|
computer parts posted:Gonna guess it wasn't the agrarian party that ruled the South. A good deal of leftists came from Kansas
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:A good deal of leftists came from Kansas Who consistently voted for Republicans until FDR, except the two times when they voted for a white supremacist instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
I'd say yes it's possible, there is a lot of overlap regarding economic stability and other things. Would it be possible to convince them of this? Historically no. It wouldnt be true to say that they were voting against their own interests, but it would be true to say that their interests, or, much more accurately, the people who promise them those, have knockdown effects that absolutely are not apparent to someone who isnt immersed in the ins and outs of politics. And being working class they probably dont have much time, or if they do, interest, for that. I'd say it's not a problem of goals and interests, those are the end stage of a problem of of time, disenfranchisement from political discourse and lack of civic knowledge (please teach civics).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
rudatron posted:There's a big whole in your analysis - the left doesn't need to prioritize domestic workers over foreign workers (which are equal if we're talking pure internationalism, though that's obviously not 100% tenable so long as there are separate nation states) to prioritize workers over owners though, which currently isn't the case with either flavor of neoliberal, which run both parties right now. That and, since we're also talking international politics at all, you're looking at a possible global alliance of workers in an increasingly global market. Though we're frankly not at a stage yet where that can work, though I think elements of it can still be adopted today, to build a foundation. That's not a hole. I even gave an example: quote:The Academic Left and working class can find some common ground. Both would support strict safety regulations for outsourced workers. And they'd both support a global minimum wage. Union labor will generally support things that increase the cost of non-union labor. Sometimes this is good for the non-union people (minimum wages, mandatory vacation, safety regulations). Sometimes it's bad for them (tariffs). So, I agree that there's some common ground. But, in the end, foreign and domestic workers compete with each other. Some policy questions have a win-win option (for everyone except ownership). Other policy questions will give the option to help one group at a cost to the other. Those are the places where the Academic/Labor alliance will break down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Who consistently voted for Republicans until FDR, except the two times when they voted for a white supremacist instead. Seeing that two elections (1896 and 1908) prior to FDR had the political opposition as William Jennings Bryan, that really wasn't a bad choice. Most of the black vote went to Republicans too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
The democratic party would be A-OK with anything a corporation did as long as its board was appropriately diverse. That is the Beltway endgame, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:A good deal of leftists came from Kansas Rural areas were leftist because agriculture was dominated by smallholding farmers who could and did see themselves as proletarians exploited by the railroads, the coastal banks, and the speculators who extracted value from the products of their labor. The South, where sharecropping was the rule, was significantly less leftist. These material factors are gone, baby, gone. Straight gone. They're not coming back. Agriculture has shifted in a way that's irrevocable. With that shift of material factors, the ideological backdrop of rural areas has shifted in favor of relatively wealthy largeholding farmers who rely on exploitation and the extraction of wealth, generally of migrant laborers (many of them in turn undocumented immigrants). There are still areas that have a thriving local co-op. I would bet they have voted to the left of rural areas generally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Here's a fun statistic: there's only two states in the entire nation where the rate of white poverty is greater than the lowest rate of black poverty. Stuff like that means that using race as a marker for class works well enough to, say, win presidential election. Given the US electoral systems need for money by the shipload, you can argue that the focus on such proxies is a feature not a bug; there are female billionaires, gay billionaires and black billionaires, but no poor billionaires. That doesn't mean there isn't a better model, a narrative that tied together the overwhelming proportion of the populace who would benifit, not suffer, from higher wages. One that might work for winning the senate and house, getting laws passed, funding programmes that changed things. There are, of course, those who say that failure is also a feature, not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Most of it is. The middle and upper class whites are far more likely to have racist beliefs and influence racist policies. This is why racist language in this country is full of buzzwords that also imply poverty. Can you actually prove this or is it just more of the usual D&D "white people who don't vote democrat are racist  " nonsense?
ugh its Troika fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Can you actually prove this or is it just more of the usual D&D "white people who don't vote democrat are racist Since you're a right-winger, what's your view on the thread's topic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
rudatron posted:There's a big whole in your analysis - the left doesn't need to prioritize domestic workers over foreign workers (which are equal if we're talking pure internationalism, though that's obviously not 100% tenable so long as there are separate nation states) to prioritize workers over owners though, which currently isn't the case with either flavor of neoliberal, which run both parties right now. Well you could be in favor of only making free trade agreements with countries where worker rights are at least as good as in yours and where the minimum wage is similar; and push for tariffs against goods imported from countries where wages and worker rights are worse. This would be using globalization as a tool to promote a race to the top instead of one to the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Since you're a right-winger, what's your view on the thread's topic? I think that as long as the academic left actively despises and wishes for the ethnic cleansing of the white working class, any talk of reconcilation is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:I think that as long as the academic left actively despises and wishes for the ethnic cleansing of the white working class, any talk of reconcilation is a joke. Would you say they need someone to help secure their children's future?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:I think that as long as the academic left actively despises and wishes for the ethnic cleansing of the white working class, any talk of reconcilation is a joke. I'm glad you could give your valid insight and analysis to the topic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Seeing that two elections (1896 and 1908) prior to FDR had the political opposition as William Jennings Bryan, that really wasn't a bad choice. Most of the black vote went to Republicans too. Which again, doesn't support your assertion that "% Republican vote = more racist". radmonger posted:Stuff like that means that using race as a marker for class works well enough to, say, win presidential election. No, it means there's explicit white privilege, even at the lowest economic levels of society. Even if absolutely nothing changed about poor whites' poverty level and minorities only got up to their current level, that would be a massive improvement the likes of which haven't been seen in decades, if ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, it means there's explicit white privilege, even at the lowest economic levels of society. Hell, surely the whole reason we have Black Lives Matter and no analogous 'poor lives matter' movement should be testament to one group having a clearly shorter end of the stick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm glad you could give your valid insight and analysis to the topic. Heh, you think I'm joking? Go look at the thread about rural America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Heh, you think I'm joking? Go look at the thread about rural America. Heck everybody, you're academics now! Just by posting in a thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Heh, you think I'm joking? Go look at the thread about rural America. Can you provide the codebook necessary to get that out of that thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Heh, you think I'm joking? Go look at the thread about rural America. Do you mean the person joking about life expectancy? I see that the academic left's problem is apparently self-deprecating humour.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:At times I feel that the sects of the Left aren't too much better at the Right when it comes to viewing minorities at the polls. These primaries were a great example of that. The Left (i.e. Sanders supporters) pinned the minority vote on pushing for police brutality and the general income inequality message. While the center left (i.e. HIllary supporters) continued traditional Democrats of advertising all messages equally. In the end the center left comfortably won which led to a few (which in turn is most SA members) stating that minorities reject the Left due to Socialism being "a white thing" and that unless race relations are at the absolute forefront of everything then minorities don't like it. In reality the difference was solely due to a generation gap, as most minorities thirty and younger preferred the Left's rhetoric, even black voters. From my heresy as a minority I would say this is due to a variety of reasons, but none of them would be "because minorities don't care too much about income inequality" or "because race relations weren't brought to the absolute forefront" as polls show that even for blacks income is their primary concern, even above racial issues. Of course this doesn't mean racial issues aren't important, they absolutely are, they just aren't the end all be all. At the end of the day we are all much more similar than most politicians and political fanatics believe we are, and it ends up getting in the way of a lot of progress. This feels like the exact opposite of what happened. Sanders made the very common white college leftist mistake of assuming that the only reason minorities are poor is because they're poor and that a message of resolving income inequality alone was sufficient. Of course minorities care about income inequality...but rather than being the cause of their problems, it's a symptom of much deeper social ills that Bernie largely declined to address. A rising tide doesn't lift every boat if the harbormaster goes around drilling holes in the bottom of every dark-colored boat at night. It's not new at all - basically every white leftist who's just read Marx for the first time comes up with that "you know, I bet a lot of the problems minorities have are because they're disproportionately poor, so solving poverty will fix all their problems and I won't have to face my own privilege" poo poo. computer parts posted:That's not what this thread is about. Because they don't believe that progressive economic policies will help their communities - or work at all, for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
"White people in cities are all rich" is also a hell of a belief to hold.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because they don't believe that progressive economic policies will help their communities - or work at all, for that matter. Correct. Now at what point in time did that viewpoint take hold? It wasn't perpetual after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This feels like the exact opposite of what happened. Sanders made the very common white college leftist mistake of assuming that the only reason minorities are poor is because they're poor and that a message of resolving income inequality alone was sufficient. Of course minorities care about income inequality...but rather than being the cause of their problems, it's a symptom of much deeper social ills that Bernie largely declined to address. A rising tide doesn't lift every boat if the harbormaster goes around drilling holes in the bottom of every dark-colored boat at night. It's not new at all - basically every white leftist who's just read Marx for the first time comes up with that "you know, I bet a lot of the problems minorities have are because they're disproportionately poor, so solving poverty will fix all their problems and I won't have to face my own privilege" poo poo. Yes, it's more important that predatory banks have a diverse board than that something be done about them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yes, it's more important that predatory banks have a diverse board than that something be done about them. Well, it depends on whether that "something" addresses widespread loan discrimination against minorities, or if it's just going to be a colorblind fix that closes off the biggest problems for poor white people while ignoring the way the banks disproportionately reserve worse conditions and harsher treatment for non-whites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, it means there's explicit white privilege, even at the lowest economic levels of society. True, in as much that in various situations, the white poor have a chance to get incorrectly judged to be a higher social class than they actually are. That's what race being a marker for class _means_. The question is, should you stick with the visible marker, or try to build models, narratives and policy based on the underlying fundamentals? How accurate is the simple racial privilege model, and how does that level of accuracy help or hinder it's effectiveness? Are there other models that are more accurate, more effective, or both? quote:Even if absolutely nothing changed about poor whites' poverty level and minorities only got up to their current level, that would be a massive improvement the likes of which haven't been seen in decades, if ever. How do you propose to make that improvement happen when an electoral party using it can only be competitive in one of the 4 types of elections the US system has (President, house, senate, state)? Each of which has an effective veto on any non-token action? And do you think even that level of competitiveness would last if you used that racial-privilege model for something other than tinkering at the edges? Effective action involves the equivalent throwing _trillions_ of dollars round. And the more you spend while relying on a model, the worse it aligns with reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
What the gently caress is this "model" poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
radmonger posted:True, in as much that in various situations, the white poor have a chance to get incorrectly judged to be a higher social class than they actually are. No, that's not what I mean. quote:How do you propose to make that improvement happen It's not a proposal, it's an example of white privilege.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:What the gently caress is this "model" poo poo? There are a lot of people in a country, enough that if you had to discuss any national political proposal as 'this would be good for Aaron Aadl, but bad for , ..., then nothing would ever get done. So you need to lapping people up into groups to get anywhere. Different ways of doing that lumping are differennt models.they are all going to be wrong, but the ways in which they are wrong can after more or less. For example, some models are fine for maintaining the status quo, but would break if you took them seriously and acted on them. Some old-school Marxists would say there is only one valid model; proletariat, bourgeoise, capitalist, etc. Eve n if they were right, it is hard to see how that would matter, as no one is going to take that seriously in 21c America. radmonger fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Well, it depends on whether that "something" addresses widespread loan discrimination against minorities, or if it's just going to be a colorblind fix that closes off the biggest problems for poor white people while ignoring the way the banks disproportionately reserve worse conditions and harsher treatment for non-whites. Well, good thing he didn't say it should be a colorblind fix that excludes nonwhites. Like, what's happening ITT is that one side is saying that diversification of the elite and basic civil rights protections aren't enough, and the other side calls them racist brocialists who don't care about nonwhite people. There were a lot of white dudes who voted for Bernie who were not as well educated on race issues as they should have been, but that's irrelevant to the current conversation. It's a nearly complete strawman from what I can tell The actual concern being raised by the people being smeared as brocialists is that surface level diversification of the political and economic elite is nowhere near enough, and that that is where the current left-liberal political alliance seems to be heading
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Well, good thing he didn't say it should be a colorblind fix that excludes nonwhites. Like, what's happening ITT is that one side is saying that diversification of the elite and basic civil rights protections aren't enough, and the other side calls them racist brocialists who don't care about nonwhite people. Nope, but try again. You even copied the form of my response and somehow still misinterpreted it. computer parts posted:There really isn't a significant side that pushes social progress (however you want to define that) over economic ones. There are just sides that recognize that economic issues are not the end be all, and there are sides that don't. Show a single quote that says "all we need is the rich people to be less white and society's issues will be solved". You won't find it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nope, but try again. That is literally what's happening though? Panzeh posts this: Panzeh posted:The democratic party would be A-OK with anything a corporation did as long as its board was appropriately diverse. That is the Beltway endgame, IMO. and Panzeh posted:Yes, it's more important that predatory banks have a diverse board than that something be done about them. Gets a response implying what he actually wants is a fix for whites only that excludes minorities computer parts posted:Show a single quote that says "all we need is the rich people to be less white and society's issues will be solved". You won't find it. That's not the conscious goal of racial/gender/sexuality conscious left groups, but it is the probable actual end state of their current alliance with the liberal establishment. And given the level of hostility towards anyone who points this out, it's reasonable to think that those groups, or at least their self-appointed representatives on the internet, aren't entirely dissatisfied with that outcome
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:
Yet somehow siding with white populists leading to fascism doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:
You won't find that. What you will find is people dismissively using phrases like 'solving all societies problems' about anything that goes beyond ensuring equal representation on the Titanic bridge crew. Admittedly, that attitude actually makes a lot of size when dealing with someone who says 'first global revolution, then Full Communism, then we can start looking at secondary problems like racism and sexism. Meanwhile, I need a sandwich.'. But there's probably some kind of middle way...
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yet somehow siding with white populists leading to fascism doesn't count. Nobody's doing that either, though. Not a single one of the leftist critics I know of has that opinion, despite the tsunami of strawmen and smearing. There are dudes who voted for Bernie who have bad opinion, that's not actually relevant to this discussion
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
fyi republicans are gonna go pro union in the next few years and get 100% of the white vote that isn't under 30 years old
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Nobody's doing that either, though. Not a single one of the leftist critics I know of has that opinion, despite the tsunami of strawmen and smearing. We've literally had people ITT say that poor (white) people can't possibly be racist. That level of denial by definition supports white populism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Nobody's doing that either, though. Not a single one of the leftist critics I know of has that opinion, despite the tsunami of strawmen and smearing. There are dudes who voted for Bernie who have bad opinion, that's not actually relevant to this discussion computer parts posted:We've literally had people ITT say that poor (white) people can't possibly be racist. That level of denial by definition supports white populism. This is why I don't think this thread is ever going to have a valid discussion. I have to account for statements I never made because it would be most convenient for you that I made them. Note that when I talked about "diversity in boards" I didn't refer to anyone in the thread because I've never seen anyone take that position- instead my statement was that the current Dem establishment alliance tends toward that sort of outcome because it's the only thing the academic left and the beltway can agree on. The reason I say that is because I believe the posters on the other side advocate a status quo in the democratic establishment alliance, and that the solution is to demand that white workers vote for the democratic party or be excoriated for racism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Actually let me come back to this:icantfindaname posted:That is literally what's happening though? Yes, if you shitpost people aren't going to respect your opinion. This isn't a hard grasp of logic. Panzeh posted:This is why I don't think this thread is ever going to have a valid discussion. I have to account for statements I never made because it would be most convenient for you that I made them. Note that when I talked about "diversity in boards" I didn't refer to anyone in the thread because I've never seen anyone take that position- instead my statement was that the current Dem establishment alliance tends toward that sort of outcome because it's the only thing the academic left and the beltway can agree on. If you're not contributing to this current discussion, why are you here? Remember again: the topic is about why poor white people don't support progressive measures, even though poor minorities do. It's not an issue of poverty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Remember again: the topic is about why poor white people don't support progressive measures, even though poor minorities do. It's not an issue of poverty. That's not how it's phrased, no. The OP is about party, not measures. You could argue that left-wing parties and progressive measures are homothetic but that would be a naive assumption. "Third way" leftism (as exhibited in Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder, François Hollande...) is all about embracing right-wing economic theses, including pointing out "labor cost" as the scapegoat for anything bad in the economy and adopting trickle-down logic that tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations will eventually benefit everyone. These are not progressive measures.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:02
|
|