MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
More Wisdom from an NYT Con Columnist
By HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 7:40am |Like Ross Douthat, David Brooks is rarely right. When he is, the occasion deserves mention:
But eventually a new establishment came into being, which we will call the meritocratic establishment.
These were the tame heirs to Hoffman and Rubin. They were well educated. They cut their moral teeth on the civil rights and feminist movements. They embraced economic, social and moral individualism. They came to dominate the institutions of American society on both left and right.
Hillary Clinton is part of this more educated cohort. So are parts of the conservative establishment. If you’re reading this newspaper, you probably are, too, as am I.
This establishment, too, has had its failures. It created an economy that benefits itself and leaves everybody else out. It led America into war in Iraq and sent the working class off to fight it. It has developed its own brand of cultural snobbery. Its media, film and music industries make members of the working class feel invisible and disrespected.
URL:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/opinion/abbie-hoffman-donald-trump.html?action=click&contentCollection=opinion&module=NextInCollection®ion=Footer&pgtype=article&version=column&rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks
- Add new comment
- 16682 reads
Comments
Yes Brooks is right but he doesn't make the same conclusions you are making.
The Trump fans that feel invisible and disrespected are troglodytes like Trump who feel they never got their 15 minutes to fight the old culture wars and are doing it now. They are not the entire "working class". And they are certainly not the majority of the huge millenial generation who just presume and accept the prevailing culture produced by the boomer counter culture just want to move on to a totally new and automated, highly technological society.
As boomers and their culture wars die, you have to offer more than old socialist memes, they aren't going to get you anywhere. The new generation thinks different.
It's going to happen worldwide. Trump phenomenon is not that much different than an Erdogan or an Iranian imam or a Le Pen etc. It's the last gasp of old cultural warriors being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, trying to take things back to the good old days of the 1950's just one more time, just one more go round..As all boomers start retiring and dying, it's over. Even the Saudi royals know it's over, Wahhabism is going to die.
Millenials don't consider traditional values an option, they see what's ahead of them. Certainly they could go towards a more socialistic attitude in some places, but they aren't going to start crying for protectionism or nationalism, because it's just not possible anymore. We've had the internet, automation and technology. Joe Lunchpail is going to disappear soon. Even the millenials that are opoid addicts in Appalachia know this, that's why they are in despair, they haven't gotten the education they need.
I think you somewhat misintepret any appeal millenials have for Sanders. Let's simply what that is but saying what it is not: anything that syncs with Trumpism is not appealing.
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 9:28am
The economic choice is A) egalitarianism or B) increasing inequality. The political choice is 1) representative democracy or 2) authoritarianism. Because the Democratic Party went along with B, the American people have become more skeptical of 1 and are moving towards 2. This is exactly what we are seeing in Europe as well.
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 9:39am
You pretend that decades of dog-whistles have not had an impact. In addition we have gerrymandering decrease the impact of Democratic voters. A majority of voters actually prefer the Democrats you continually demonize. Their is a gerrymandering case that will determine if Republicans get away with their vote theft.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/supreme-court-hears-gerrymanderi...
Republicans are reversing gains put in place by Democrats. People want gun controls but are blocked by Republicans. People want health care, but it is at risk of losing it because of Republicans. Republicans need to gut health care to give tax cuts promised to their donors. You reflexively attack Democrats. Republicans have a say in things as well.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 10:21am
Two questions for you RMRD:
1) You write: "You pretend that decades of dog-whistles have not had an impact. In addition we have gerrymandering decrease the impact of Democratic voters." What have I ever written that suggests that I believe that "decades of dog-whistles have not had an impact"?
2) Do you believe that Democrats bear any responsibility for increasing working-class economic inequality and anxiety over the past 40 years, and, if so, has this had had any effect on white working class voting patterns?
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 11:07am
Hal. You are stuck. We have had the same discussion over and over. The white working class is in denial. They voted for a racist con man. Nothing the Democrats did excuses their vote. They voted in Ray Moore in Alabama, They want open carry machine guns in Las Vegas. Every other working class group realizes the Democrats are the better choice. The Democrats are not perfect, but they are better than the GOP. You continually divert from the simple fact that Republicans overturn what Democrats put in place. The ability to covert single shit weapons into rapid fire weapons is a Republican wet dream. Tax cuts for the wealthy by cutting health is a Republican goal. No rational person thought that Trump would improve health care. The question is not about the Democrats. The question is why white voters are willing to vote against their own interests and why they are willing to see hard fought benefits gained by blacks destroyed. This is a white voter problem.
You view Ta-Nehishi Coates as being depressing. Blacks view him as refreshingly honest. Coates inspires because he tells black that their impressions about your subgroup of white working class voters is correct. White working class voters are willing to see political harm befall black voters. You grasp for economic solutions. But your position is that blacks have to depend on the economic well being of whites to be secure. What happens if blacks do better economically than whites. Under your criteria, whites will attack blacks. In fact this is what happens. Blacks in Tulsa, Oklahoma did well economically. The result was a race riot where whites destroyed the black section of town. This is white pathology. It is not cured by economics
http://tulsahistory.org/learn/online-exhibits/the-tulsa-race-riot/
We have been through this before.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 11:47am
Two things:
1) Do you think that the recent stagnating, if not worsening, economic conditions of America's working-class have played any role in their movement towards the Republican Party and away from Democrats?
2) In the interests of a mutually rewarding back and forth, please don't tell me how I think or what I believe a la "[y]ou view Ta-Nehishi Coates as being depressing." Instead, if you disagree with something that I have written, quote me, and then adduce the evidence (preferably with citations to fact-based articles not fake news sites like Daily Banter or Blue Nation Review) that rebuts my positions. As I always have, I take very seriously evidence-based arguments.
Thanks!
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 11:55am
You continue to focus on the white working class.
Do you find Coates enlightening and inspiring?
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 12:00pm
I focus on the working class because that is the demographic that was at one time strongly Democratic and is now moving away from the Democratic Party. This includes working-class Americans of color. Do you think economic policies that Democrats have championed is part of the reason that this is happening?
I will respond to your question about Coates after you respond to my question regarding the movement of the working-class away from Democrats which I proposed first.
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 12:36pm
I think that I have been pretty clear that the moving away from the Democratic Party has been based on racial bias more than economics. Trump makes no economic sense for the white working class. This was a backlash to eight years of a Democratic President.
The last Democratic President who won white males was Lyndon Baines Johnson
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/us/politics/democrats-try-wooing-ones...
Then we had the Civil Rights Bill
White women also vote Republican
http://politicsofcolor.com/white-women-vote-republican/
Hillary won the female vote. She did not win white females.
This is race, not economics. Republicans feed into racial bias. This allows them to lie about economics. Why do white working class people believe that they will benefit from the GOP tax plan?
Tax hikes on the middle class
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/politics/republican-tax-rewrite-mi...
Tax benefits for the 1%
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/gop-tax-plan-woul...
White working class voters are not voting in an economically sound fashion.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 12:58pm
Well we disagree strongly. As you know, I believe the working-class, white and of color, is moving away from the Democratic Party because the party has betrayed it on any number of occasions. Left with a choice between two parties that are indifferent to their economic pain, voters are much more likely to choose the one that panders to their racism, sexism, and xenophobia.
Regarding Coates, from what I know, I believe him to be a powerful writer who articulates the oppression and pain that millions of African Americans are suffering due to racism and poverty. I am not well-versed in his work but the excerpts which I have read suggest to me that he would be more effective if he 1) addressed the very real and lasting economic and cultural damage that past and present racist policies and neoliberalism have wreaked on whites as well as blacks and 2) insisted that the government must do more to help all poor and struggling Americans. But to be fair, he may have voiced a more universal message than that for which I credit him.
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 1:11pm
Where are you seeing working class blacks moving from the Democrats? What other ethnic group is acting on racism and xenophobia? You may not realize this but the Trump white working class not only hates minorities, they hate whites who don't share their views of race and religion..
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 2:30pm
Here are a few articles:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/black-voters-arent-turning-out-for-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/us/politics/young-blacks-voice-skepti...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/11/0...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/why-black-voters-in-milwauk...
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 2:43pm
The 538 link notes that Obama received a historic percentage of the black vote.
The NYT article suggests that Hillary was a failure, but the truth is that she got the same numbers as most Democratic candidates.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-11-09/clinton-made-he...
Hillary got 88% of the black vote and you say that getting numbers identical to past Democrats shows that blacks are moving away from the party.
The NY Mag Intelligencer focuses on low turnout in Wisconsin. But Wisconsin was impacted by voter suppression.
https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200...
Hal, you are not interested in an honest dialog. I have pointed out that Hillary got the same percentage of the black vote as past Democratic Presidential candidates. I have pointed out the impact of voter suppression. Each time that you post on the issue of black voters, you pretend that we have not covered this ground before.
Coates has no magic solutions. Blacks have no magic solutions. Whites who did not vote for Trump have no magic solutions. Your economic focus will not attract white Trump voters because they don't care about poor people and Trump voters are not voting for their economic health, they are expressing anger that they feel other groups are making progress. Trump voters are envious despite the fact that blacks lost big in the housing crash.The only magic solution is get combat voter suppression and try to get out as many non-Trump voters as possible. Your economic pipe dreams will not have any impact.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 3:11pm
1) If Democrats get > 80% of the black vote, black voters are not the problem.
2) Blacks should not be dependent on white economic status to feel safe.
3) Whites do not vote in the majority for Democrtas
4) Blacks vote in the majority for Democrats
5) Republicans demonize blacks to gain white votes
6) Republicans try to suppress black votes.
That was the norm prior to Trump
Under Trump, white supremacists feel comfota
1) David Duke praised Trump
2) Bannon and Gorka were invited to work in the White House
3) Trump is more upset about black NFL players kneeling than he his about white supremacists carry torches.
4) White voters were aware of the above and still support Trump.
Coates merely says what blacks are feeling. Blacks hear nothing comforting in saying that economics will be the balm for the assault on their community. Refer back to Tulsa riot for how whites respond when blacks are felt to be too economically secure.
I await your tone-deaf economic message.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 3:59pm
I do not say blacks are the problem. I say the Democratic Party's embrace of neo-liberalism is the problem. The First Black President's First Lady, who was also the first black President's Secretary of State, couldn't do better with blacks than loser John Kerry did, even though she was going up against Donald "show me the birth certificate" Trump. That sure looks like a problem for Democrats doesn't it?
I agree with all of your other points which tend to support my argument that when Democrats abandon the working-class, they lose elections.
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 5:01pm
Sigh. You have shown nothing to support your hypothesis that economics will bring Trump voters back.
You simply refuse to understand that Hillary got the normal percentage of the black vote. She got the normal level. She got the normal level. Obama was an outlier. Hillary trounced Sanders in the black community because he was tone-deaf. Kerry lost because white voters are gullible. The problem is not Democrats. The problem is a large subset of white voters.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 5:12pm
Thank you , for solidifying for me that hardcore Bernie supporters cannot adapt their message and are incapable of addressing the impact of race. The concept of voter suppression as a cause for a decrease in voting is beyond your line of sight. So you are stuck with an economic message that carries no weight because you can't address issues important to blacks.
Im done. Life is too short. Remain in your bubble. Try reading Coates new book. It might give a you picture of how a significant number of black voter's feel.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 5:18pm
See comment at bottom of thread.
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 6:49pm
This will seem like a trivial comment. Because it is. But there's some magic in just working the problem.
On election day Trump's brilliant digital people ( recruited by Bannion) bought all the time available on U Tube. Ran prize winning ads of Michelle in 2008 criticizing Hillary during her primary against Obama. Asked anyone who was unsure of their polling place to call - and had enough circuits and staff to handle the more than 100,000 calls they received.
I wonder how many from Detroit.
One way to win an election is to run the smartest campaign. She didn't.
We're accustomed to dealing with issues here. But, hit an issue home -run and let your opponent buy all the U Tube time on election day an "Houston we've got a problem."
by Flavius on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 10:49pm
Flav, kinda off thread, maybe not Re: Ran prize winning ads of Michelle in 2008 criticizing Hillary. Oh such bad memories of that whole thing at TPM Cafe. There were more than a few Obamamaniac ditzes there who fell for the "Michelle really despises Hillary" story hook, line and sinker. Scared the shit out of me that supposedly sophisticated political junkies could be so stupid! Falling for what we now know is called kayfabe. (When she became Obama's Sec. of State, I wanted to track those people down and ask "does Michelle still hate her now? Do you remember what suckers you were for the horse race kayfabe, or did you forget?" ) For the same reason, like you, sometimes I do get a little upset by the continual focus on Hillary vs. Bernie to the point of them being depicted as arch enemies.
Not only that: my point upthread is basically that: after 2018, it doesn't really matter, this is all ancient history. These are all old people! Older than even me! And old people's issues!The torch is going to be passed to a new generation with new candidates, concerns, politics and attitudes, maybe even new parties and most with very bad memories of all things Trump. I don't see much value in rehashing a lot of this. Especially the loss of factory jobs, that's over as an issue, the majority realizes it is over and want help addressing it. So now probably is MAGA in most ways shapes and forms. It's like one says to a former flame: time to move on. To what? to: anything anti-Trump.
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 12:21am
I'm not really sure how many of the Obama-maniacs at TPM actually bought the stories they pushed, hook, line, and sinker. I think most of them just wanted to win at any cost. A lot of the discussion wasn't real especially during the primary. It was more like some people thought they were on camera in the spin room after a debate making talking points for the masses.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 12:35am
I guess you're right that some probably took the name of the site literally, as in: oh boy, we get to do talking points! But that also drove me crazy....it was like: nooooo, hellooo. the title was meant to be ironic, this was supposed to be a place where you wrote a memo that deconstructed talking points....
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 12:46am
Yeah I hated it too. The large infusion of Obamabots, not all Obama supporters, really ruined TPM reader's section for me.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 1:07am
As I've noted over and over, manufacturing downturn didn't occur until 2001, into Bush's first term and 7 years after NAFTA passed, and started under Carter around 1977 if not earlier Japan cars et al). Meanwhile there was a huge surge in good-paying jobs, home-ownership, etc. What was the working class's bitch then? "Clinton fatigue", so they voted for the guy who promised tax rebates to the rich? Well fuck me running, that was pretty goddamn stupid. And just how many times can workers reward the people who lie to them vs the ones who brought some new wealth before we call them easily deluded?
Gore was attacked by left and right and media, just like last year's election. Perhaps we can detect a pattern?
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 2:36pm
PP - we look at the same facts and come to very different conclusions. The late 90s tech bubble masked weaknesses in the economy while Clinton was President. The deleterious effects of NAFTA and media deregulation worsened over time. Repealing Glass-Steagall occurred at the end of the Clinton administration and it took 8 years before it tanked the economy.
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 2:40pm
If it took 8 years, how do you know that and not something else did it? If the changes got 90% of Congressional vote, how can you lay it at Clinton's feet? If it was so bad, why didn't Congress or the following President fix it in his 2 terms?
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 2:57pm
I'd be happy to try to persuade if I believed you were persuadable.
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 5:05pm
PP, here's some post election (April) numbers for you. All this hogwash about protectionism being popular is simply that: hogwash. It's based on taking stuff that Trump said while campaigning and Sanders said while campaigning and presuming that combining the two will make a majority against free traders. It's not there, it's a illusion. Actually, I am beginning to think that Trump supporters and Sanders supporters don't intersect in the least, not on this, not on anything. And that a majority still does very much buy Clintonomics. Matter of fact, some Trump voters probably expected Clintonomics from him, being a businessman and all. And look, Gary Cohn is still in the White House. How many supporters does Bannon really have? Pitchfork Pat could never really get off the ground, I think it's the same here.And millenials, heck, fuggedabout trying to get them to protect jobs for Americans only, and restrict trade, anyone who believes that don't know how it doesn't bother them to have to deal with a call center in India like their elders. Third way is more like the gospel take off point, it's more like people are looking for better smarter trade agreements is all.
Clearer to me every day that the type of populism Trump manipulated to win was cultural and personality based, not economic. Those that voted for him were just thinking "smart businessman, he'll do the right smart thing on that." Probably still thinking that. See for example: how many fans deserted him when he started playing nicey nice on China? Only Bannon got upset, seems to me!
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 5:34pm
Decades of Fox News lying about everything the Dems do has 1) produced the shitty results we see through having more obstructive GOP mucking up every decision, and 2) making the yokels think the Dems are responsible for GOP incompetence. Even the starry-eyed on the left often think that Hillary was more responsible for Iraq than then-President Bush and a 60 Republican majority, and think that NAFTA under BIll Clinton was solely responsible for job losses that started occurring 7 years after it passed or that Clinton created all the conditions for the 2008 meltdowns through a near unanimously-supported rule change rather than the complete cronyist lack of law enforcement yet again under Bush. Disinfo didn't start with the Russians - Fox made an art of it, Russia then made a computer science of it.
Yes, it's not surprising that the working class has done worse especially since Bush pulled the "trifecta" to back off any campaign promises and send loads of tax cuts to the rich, cutting needed programs, whereas Clinton increased taxes on the rich in trying to be fiscally responsible while still promoting strong government. It's entirely normal that increased efficiencies will cause job loss, but an increase in new business and new tech for everything from IT to health/medical science to environmental science to new energy will create new well-paying jobs as well. Having an administration that doesn't believe in job creation or retraining or any government assistance except to tax-cheating corporations simply doesn't help the working class ford the stream. Yet as rmrd keeps telling you, they keep doing things like causing racial scares and cultural wars to keep the riffraff voting against their own interests.
Here's Bill Clinton's State of the Union from 1994 - feel the different tenor in all the things and good values he was promoting, the applause step by step as he rolled through a liberal but smart platform and plan for government, that approach that's been beaten mercilessly by the insatiable left as "neoliberal", meaning "not as failed as everything we asked for". Go through every State of the Union he made during that period and he stakes out liberal values far past anything the Republicans wanted to accept, daring them to try to roll them back, while making a few of their sacred cows like a balanced budget part of his own progressive plan. Not good enough for some - plenty fine for me, and I haven't seen anyone do better before or since. No debilitating wars, no unsustainable tax rebates, better economic opportunity for minorities and the poor, attention to education and growing the economy and incorporating new technology in the mix. Why are rural whites pissed at this? mostly because Republicans lied and provoked and made them suckers for a few deceiving words, more us-vs-them where people get an exciting battle with "the other" rather than just enjoying what they have.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 12:28pm
Bill Clinton is a smart man and a good speaker. His economic policies did much harm to America's working-class and people of color. Democrats are paying the price for those policies today.
I share your view that Clinton was a relatively pro-peace President and he deserves much credit for that. He did try sincerely to broker peace between Israel and Palestine. Some disagree. They point to the carpet-bombing of Kosovo and the bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. I am not an expert on these events. From what I know, ongoing ethnic cleansing justified the former but the latter was wrong. That said, the Clinton years were ones of mostly peace and prosperity for the elites.
Right-wing media is a cancer on our democracy. Nevertheless, as bad as it is, we managed to elect an African-American President and large majorities of Democrats in the House and Senate in 2008, despite decades of poison from the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity.
As I have written before, Democrats can return to power if they unabashedly champion the poor, working, and middle-class in their recent losing struggle against the financial elites for a fairly-sized piece of the economic pie. This is the only way they can overcome the inherent chauvinism and bigotry that Republicans wield so effectively to push the 99% apart.
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 12:46pm
Your white working class voters don't give a crap about the poor.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 1:00pm
Okay. Do you care about them? Does it matter? Aren't we trying to win elections here? When Democrats don't appeal to the economic interests of the working-class as a whole, they lose the white working class to Republicans and we get Hoovers, Bushes, and Trumps and Great Depressions, illegal wars, and racist cabinets. When Democrats do appeal to the economic interests of the working-class as a whole, we get FDR and LBJ and social security, civil rights, Medicare, and the environmental movement. Which outcome do you prefer?
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 5:05pm
After reading Brooks' article several times to make sure I understood what he is saying, I came to realize that his short essay is a work of genius. He just made 60 years of the G.O.P disappear completely. You wouldn't be able to find them if you dusted for sphincter prints.
While it is tempting to go into detail how asymmetrical the emergence of Hoffman and the Trump electorate are with each other, it would detract from the need to look at Brooks as Magician:
Note how "multiculturalism" in this statement is only a product of curriculums active within seminaries of the educated class. It doesn't include the civil rights movement that gathered strength after WW2 and led to profound changes of law and common life in our society. It doesn't include the infusion of music, literature, graphic arts, and philosophies from all over the world and from inside our country. It doesn't remember that we had a crazy ass president who declared war on poverty. One could go on...
But the biggest thing that this narrative does not include are the people who fought these changes tooth and nail. The only figure Brooks can find to explain the changes is a skinny white guy who encouraged shop lifting.
by moat on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 6:40pm
A very wise man once said:
Well, he is wise on most issues but not trade. Was he right?
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 6:52pm
Well, you promote an agenda that promises to fix it all too.
Maybe that agenda will succeed where others have failed. It will have to be attempted for it to give us something to compare with previous attempts.
However much you see the previous efforts as flawed, you will approach a point of diminishing returns devoting all your time trying to prove that is true. Everybody gets that past efforts were not perfect. The oldest trick in the political world is to say we need only reverse the present policy to achieve the good thing. The terrible burden of proof is always on the new.
by moat on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 8:47pm
I do not support a new agenda. I support an agenda that has a demonstrated track record of making America better. See e.g., my Elizabeth Warren's History Lesson.
by HSG on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 3:58am
I think he was wrong. I argued that at the time back on the old TPM. Some people here may remember it though TPM had many more bloggers and I was just a bit player there. I'm from one of those small towns in Pennsylvania. I don't think Obama understood the people in these small towns at all. He's making a causal link that doesn't exist. Long before the jobs disappeared the people in these small Pennsylvania towns were "clinging" to their guns and their religion and their antipathy for people who aren't like them. FOX, right wing radio, and the NRA may have used those fundamental rural values to convince them to vote republican. But guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them was always part of their identity. It's not something that appeared when the jobs disappeared.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 10:03pm
So they're just bad irredeemable ignoranuses?
by HSG on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 10:34pm
Hal, OK didn't say they were bad, he didn't say they were irredeemable and he didn't say they were ignoramuses.
He related his own impression of people he grew up with succinctly and without demeaning them.
If you spent years growing up, living and interacting in rural rust belt small towns, perhaps you can tell us your experiences.
Specifically why a higher tax, income redistribution lefty messiah precisely fits their ideology and identity.
by NCD on Wed, 10/04/2017 - 10:52pm
Thanks NCD. I didn't make any value judgments though I have some. Though they're quite a bit more nuanced than Obama's statement.
I own guns and consider myself a Second Amendment supporter. I don't think I'm clinging to my guns nor do I think most small town people are either. Fact is most of them would support some gun control measures.
Does this sound like bitter people upset over lost jobs clinging to their guns? It's true that some gun owners have been convinced that any gun control is a slippery slope to banning guns and confiscation but that's not what I saw nor is it what the polls tell us the majority of gun owners think.
Church is a big part of life in rural communities. It was a big part of my life until I went off to college. I didn't think about it, I just believed. It wasn't really college that made me atheist. As a music major most of the courses I took were music related. It was personal reading, thinking, and finally questioning my beliefs that caused me to reject Christianity. Both of my sisters are still active church goers. Most of their friends go to their church. While I do think believing that nonsense is stupid part of me wishes I could still believe or pretend to. I'd have a community of friends or at least friendly acquaintances. I love music and play several instruments fairly well, just not quite full time professional level. At one point before I gave it up I got occasional paying gigs playing trumpet in churches. I could join the choir and bring out my instruments to play.
For many of the religious church is the center of their social life, not something they cling to. Some how conservative religious leaders have convinced many of them to vote republican over abortion and gay rights. I see that as a problem for us and I'm not sure what to do about it. But it's not due to bitter people clinging to religion because they lost their jobs.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 12:42am
Useful. It's sad when good people become haters. Fortunately most don't .
I disagree that the white working class hates blacks. I think that it, they want to walk the dog on an autumn day, if hunting's their thing , do that.If told they hated blacks or that they wanted themselves to own the sort of weapons owned by poor , sick, bad Paddock they would just shake their heads and say " what makes you think that ?"" People " aren't bad. ."Some people" are.
Whatever class of other grouping to which they belong most people are reasonably OK. But can be led to believe dreadful things like some particular class per class is evil. Or that it is right for anybody,, anybody to injure anyone.
There are wonderful wall street bankers-I've known them- blacks , white working class members.Muslims,
And then there are the leaders of the NRA.They're evil.
by Flavius on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 3:18am
Yes there are wonderful investment bankers but their short term economic interests are fundamentally at odds with those of the great majority of Americans.
by HSG on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 3:44am
If you believe that capitalism is better than a planned economy ,investment bankers are as integral to it as carpenters are to building a house. They grease the wheels.
by Flavius on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 8:22am
Q. Is "free trade" in the short-term best interests of investment bankers?
A. Almost certainly as low wages mean increased corporate profits which mean higher stock prices, corporate valuations, and fees.
Q. Is "free trade" in the short-term or long-term best interests of most Americans?
A. Almost certainly not as it leads to higher unemployment, higher underemployment, lower salaries, and less spending.
Q. Are high top marginal tax rates in the short-term best interests of investment bankers?
A. No because investment bankers are very very highly compensated and therefore would have to pay higher taxes.
Q. Are high top marginal tax rates in the short-term and long-term best interests of most Americans?
A. Almost certainly since most Americans don't make very high salaries, they won't be paying those top marginal rates. The higher taxes will lead to greater revenues, the ability to spend more on infrastructure, and a reduction in inequality which more closely aligns the political interests of the 1% with everybody else. Higher taxes also reduce the temptation to bribe elected officials or to take bribes since the ultimate payoff is reduced. Thus, they result in a better government. There are many other reasons why higher top marginal tax rates benefit ordinary Americans.
by HSG on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 8:34am
Racism was a big factor in the vote for Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/04/17/racism-mot...
Pollsters note racism as a common factor in voting patterns
http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/346...
White Trump voters feel that they are discriminated against more than blacks
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/02/white-trump-voter...
Hates crimes are on the rise in the age of Trump
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hate-crime-rise-2016-united-states-t...
Black people are among those ones directly impacted by racism. They noted the dog-whistles at Trump rallies. They note Trump's difficultly in criticizing white supremacists and they note what white Trump voters say in polling questions. Do you have any data that support your feeling that white Trump voters are not racially biased?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 8:39am
1. Not all Trump voters hated blacks, but they were willing to vote for a guy who did hate blacks
2. If you did hate blacks, it was easy to cast a vote for Donald Trump.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 9:09am
Yes. Minorities always get it in the neck when demagogues and authoritarians seek scapegoats to distract the masses from their increasingly fraught economic circumstances.
by HSG on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 9:41am
Repeating crap does not make it correct. White working class members focused on economic insecurity voted for Hillary. White working class in total when for Trump because of cultural anxiety (racism)
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/white-working-class...
Those who try to pretend racism wasn't a big part of the Trump vote are dismissive of black concerns. These folks want to push blacks to the back of the bus.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 10:00am
Why the need to repeatedly find excuses for what this group of white voters wanted? Trump finds fine people among the torch carriers. Now we are told there are fine people who voted Trump in office. We want to absolve them despite the nonsense they believe.
Edit to add:
Hillary got 88% of the black vote. She is described as getting the same percentage as"loser" Kerry. Somehow black voters didn't do enough. Blacks voters feel neglected by the Democratic Party and some grumble about staying home in 2018. Instead of embracing these black voters, they are told to go "f**k" themselves, they are not embraced. The folks who voted for the racist, on the other hand, need to be treated with respect. Insanity.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 11:09am
In the era of Trump fans feel,free to repeatedly call black players nigger
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/white-working-class...
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 1:01pm
What I see when I read a thread like this is a lot of arguing about the past and trying to appeal to the paradigm or demographic that resulted in Trump's election, and going back to its progeny in the rust belt, the Reagan Dems and even the Southern Strategy.
When this is the reality: Trump became president and hello, it is a disaster!!! And his influence and fans are declining every day! And it is surely not the future! It is for the history books only.
Look, for example anything racist he does: he loses more! More clients from Palm Beach! More GOP in Congress and even in his own cabinet. Only keeps a small contingent of diehard fans. The diehard Trump fans after all the messes he has made in the presidency are so clearly nobody with any power. They do not for the most part include millenials, the huge new voting demographic that will only increase in power as boomers die. They don't even include a lot of Breitbart people now.
The only way he appears to maintain a current approval rating is when he goes bipartisan and reasonable. Otherwise, it goes down.
I think anything Trumpian will be "Mudd" for the foreseeable future. Whatever it is, politically the smart way to go is you want to think about going in the opposite direction. The Trump presidency is last gasp of old people's culture wars. It was enabled by a minority of the voters with a majority opposed, and now that he got to be president, the numbers continue to decline every day.
You don't want to spend time arguing about why a minority of U.S. voters voted him into the presidency. You don't need them to win anything., the diedhards are smaller in number everyday. He is not getting more popular, he is growing less popular. Unless there is a radical change in the person named Trump, they are going to not just get smaller in numbers, they are going be dying and will not be replaced. Fewer every day expect factory jobs to return. Fewer everyday can be classified as being in a "white" family, much less white working class! There will be no such thing soon as "white working class". Even in rural areas, more and more will have like, a sister-in-law that's Cambodian. This white working class grievance thing is so over precisely because: Trump became president and it's a disaster so far.
You want to argue about that kind of thing, move on to the modern world issues: multiracial working class issues and problems including what is assimilation (Muslims vs. Christians!) and how do we avoid ghettos and bad effects of tribalism; things like outsourcing of tech jobs overseas; how do rural people make a living and get proper health care when all the providers are in urban areas,etc.
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 2:31pm
Talking about race is difficult, so we often divert. The issue of race and Trump is staring us in the face today. Trump has a voter fraud commission today. The Supreme Court is hearing gerrymandering cases today. Police abuse is happening today. We are not post-racial today. 538 rates Trump approval at 38.8 today. The GOP controls the Presidency, Senate, and Hose today. We have to deal with the facts we face today in order to try to get change in 2018 and onward.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 2:49pm
Republicans control all three branches of government. They have a stranglehold on state legislatures and governor's mansions. I think it's pretty darn important to try to understand how they've managed to win (or Dems have managed to blow) so many elections.
by HSG on Thu, 10/05/2017 - 3:11pm