basis, and having to think aobut what might happen to your kids or wife if they happened to be in the way.
Obama has said twice (convention speech, and victory speech) that the American people must become better citizens, and must not go to sleep. Becoming whistle-blowers , and supporting whistle-blowers , is a way of not going to sleep.
If you are doing your best to tell the whole truth, as you know it, AND at this point in time, I support you. However, if you find some different information that causes you to change your mind, I hope you will be strong enough to let us know that truth as well.
The BIGGEST challenge: to recover inclusiveness, to bridge the partisan gulf. To revive DIALOGUE and TRUE DEBATE across party lines after all those years locked into sterile trench warfare in which all sides could only be losers.
Americans need to revive the citizens' associations that brought them TOGETHER for the best part of two centuries, and to box in the corporate barons and divisive special interest lobbies whose excessive power has done so much to ruin us all.
Politicians, starting with the President, need the courage to cross partisan divides and reach out to wise ordinary folk and heed their advice, instead of listening only to party hacks and pundits approved by the financial community; and by every available means to stimulate association and INCLUSIVENESS.
¡Y FINALMENTE, TODOS, HOMBRES Y MUJERES, JOVENES Y VIEJOS, TENEMOS QUE HACER UN ESFUERZO INAUDITO PARA ENTENDERNOS A TRAVES DE LAS FRONTERAS QUE NOS SEPARAN! REACH OUT! AND KEEP ON REACHING OUT!
What's ridiculous? Who's ridiculous? You have no genuine debate between right and left for years and years - maybe since Reagan. You grow so far apart that you're worse than Disraeli's "Two Nations", and you're not even interested in trying to live alongside these people you're condemned to rub shoulders with?
It's America that's become f*****g ridiculous. And all you have to propose is to fight fire with fire, vitriol with vitriol, shitty ideology with shitty ideology.
A house that is divided against itself shall not stand.
And no, I'm not in favor of what the French call making peace between goats and cabbages. But there's no possibility, not even the remotest one, of making peace, unless every single element in the country has had a hearing - even if that hearing has to take place before a criminal court...
The Constitution wasn't drafted with suchlike in mind... It's not foolproof, which is one reason the drafters wanted it kept alive through a process of amendment where and when necessary.
But the Teabags have just had a resounding setback, and that may sort the sheep from the goats among them.
RMDC reports the seditious ravings of one who represents perfectly all that's most cheap and vile in the land. A case for the courts or for psychiatric internment. But it's precisely when we face such unworthy adversaries that it's all-important not to let ourselves get dragged down to their level.
Yes, Obama made the mistake of trying to treat with crazed ideologues, just as Chamberlain and Daladier tried to talk with Hitler. But there's no Hitler here, just a bunch of Krupps and Schachts who've just wasted billions and still have about as much charisma as a rat's ass, while their puppets are... just that. Wooden heads, plastic hearts. And they've just been thrashed. Again.
Some bell-wethers among them might even get the point, given a little judicious sheepdog talk. Get me?
"Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress and touches even the ermine of he bench. The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of these in turn despise the Republic and endanger liberty."
"yeah, but he only won because of all those people voting who shouldn't be allowed to."
Don't worry. We'll drag them into the 21st century kicking and screaming, but we'll (to borrow their words) "get 'er dun".
um... yeah! OF COURSE!
White Americans voted 59% for him.
This is just another case of an assumption being thought of as a fact. As one pundit put it, I't ain't what you know that causes the problems; i's what you know that ain't so."
As now deceased Minnesota senator Paul Wellstone put it, "We all do better when we all do better."
Perhaps it is difficult for thewse people to look at a different point of view because they assume their wallets are going to take a hit. They need to get the information that says it ain't so.
Did you mean, "Reverse Citizens United!!"?
I was goin' to ask the same thing. As an incompetent, stumbling typist, it's one o' the conundrums of the computer age and our common lingo, how a meaning can be totally turned upside-down by a stray digit.
I can't for the life of me imagine anyone except the members of SCOTUS who made it into law, "Revering" this antediluvian pronouncement.
Let's show some inclusive thinking, and give her the benefit of the doubt, until proven wrong.
Considering the tons of money GOP, wealthy supporters especially, threw at ads, the probable attempts of voting fraud by GOP operatives, and the politcally primitive remarks made by GOPers, the Grossly Obese Party (GOP) shows, and knows, where their priorities are. To them especially, elections and everything else, and everyone, is for sale. But while it's good news to keep the GOP at bay, it'll conrinue to be a vicious circle of Repub and Dem, Dem and Repub. I'm thinking of 2016 and 2020 and beyond as well.
thanks dovelane1. which earlier comment of yours are you referring to?
The comment I was referring to was the second one. It was a "cont'd" comment, but now has a response from kyzipster in between the two of them. It's about 38 or 39 posts above here. Towards the end of the comment, I talked about "rugged Individualists. "
Like you, i find this very puzzling. Do you suppose that it's just that there is a higher percentage of people who actually vote among the wealthier residents in these poor rural counties?
I read that back in the early 80's, many employers started to notice that there were more applicantys than there were jobs. On top of that, a lot of manufacturers discovered they could get their products made cheaper in other countries.
I believe that is when wages started to stagnate, becuause the thought process for the employers becamse, "I can pay this person what I want, and if they don't like it, there's someone else who will take my offer and be glad for a job."
This is probably not as true for jobs that require more education, but for the type of manufacturing jobs Reich is talking about, these are the workers who have been hit the hardest. It is near impossible to compete with countries like China, Bangladesh, and so on, that pay slave labor wages.
That's also the problem with the thinking which focuses solely on the monetary bottom line. Doing this allows the rich to deny or ignore what workers in other countries are doing just to survive.
What we need to do is include ALL the workers in the world getting paid a decent wage. If that were done,shipping jobs overseas would not be cheaper. Those getting rich off slave labor, don't want to make a profit; they want to make a killing.
As it is, we the people are consuming our way to the destruction of the planet.
Supposedly this country was set up by the founding fathers with the idea that all people would have access to a good "quality" of life. This idea was subverted by the rich in the 1800's, so that most people now believe that a good life is based on the "quantity" of things one acquires. We have been socialized to focus on acquiring more things, to the extent that we have forgotten to focus on the idea of becoming better people, having more compassion, more understanding, more caring. Or being more inclusive.
The super-rich, and maybe many of the higher upper middle class may be caught up in that same socialized itinerary. (I'll be a better person if I can just get the next big thing.)
The middle class and poor in this country, and in the world, get stuck just trying to survive. I think it is difficult to focus on politics when one is working two or three different part-time jobs, and worried about putting food on the table, or keeping the roof over the head, and clothes on one's back.
Let's not let the media hype more of this division than it is. We are all still Americans!
Citizens MUST come to a realization that they are being manipulated and learn to stick together against any who are tearing down their states and their country. Too many have been convinced it is for their "own good" to lose rights and turn on fellow citizens. They have also been convinced the church is coming into power through their governments.
My wife's family -what's left of them- are split right down the plumb-line between progressive and reactionary with some are not on speaking terms; -so sad and unnecessary. Her elder brother, who is a born-again, humorless, blinkered, evangelical Christian type with no ability to enter a discourse, is representative of those who move utterly beyond any hope of engagement and there are always quite a few of those.
I don't listen to NPR much but "This American Life" just did an excellent piece on just this subject; check out http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/478/red-state-blue-state.
Gawd -or whatever- HELP America!
I dearly hope that Obama will get more and better people into his administration this term ... like Robert Reich. Reich has tirelessly argued and written for the Democrats and Obama even as he has been critical of Obama, but in a constructive way. He needs to go back to Washington.
I'm afraid that, from an ol' UK/Scottish ("True", not "New" as in Blair) Labor activist and from a European standpoint, there has been no "Left Wing" in the US since the 1930's.
So you are right in your speculation by all worldly standards.
They may still be, but I havn't done much with them since Nader / 2000. Plus the Green candidate in Minnesota at the time, left the party and started another party further left of the Green party.
We've lost the definition of the center, in my opinion the center should be measured by where the American people stand on individual issues. When polled, they stand firmly on the side of the Democrats on every single issue. SS & Medicare, tax policy, military spending, the environment, regulation to correct the excesses of the banking industry and Wall St. Even most Republicans agree that we need to keep welfare for people who need it, yet Republican politicians have been campaigning against welfare since before Reagan. A belief that most welfare recipients abuse the system when the facts don't back that belief up.
Voters may hate Obamacare but if it was somehow eliminated they would still support the government doing something to make health care affordable and available to everyone. The left hates hates Obamacare because it's too conservative. On a few issues where voters lean right, like gun control, the Democrats have moved to the right of center. Abortion and gay marriage stand at about 50/50, giving the Democrats a reasonable position politically, hardly 'far left'. It's absolutely nuts, a distortion of reality.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
The biggest problem, even according to the Republicans is small business and the linkage between health insurance and employment is the big problem.
If Medicare was expanded, then the health insurance industry would have real competition at the high-end where insurance has a place, not keeping 50 million or more Americans from getting health care which affects their futures, their kids, their parents and their neighbors.
We are on the verge of being able to break health care open and mechanize it, with algorithms, checklists and transparent metrics leading to the greatest advance in health ever, and the doctors and managers are against it because they will end up feeling the same pain everyone else in other jobs has felt.
Obamacare is pretty much of a political joke, and Obama has a choice as to whether he actually wants to try to do something or be a joke too.
I do admit I support healthcare as a fundamental right, considering how it's needed. Profit should not be the bottom line; rather health.
Small businesses haven't fared well historically considering how many of them failed as opposed to suceeding. It can be reasons like a recession, depression, not making sales to help maintain the business. But more threatening-the private monopoly of corporations, with leverage to take over in a certain sector resulting in small businesses being unable to "compete." Umemployment is of course a problem but usually from a sick economy where, e.g., there's outsourcing (although small businesses aren't a big factor in that), economic corruption or crimes which resulted in, e.g., the 2008 Great Recession. Healthcare expenses I doubt are THE problem. But if a system can be developed where healthcare is a right, and can be paid through a number of ways that won't cause catastrophy.
That's just the way it is. If we wanted to stimulate small businesses, which we should, we should build it into our DNA, but we build plodding folllowership into our students in school, using school to break their spirit and babysit them.
We should have every job be a contact between businesses, each individual being their own corporation, and over time people would learn to see life in terms of buisness, organization and making win-win deals.
There are some efforts that are not suited to the free market, or at least not totally suited to the free market, they get corrupted. Health care is one of them.
Removing health care costs and administration from individuals and small businesses would be a giant win for both.
RSS feed for comments to this post