Explaining White Working-Class Republicans or Why Bernie is Best

    White working and middle-class people look at what the two major parties have done over the past 35 years and they see each one pursuing policies that assure one percent of the people get 50% of the pie. Republicans say in barely coded language that A) they will give non-affluent whites first dibs at the crumbs the rich leave behind while B) Democrats will give first dibs to blacks, immigrants, gays, and liburals (most of whom are in the 1% anyway).

    Corporate democrats also basically tell white working people A) there's nothing to be done about the 1/2 of our nation's wealth that goes to the 1%.  But they also say B) everybody else has to share the remains in equal quantities. How big a surprise is then that so many white working voters support Republicans?

    If you look at the free trade deals, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Obama's willingness to enter into a "grand bargain", trying to convince white working Republicans they've doped this out wrong is tough sledding.

    This is why Bernie is so crucial.  Unlike Hillary who has supported some of the very policies that have led to the extraordinary inequality we face now, Bernie really would take a big healthy chunk of the 1%'s slice and allocate it more fairly.  If we care about our nation's future, we've got to back him.


    Sorry, now you're just chirping to your favorite bird. I don't recall Dems saying there's nothing to do about wealth distribution or that whites will come second. I do recall Hillary saying in 2008 that the great compromise was foolish and she's been proven to be right.

    The combination of Bush era financial malfeasance and Obama going along with tea party austerity/squeeze the government has cut into spending for needed supports and redistribution and left us discussing values issues rather than real cash supports and jobs programs, with a lengthy flat wage recovery.

    Trade deals are supposed to grow business and thus jobs. Us manufacturing has grown hugely - but not the jobs part. I don't think we started out with this as a goal, but fool me twice, shame on me. Google and Apple and Microsoft and Amazon set global standards - including not paying enough taxes. That need to be fixed. There is no foreign competition for these hyperdominants, so they don't need the subsidy - they're just gaming the system. But it will be tough to codify this and pass it to lower their bonanza.

    As someone's url noted, the sell side of banks has been reined in, so the Glass-Steagall bit is still fighting last war. 

    There's more, but why bother - reps bad, Dems bad, independent Bernie will cure everything. Got it.

    If there is one thing white working class Republicans fear (and therefore hate) it is Socialism. They will NEVER vote for Bernie. NEVER.

    By the time the Republicans and the media would get through with Bernie he'd look like Father Time with a prostate problem. But no worry, the millenials would flock to the polls to vote for him.

    Hall, did you leave out the paragraph that explains (something) about white working class Republicans. Maybe that paragraph was the antecedent to "this" (something) in the last paragraph. 

    Which reminds me,

    To the management:


    Oxy! Hal is continually telling us how important it is to consider only the feelings of white men (not just working class either) in his calculus for hating Hillary Clinton. I know lots of old white guys just don't like the idea of women in control of anything but likewise I know plenty of white guys who don't care one way or another.  

    As someone who hangs and commutes with a bunch of working class white guys every single day,  the majority of them aren't voting for any Democrat ever, whether that Democrat is a man, or a woman.   They certainly aren't voting for Bernie Sanders, they refer to him as the communist, not even socialist,  (*Yes Hal, Sanders is neither one of those things, not really, but those blue collar folks believe what they hear on Fox and on hate radio.)

    I don't know if this subsection of people should  even matter to us at this point.  They haven't in the past couple of Presidential elections, but they do matter in off year elections, because they do tend to vote and they always vote Republican.   As Democrats we are grappling with solutions to the fences that have been put up to bar(re) minorities from voting. This is our mission, to see everyone represented. Hal's mission is to make sure old white guys are super comfortable with the next Presidential election. They are, they are voting for Republican's like they always do.  They don't really care who that Republican might be, it could be Cruz or Trump or Rubio or Bush. 

    White I work at the third largest Ballet Company in the US, even we understand the real concern for Democrats is those states that have begun to bar(re) minorities from voting.   This is something we discuss often at the office, in fact we discuss it almost daily because these are the real issues that impact us, not that white men remain in control and comfortable, but how we begin yet again to expand the field of voters, voters who are being prevented from voting.  How do we take down those barriers? Republicans are enacting legislation to keep minority populations from voting. This is our real concern and our real issue.  Hal has his own, and it is to make sure the illusive conservative white guy is on our side.

    "I know lots of old white guys just don't like the idea of women in control of anything but likewise I know plenty of white guys who don't care one way or another." - as option #3 (you asked, didn't you?), here's a guy who cares, and thinks many times women do a better job holding things together, multitasking, keeping track of important details, or as Hillary says, "making lists", and in general staying on task(s). Traditionally we've held that distinct from "the vision thing" and relegated women to like HR & secretarial pools where they've often run things from below, but hopefully that myopia will start to pass.

    Yes number 3 is valid, I like it. 

    I'm still waiting for data based on verifiable metrics that supports your and other's claims that any of these new identification or other election  laws bar any measurable significant number of minorities or anyone else from voting. The data from the 2012 election shows just the opposite results with Black voters turning out in record numbers 66.2%, 2% higher than White voters whose turnout decreased and therefore who must be the ones affected by these new laws

    Privately and quietly you might applaud these less than effective attempts at harassing minority voters as it seems they have produced the opposite of their intended effect and  response from minority voters. They have been energized to turn out and claim their voting rights not sit at home sulking about supposedly being denied their rights.

    I'm still waiting for data  based on verifiable metrics that supports your and other's claims that these new voter ID and other election  laws have any measurable significant effect on minority voting or anyone else's voting The data from the 2012 election seems to show just the opposite with Black voter turnout at a record high of 66.2%, 2% higher than White turnout which actually declined so they must be the ones negatively affected by these Draconian new laws.

    Quietly and privately you might applaud these ineffective attempts at minority voter  harassment, they failed and seem to have energized these voters to turn out in record numbers and exercise their voting rights even if they had to get a new ID and vote on voting day.

    There's more to politics than presidential elections. The GOP has been largely focused on gerrymandering house districts and controlling state legislatures, both of which have been very successful. How's recent black turnout & rejection of eligibility in local elections compared to say 1 or 2 decades ago?

    You're trying to deflect the conversation  towards another topic that may or may not be relevant to minority voter turnout. In fact Black voter turnout increased the most in the Reddest states in 2012.

    Gerrymandering is illegal and even in Texas some of their redistricting was rejected by the courts. Are you claiming that only Republicans use redistricting for control of their legislatures and that Democrats, when in power, refrain from using this political tool?

    Gerrymandering is only illegal if the courts disallow it, which hasn't happened too often. Yes, Democrats have done it too. The Republicans have been much more concerted and successful at it of late. Both practices of course are evil. 

    Bernie really would take a big healthy chunk of the 1%'s slice and allocate it more fairly.  

    How would he do that, Hal?  What power would he have as President to do that?  Could he do it unilaterally?  Because I don't see the opportunity for cooperation among those whose cooperation would be needed. Seems to me you have made a real case for keeping him in the Senate, where he would be a little closer to the "pie-slicing" mechanics.


    I'm serious here.  How would he accomplish this?  And how would he unilaterally accomplish single-payer, since unfortunately, most Americans don't even want it because of their irrational fear of anything the Right-Wing labels as socialism.

    The three biggest reasons for the vast gulf in wealth between the richest and everybody else are: 1) the decline of unions, 2) the passage of "free trade" deals, 3) cuts in top marginal tax rates.  Nobody has fought harder for unions, against free trade deals, or talks more about raising taxes on the wealthy than Sanders does.  Clinton, Joe Biden points out, is a newcomer on this issue. 

    Still, as Sanders points out repeatedly, he cannot on his own undo the bad laws that have led to the pathology of economic injustice but he will do everything in his power to help elect a Congress that will.  A truly progressive voting coalition that includes many working-class whites, along with the great majority of Americans of color, and educated liberals can elect big liberal Democratic majorities in Congress.  A similarly constituted coalition kept Congress in Democratic hands for the vast majority of the period between 1932 - 1980.

    Sanders on August 19, 2015 (emphasis supplied):

    And now let me tell you something that no other candidate fot president will tell you. And that is no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country.

    They will not be able to succeed because the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of campaign donors is so great that NO PRESIDENT ALONE can stand up to them.

    That is the truth. People may be uncomfortable about hearing it, but that is the reality. And that is why what this campaign is about is saying loudly and clearly: It is not just about elected Bernie Sanders for president, it is about CREATING A GRASSROOTS POLITICAL MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY.

    Thanks.  It seems that whether you admit it or not, the Senate is the place Bernie can do the most good.  

    Note:  in 2014 Dems in Red States did not want OBAMA'S help on their campaigns, because he was TOO LIBERAL!!!!  So I question the ability of a President Sanders to help Dems get elected to Congress.  I also believe that if Bernie wins the Primary, we will have all three branches dominated by the GOP, or in the case of the Supremes, appointed by them. 

    Obama is liberal on social issues but not particularly progressive on economic matters - viz. free trade, attempt to reach a "grand bargain" on social security with Republicans, lukewarm embrace of unions, etc.  This combination is a recipe for disaster in Appalachia.

    On Trade Agreements from Newsweek:

    ...Last year, U.S.-manufactured exports topped $1.4 trillion, an all-time high, and the largest job gains in manufacturing have come in sectors that sell their products overseas. Exports now support more than 6 million manufacturing jobs across the country, as well as higher-paying jobs for an increasingly educated and diverse workforce.

    Overall, the United States exports about 55 percent of its manufacturing output, with smaller manufacturers, many of them family-owned, accounting for more than 96 percent of all U.S. exporters.

    The U.S. remains largely open to the world, and manufacturers in the United States compete every day with overseas companies to sell their goods here at home. The U.S. has the lowest tariffs on manufactured goods of any G-20 country, and more than two-thirds of all manufactured-goods imports enter the U.S. duty-free.Regrettably, export growth has slowed, dampening the demand for U.S. products. As a result, market-opening trade agreements that reduce artificial trade barriers, lower costs and broaden opportunities for American products become even more critical.

    But manufacturers in the United States face a very different situation abroad.

    America’s access to global markets has largely been made possible by a series of trade agreements with countries such as Canada, Mexico, Chile and Australia. Taken together, America’s 20 existing trade agreement partners buy 13 times more manufactured goods from the United States than other countries.

    Unfortunately, in countries where no such agreements exist, manufacturers in the United States face unfair trading practices, restrictive tariffs, cumbersome custom regulations and threats to intellectual property rights.

    In Asian countries where the United States does not have free trade agreements, for example, U.S. manufacturers face tariffs as high as 83 percent on automotive products, 70 percent on machinery and capital equipment, and 30 percent or more on chemicals, health and medical equipment and infrastructure products.

    Notable is the fact that America enjoys a $55 billion trade surplus with its trade agreement partners, compared with a $579 billion deficit with countries where such agreements are lacking. 

    There is tremendous potential to be gained by lowering the barriers abroad for manufacturers by negotiating new trade agreements.

    Too many people, however, still subscribe to the myth that free trade agreements result in job losses.

    The economic impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) remains a topic of debate two decades after it was ratified. But the official government numbers tell the truth: Manufacturing jobs actually grew by about 800,000 in the four years directly following NAFTA.

    The reality is that protectionist policies do not work, and free trade does not kill jobs. It grows jobs and expands opportunities for manufacturers in the United States.

    Time and again, history demonstrates that, when other countries lower tariffs, it makes our exports more competitive, gives us access to new markets, boosts demand for our products, increases jobs and drives economic growth.

    For this reason, more than 75 manufacturing groups in industries throughout the sector wholeheartedly support the enactment of bipartisan trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation recently introduced in Congress....

    ...Jay Timmons is president and CEO and Chad Moutray is chief economist of the National Association of Manufacturers.

    The chart shows a huge drop-off in manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was enacted but you somehow have concluded that it really was good for working people.  Oh, now I understand, the National Association of Manufacturers says it so that must make it true.  The Heritage Foundation, the US Chamber of Commerce, and Forbes all agree too.  What could possibly go wrong?  For a contrary viewpoint.  http://www.epi.org/publication/fast-track-to-lost-jobs-free-trade-agreem...

    The chart shows a huge drop-off in manufacturing jobs since the dotcom crash, prolonged when Bush was elected, *not* since NAFTA was enacted. There's a 6 year difference. (manufacturing jobs & exports held tight even during the 95 peso crisis)

    Suggest you return to the graph-reading portion of your studies for revision.

    Re: the EPI, the chart shows the numbers as the guys stated - no job loss for 6 years after NAFTA started. To mangle Groucho, "who ya gonna believe, you/the EPI or your lying eyes?"

    Was there something you updated?

    The figures are from the St. Louis Fed - hope you're not going to pick a fight with them, seeing as anyone who has more than $5 in their pocket seems suspect.

    People believe in creationism.  So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people actually believe that "free trade" with countries where wages are one twentieth of what they are here isn't a problem for our working class.

    Let's see Vietnam or Guatemala compete with John Deere, Caterpillar or Boeing.

    If you never get into specifics, you think the reality is much scarier than it is. We only have 140 million non-farm employees. Caterpillar and Boeing have over 100,000 employees each. General Electric has 300,000. United Technologies has 200,000. These are all doing quite well, whatever wages there are abroad.

    Wages are based on factors like the particular industry, skillsets required, amount of production, competition & demand, along with bargaining power. You look at 1 factor, but it's certainly not very informative.

    Despite 70 straight months of job growth, wages have not grown very much. Still, wages earned are far above the countries earning 1/20th, and with unemployment down to 5%, we're almost back to full employment. (Long term unemployed or those who've given up looking still means full employment isn't here yet).

    I'll give you this PP you're relentless and have worn me down.  You win.

    It's not about winning - it's about informing and persuading. If you expand your view with new understanding to improve it, you've won - same for me. Sadly, I suspect "worn me down" implies something different.

    Well, I'm still surprised by white workers voting Republican, since even Hillary has shown more concern for the working class and lower-middle class than the Republicans. The usual explanation is displaced anger--taking out their frustrations on blacks, immigrants, Muslims, or whomever instead of the fat cats. But that may be too simplistic an explanation.

    When looking at this Pew Research Study, it doesn't seem like the views of those most strongly aligned to their parties are going to change their thinking about the causes of economic suffering on the basis of the Sander's platform. If their is room for persuasion, it would seem to be in that group they call, Less Partisan and Less Predictable who are nonetheless engaged enough politically to actually vote.

    As a contrast of volatility conditioning the GOP message, this study claiming Trump's appeal relies on a substantial number who are not typically considered "engaged" is interesting.

    (edit added missing link).

    Latest Comments