• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Atlantic: The Poor & the Well Off Rebelling Against the Rich in the Republican Party

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gallbaro

Banned
The thing is, both sides are wrong about the reasons. At least in how they go about it on the stump.

Globalization and neoliberalism has killed labor in post industrial societies. Democrats tend to kind of just ignore this while speaking about better welfare so that people who get left behind might actually still be able to eat. The right has typically gone in the direction of pushing harder for market liberalization while spreading the message that everything will reach equilibrium eventually as long as we get the government out of the way.

To say that the working class people who swung right in the last 30 years are "voting against their interests" are missing a key point in that the latter actually /did/ work for the redder states as the cutting of business oriented taxes or outright tax breaks for corporations did bring industry to the smaller, more rural states over this time frame away from the bigger states. As the northest rusted, the mid and south west actually expanded industrial output as the lower cost of living per capita and the aforementioned tax breaks resulted in industrial labor that was vastly cheaper to produce in a rural state and export to a more expensive state. The key change is that the rise of china and other economies like it plus the hyper advancing of the actual logistics of moving things around have resulted in tipping the balance out of the favor of rural industrial output in the us and instead pushed it over to China, Vietnam, etc. What this has resulted in are these states going through essentially the same economic crisis that the northest did in the 70s "rust belt" era within the last 10-20 years, and as more jobs get lost the working class whites have been left holding the bag as labor moved away from them.

As things worse and worse in these states over time (oklahoma and kansas both are completely falling apart right now economically) I think these areas will undergo the same swing left that the northeast did, eventually. Trump's populism is just the birthing pains of it starting on the national stage, really.

At the end of the day what's caused all of this is that neoliberalism in the Milton fashion has just run its course in the us, and as the us moves further and further into post-idustrialism big government is going to have to pick up the slack. Establishment free market republicans have no where else to turn in the us anymore. They're a dying breed and they probably are finally starting to realize that in brutal fashion this time around. Personally, I say good fucking riddance :p

Damn good post.

Still though, the one aspect you did not touch upon is both parties will inevitably be forced to become anti-immigration (in one way or another). A post industrial society with a surplus of labor, becoming social democracy cannot have a liberal immigration policy. They will either advocate for a non-eligible residency class or to severely limit immigration.
 

MisterR

Member
I don't think the article really makes the point to support its argument that these people are rebelling "against the rich". It may be true that they are on different sides, but there is not a lot of evidence that the Trump supporters are anti-rich. Trump himself is obviously extremely rich, and his tax proposals still favor the rich as much as any of the establishment candidates.

Bernie Sanders is a candidate with a constituency that is rebelling against the rich; that is a pillar of his campaign. Not so with Trump, Carson, Cruz, or whoever you want to hold up as the banner-bearer for the mood of the Republican base this cycle.

They've been taught by the rich to blame the poor. They think all their money is going to a bunch of people to lazy to go and work. They've been fooled into this.
 

TheFatOne

Member
I agree with you, it's like a 300 year old strategy to pit poor whites against minorities - I don't think any one human will be able to overcome that.

Only time in the scale of hundreds of years can fix this. That's just the sad realization that I have come to recently.
 
So BLM has been reduced to "hashtavists". Makes me not want to keep reading.

It's arguable that social media (especially Twitter) reduces the legitimacy of modern social movements to older generations. Which is kind of ironic given how it was used during the Arab spring.

Activists showing up at political rallies to stop a candidate from speaking altogether just get tuned out as noisy kids.
 

Future

Member
I don't think the article really makes the point to support its argument that these people are rebelling "against the rich". It may be true that they are on different sides, but there is not a lot of evidence that the Trump supporters are anti-rich. Trump himself is obviously extremely rich, and his tax proposals still favor the rich as much as any of the establishment candidates.

Bernie Sanders is a candidate with a constituency that is rebelling against the rich; that is a pillar of his campaign. Not so with Trump, Carson, Cruz, or whoever you want to hold up as the banner-bearer for the mood of the Republican base this cycle.

I think they are rebelling against typical republican rhetoric that only supports the rich

Republican versus democrat ideologies always amuse me because republicans face the same issues in the middle class as anyone else. They need healthcare and they need help too. The fact that only one party seems to be for that stuff is kind of ridiculous. It gives trump appeal because he seems against the status quo of the republicans, which this article suggests is surprising to rich, elite republicans

It also shows why "make America great again" is a toxic slogan. It reeks of "the good old days," said only by people that benefited from only white men holding the best jobs, the best education, and the most wealth. If a white male doesn't get a job or into college, some will blame all the programs and diversity goals as the culprit and not themselves.

The republican part imploding like this was a long time coming. They need to reform their ideals
 

Gallbaro

Banned
It's arguable that social media (especially Twitter) reduces the legitimacy of modern social movements to older generations. Which is kind of ironic given how it was used during the Arab spring.

Activists showing up at political rallies to stop a candidate from speaking altogether just get tuned out as noisy kids.

I am sorry but what were the results of the Arab Spring? Did the young people using twitter successfully reach their goals? Or was it the old people using guns? I cannot remember.
 

wildfire

Banned
i have less sympathy for their anti-immigration policies just because mexico's problems are in large part thanks to america fucking them up for decades and empowering the cartels with money and guns

i can't see a good reason to refuse citizenship to someone who wants to come to america and contribute after we aided in the destruction of their homeland

I don't know how they would argue against that but I feel because of NAFTA Mexico's economy was helped a lot with tighter integration between ourselves and Canada. The problem with cartels can be pinned down on us (for making their businesses profitble) but not as large of a degree as the Mexican gov't and the police force they administer fucking up even without our interference.
 

injurai

Banned
About what? Many people on the left already agree with each other on many things

Democrats criticize each other ALL the time, even when they're in agreement with one another.

No offense but your being vague and coded with this post.

My comment was about how we shouldn't paint criticism of political correctness as being coded language for sexism, racism, xenophobia, etc. Which is what was being asserted as the meaning of DragonSworne's post. Angelus was answering in place of the person who the inquiry for clarification was posed to. It's really annoying when people on the left who criticize the behavior of a subset of the left, end up being painted as something they aren't. It's a lazy cynicism tactic. Instead of picking an actual battle, they settle for these faux-targets just to find an opportunity to reiterate their message. It quite frankly dilutes the integrity of the progressive position that they are attempting to espouse.

DragonSworne was talking about how part of the group of people that have turned away from traditional republican candidates are opting to support trump. His claim was that this group is being turned away from the left because of political correctness. No where does he say we need we need to pander to bigots. He's echoing a complaint, which is also held by many on the left hold, against the authoritarian leftist rhetoric. He's extending this in saying these people are moving left of the Republican base, but aren't landing in the left, because Trump offers enough liberal policies to net their vote. They had been republicans, so he's an easier move as opposed to landing on Hillary's camp. There is no doubt they'd never go for Bernie. He's offering a claim of a problem, and a solution for the left.

A more apt response against what he's saying would be, "He's suggesting we court people dislike political correctness, but fails to realize a lot of those people might be coded bigots. This is a lost battle." Instead he asserted that this poster was argueing we start being bigots ourselves to court this vote. Just like Trump is doing. That not only lying about what the other poster meant, but setting up chance for a flippant cynical retort. As soon as the poster said pc, that was turned into a smoking gun and a bigoted character was projected upon him.

My whole point is that we on the left, cannot keep operating under the assumptions that criticism is coming from a bigoted position. I like Angelus, he's one of the better posters. But I think that response was a bit of a knee jerk.
 

Usobuko

Banned
The craziest thing is: these angry people are right.

Things really did used to be better for the white working class. Real income was better, the cost of everything from housing to education was lower, job security was more stable (which is very important for the working classes).

They tend to be wrong about the reasons though.

Played like a fiddle by their own kind.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
It's true, partly because the country as a whole is more polarized towards extremes. Candidates reflect that. It wasn't always that way. You could be a "blue dog" democrat and stand to win in an ostensibly conservative state in the past. There aren't a lot of headlines to be grabbed by being a moderate nowadays. A moderate is what the republicans need, because their extremist candidates are completely unelectable.

It's fascinating to read the article, think about the candidates on offer, and wonder how republicans of all dispositions can possibly think their general platform is going to win in the year 2016. The general public has largely moved on from gay marriage, marijuana, and especially abortion, yet these are core issues for republicans. The country continues to gradually turn blue due to shifts in demographics, and yet the republicans refuse to move the slightest bit to the left.

This is the most poignant part, under options to fix the republican party:



How likely do you think that is?
There isn't a moderate in the Republican Party now, and ever since I was born in 1988, the only memories I have of the Republican Party are those of an obstructionist, petty, contrarian group of corporatists, religious zealots, and anarchists, who are almost as bad as governance as they are at critical thinking and empiricism.
 

params7

Banned
There isn't a moderate in the Republican Party now, and ever since I was born in 1988, the only memories I have of the Republican Party are those of an obstructionist, petty, contrarian group of corporatists, religious zealots, and anarchists, who are almost as bad as governance as they are at critical thinking and empiricism.

And the leftist party in America has been a beacon of anti-corporate prowess and resisted the machinery which outlines foreign policies for neocons?
 

dabig2

Member
There isn't a moderate in the Republican Party now, and ever since I was born in 1988, the only memories I have of the Republican Party are those of an obstructionist, petty, contrarian group of corporatists, religious zealots, and anarchists, who are almost as bad as governance as they are at critical thinking and empiricism.

Republican party really needs the old school Rockefeller Republicans to come back and wrest control of the party back from the crazies. Compare Conservative guys like George Romney or Prescott Bush to their sons. Now take these sons and compare them to their sons. It's utterly sad and the regression is only getting worse.
 
And the leftist party in America has been a beacon of anti-corporate prowess and resisted the machinery which outlines foreign policies for neocons?

This is the thing we need people to get.

Neither party is functional anymore.

The ideology might be, but neither party exists to do anything but obstruct the other and use as much money as possible to do so, anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom