Burying the White Working Class
(snip)
At least thats what the Democratic Party wants you to believe.
(snip)
Instead of acknowledging the size and importance of this part of the electorate, Democratic Party elites have simply constructed a new narrative to suit their interests a narrative that was on display after West Virginia. Following Sanderss win a significant chunk of the punditocracy came to the conclusion, mostly by abusing the hell out of exit polls, that a vote for the Jewish socialist was actually a vote for white supremacy.
After decades of being told white workers would never support socialism because theyre racist, were now told that they support the socialist candidate because they are racist. Yes, this is where liberals are in the year 2016.
How did we get here? How did we get to the point at which universalist, social-democratic politics the antithesis of Reagans welfare queen and the very set of policies weve long been told white workers would never support out of racist spite have become the last gasp of white supremacy? Where a working-class program that would disproportionately help women and people of color is the new white flight?
(snip)
This kind of inclusion politics the chance at climbing one of a tiny handful of rickety ladders to the top is the only economic program the Democratic Party mainstream is selling to those not already in the upper tiers. Sure, this politics is better than nothing. But as Ralph Miliband put it, access to positions of power by members of the subordinate classes does not change the fact of domination: it only changes its personnel.
(snip)
But even with such dangerous and unrealistic expectations why do elite liberals seem to focus so particularly on white wage-earners?
Part of the explanation is that unlike with the white working class, many of the hardships workers of color face fit neatly within an acceptable liberal narrative about whats wrong with our society: racism. And when racism can be blamed, capitalism can be exonerated.
Liberals can delude themselves into believing that it is nothing more than the accumulation of individual prejudices stashed away in the minds of powerful white people that has destroyed black and brown communities in Detroit, Ferguson, and Chicagos South Side.
(snip)
Class stratification, capital flight, and the war against organized labor are thus sidestepped completely. The liberal elite is spared from having to question the fundamental injustices of capitalism.
Unfortunately, the miseries, hardships, and exploitation of white workers dont fit into an easy capital-friendly framework. Liberals then have two options: blame the individual moral failings of white workers or call into question the very nature of capitalism itself.
Guess which one they choose. More and more, liberals just point and scream: racist. Certainly, many members of the white working class reject the Obama/Clinton program of inclusion and meritocracy for reactionary reasons (and vote Republican), many more are pretty lukewarm about it. When polled, they support far more egalitarian policies like the kind associated with the Sanders campaign. But when it comes down to it, few of them show up on election day.
(snip)
Its obvious that this kind of popular politics will never be built if segments of the working class much less a majority of it are written off. So when I hear liberal pundits saying that white workers are morally compromised beyond hope or on the way to irrelevance, I tend to get a little suspicious.
But when those same pundits claim despite all evidence to the contrary that most of these workers are more invested in cultivating racism than their own material and social emancipation, I think its time to stop listening to them altogether.
Because theyre not just wrong anymore. Theyre on the wrong side.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/white-workers-bernie-sanders-clinton-primary-racism/
I believe this to be an excellent analysis.
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)...is deeply disgusting. When did reflexively insulting an entire ethnic group become not only acceptable, but fashionable?
brush
(53,978 posts)Angry white men and/or racists who support Trump are the ones written off as they are well known to regularly vote against their own economic interests.
If you're on this site you have to know of this phenomenon.
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)The cheap Anti-White racism isn't masked at all by "New Democrats".
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,596 posts)white working people, and in turn divide/conquer people of all races plays on the rich and powerful using racism whether it be by overt or more subliminal means.
Conveniently lost in the noise is the fact that Sanders won an even bigger share of voters who want more liberal ones.
The media takeaway was clear: somehow, someway, West Virginias vote for a Jewish socialist Brooklyn native was a vote for racism. I dont want to say it, said Chris Matthews on election night but West Virginian voters are, you know conservative on social issues but theres another word for that. . .
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/white-workers-bernie-sanders-clinton-primary-racism/
BootinUp
(47,231 posts)white leftists in enough numbers to actually carry a national election with a Bernie like platform.
Maybe there is. But I have never seen the evidence for that.
Uncle Joe
(58,596 posts)because his message resonates across purely partisan lines.
Bernie is much stronger with Independents and this will be critical in November.
BootinUp
(47,231 posts)raise a lot of doubt about that.
1) National Poll numbers at this time are very unreliable + Bernie hasn't been attacked like he will be
2) Why aren't there more Bernie's in the Senate? Or in the House for that matter ?
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)1) Polls are far more reliable that primary votes, statistically. Obama beat McCain in the polls at this time, a majority of the time...Hillary basically tied with him...and she is now doing the same with Trump.
2) What the hell does that even mean? Age? Race? Sex? Income level? Ideals? Party? And what the h@ck does it matter?
BootinUp
(47,231 posts)1) Polls are more accurate than votes? Sorry can't understand what that means.
2) White Socialist (Lefty)
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)1) How does no one on this forum seem to know that Primaries are not an indicator of a candidate, but polls are.
?@NateSilver538
Primary turnout not a good general election predictor. Maybe even a contrarian indicator (high turnout = bad sign). http://53eig.ht/1RqKVyL
https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/710831210780565505
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/
These polls showed that Obama would win long before the election...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
and so did these...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
2) He is Jewish and a socialist. We have a socialist that is from India here in our city...so close but I am sure money is the issue, it is hard to break in to a corrupt system.
BootinUp
(47,231 posts)But the National Polls this early still bothers me. I wouldn't take one or even two examples as strong evidence.
In my mind we should see more representation that supports left wing policy if there were enough voters who were white working class and for very liberal economic issues.
My fear is that, once Bernie is attacked on his economic policies and philosophy from the right his numbers would take a beating.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)...you know, from Hillary! Boom!
But he has been attacked, called racist, non-religious, communist, sexist, jewish, not jewish, dreamer, insider, gun-nut, pro- "Bad" Catholic Church, pro-militia, freeloader, tax-evader, anti-worker, anti-immigrant...they even paid for fake bots to spam media and social networks against him. The idea that he has not been attacked is crazy, the media has only insulted him when they are on. Hillary has pulled many of the same dirty tricks she did against Obama. The claim that Hillary has been attacked non-stop is a lie. She was seen as a victim in the Clinton years, she was along side Bush as a patriot in the NY days, then as Sec of State they did mount an attack...but it was over one set of things and it only helped her because she was not running for office and they are so out of touch on the right that they just do the same thing over and over. This time the attacks against her are going to hit harder and people will actually care more what is being said. The republicans are going to latch on to all of the dirty things her camp has done this election to steal it (they have dropped a few hints already).
Also to disregard the polls saying he would do better, because you think he will get hit hard is pretty much getting rid of the only data to go with an opinion...you can say they polls may not mean much, but they could also mean far more, and he could stand up to the attacks as he is standing up for us and not just saying if you don't vote for me they are going to beat you up. At this point the HRC camp is basically running a protection racket as the campaign strategy.
BootinUp
(47,231 posts)sometimes it is difficult to see how someone else interprets them. But I will take a swag at explaining my interpretation.
Hillary has questioned how Bernies plans would be paid for, but Bernie has done a good job of avoiding some of these questions. What I don't think she has done, is hit him hard on his proposals because shoot, her proposals are very similar to his. It would come down to how much taxes would be raised and would it cover the cost and stuff. And we have not seen that dug into with any real effort (in my view). At least not from the Hillary campaign. But the Republican party would go after these things whole hog. They would say he is worse than Obama on his budget plans.
I think I'll leave it there for now, need a break.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)She won't even nail down half of her things because she does not want to reveal anything she would have to back pedal on (in the NY debate she could not even just give an answer and let it be). Hillary's side has labeled him as a dream and giving free things away...that is exactly what the right would say...so that has already been crossed...he had tons of economists come out and support his plans, but the press did not care. Hillary's speeches are the worst, they are just about making america "whole" again...and no actual substance. I can hardly sit through them. I am sure he speeches like Romney's to the private functions are are more data filled though.
Uncle Joe
(58,596 posts)1. Nationals polls have reflected the same trends since last fall and while I agree they can change between now and November, that kind of consistent trend does say same something in regards to the strengths of the candidates.
2. Bernie is a unique individual but I believe he is on the forefront of change in Congress as well. One must consider our dysfunctional electoral and campaign finance systems which shaped our current Congress. There are reams of articles written about how too many Congresspeople must spend most of their time raising money for their next elections mostly from the wealthy rather than serving the people that elected them. Before the 1990s it was literally unthinkable that any political party in Congress would threaten to shut down the government, this was a stark testament as to where their loyalties lay.
Our two party system together with the corporate media conglomerates is set up for the Democrats or Republicans to dominate all national elections, as both parties don't have to be concerned about some third party thinking outside the box seriously challenging their power, and as fundraising for the next election has become the prime directive, they have become increasingly disconnected from the people.
The result has been a long trend of entropy for both parties.
As a consequence, the percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Democrats is now at the lowest point in the past 27 years, down from the prior low of 30% in 2014. Gallup's shift from in-person to telephone interviewing in 1988 complicates the ability to directly compare party identification data collected between the two methods. However, Gallup data from 1951-1987 collected in person never found a yearly average Democratic identification less than 37%, making it safe to conclude that the current 29% is also the low point in Gallup polling history.
The percentage of Republicans is now just one point above its recent low of 25% in 2013. Before 1988, there were several years when the average percentage of Republican identifiers in Gallup polls was lower than 25%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx
To a large degree Bernie and Trump have upset this apple cart and thus Bernie; should he get the nomination will be in the best position to stop Trump from coming to the White House except for maybe on a tour.
BootinUp
(47,231 posts)What is missing, it seems to me are more white lefty's that caucus with the Dems.
I believe, based on a good number of years watching politics, that Bernie's economic plan and rhetoric are not going to do well when submitted to a serious attack from the right. At least not yet.
Uncle Joe
(58,596 posts)that would include Independents and even some Republicans.
This was from last June and if you wish I could search for a newer poll but I believe the numbers have only improved as Bernie's poll numbers have also risen since then.
Bernie Sanders says Americans back his agenda and hes mostly right
At a breakfast in Washington on Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) dismissed any perception that he's radically outside the American mainstream. Referring to his core campaign positions, he said: "It is not a radical agenda. In virtually every instance, what I'm saying is supported by a significant majority of the American people."
That's a claim worth double-checking. We pulled the key components of his announcement speech and looked at the most recent polling on each to see just how much support Sanders's proposals had. It doesn't take very long before we get mired in the ways polling can fail to capture the nuance of the issue but, spoiler alert: Sanders was generally right.
(snip)
The overall verdict? Yes, Americans broadly support the things that are on Sanders's agenda, with a number of particular footnotes.
We have to note, though, that there's a contingency that isn't mentioned: The ability of Sanders -- or anyone -- to make these things happen on Capitol Hill demands far less optimism.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/12/bernie-sanders-says-americans-back-his-agenda-and-hes-mostly-right/
Uncle Joe
(58,596 posts)later this afternoon.
Have a good night, BootinUp.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)There are a variety of studies on this that show independents are more extreme at times, and also many studies show the majority of independents are actually left. As for watching politics, I saw the woman card line months ago. Hillary has run on smear tactics this campaign to paint Bernie as sexist and racist...she is also doing that on Trump. but the old girl that cried wolf may take her down. I also expect tons of drops about Bill and the email thing, the FBI thing, etc...she created Trump with the whole gifting him the birther thing...this is where we see what happens when two morally corrupt people go to battle.
TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)Source?
brush
(53,978 posts)Make no mistake, no one is including white progressives in that crowd.
RandySF
(59,906 posts)For putting on display racist element in Sanders' "revolution".
brush
(53,978 posts)It's surprising to me as well that some whites on this site would jump to the conclusion that mentioning white raicists includes even progressive whites here.
That's ridiculous, as is denying that some whites who support Trump are racists. We've seem them beating black men at their rallies at Turmp's urging.
What's up with the denial here?
BootinUp
(47,231 posts)Last edited Sun May 15, 2016, 04:56 AM - Edit history (1)
first about me: I am a White Male, raised a liberal, grandfather was a Ford factory union man.
The article is claiming that it is liberals who are being racist toward the white working class unless I lost my mind.
It might make more sense if the author said that Republicans were instigating the racial divisions.
brush
(53,978 posts)That distinction should be made, and thanks for pointing it out.
Hat's off to your grandfather. Unions created the middle class as their fights for higher wages raised everyones wages.
Was he part of the fight against Bennett's goons in the storied battles at Ford?
BootinUp
(47,231 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)There you are, completely dismissing Democratic voters in a state on the basis that the majority of that state is white, and must therefor be racist. That's er, pretty fucking bigoted there, RandySF.
Moreover, you did so simply because the OP suggested the idea of Sanders winning Kentucky. So you had to go up and shriek to the sky! If he wins Kentucky, it's BECAUSE RACISM!
Which kinda puts on display exactly the shit the person you're responding to is talking about.
You're the problem in this picture, Randy. You can stop anytime you like, but don't demand people not call you on your shit.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)wysi
(1,512 posts)You should probably be aware that those are code words used by racists. Or perhaps you already do know that.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)wysi
(1,512 posts)n/t
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)stonecutter357
(12,699 posts)Igel
(35,393 posts)It became obligatory in the '70s and background noise by the '80s.
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)That Clinton was criticized for having white working class men as a larger part of her base.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)including mine. Both Maine and Vermont each gave Barack Obama nearly 60% of the vote that year. I was among the 60%; rejecting Hillary for some of the same reasons I have this time.
Here is the primary map from 2008. Purple states are Obama's and gold are Clinton's. Some of the purple states are the same ones that Bernie won, but I don't recall the 'too weird and too white' (or worse-- 'racist' state) narrative being used on President Obama's wins. Btw- can someone please explain to me how a state being mostly white somehow makes all the inhabitants of it more racist than other, more diverse states? I've never seen anyone come right out and say it, but that sentiment has certainly been implied over and over and over. I would just like to know why...
Map from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And also for trying to play her supposed support among these "Working people, white people!" as an advantage against the black man she was running against in the primary.
She was obviously wrong on the first count, and judging by her loss, wrong on the second count as well.
But then, she hasn't been right about many things at all, so, not a surprise.
BootinUp
(47,231 posts)that only whites were "working people".
I never saw it.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It found how Senator Obamas support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.
Theres a pattern emerging here, she said.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-white-support/?_r=0
Even Helen Keller could see it, but I'm confident you will persist in not being able to. Nevertheless, there it is.
BootinUp
(47,231 posts)I can honestly say that I don't. I think when it comes down to discussing race issues and other identity issues we humans still have a ways to go to bridge the gaps.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)As I said, I'm certain you're not ever going to see it, because, well, you've got next to your name (Are you aware of which Clinton is running? I guess it doesn't matter.)
And spare me the hand-wringy, gosh-o-golly soliloquy about "How far we have to go." I've been to this rodeo before, and I don't buy it. In 2008, Clinton said some gnarly shit, did some nasty nasty tricks.And this primary, the only difference is her opponent is Jewish instead of black.
BootinUp
(47,231 posts)is when we don't realize perception is in the eye of the beholder including our own. Perhaps you could answer something, and it will clear it up for me. Is it your feeling that the poll numbers she discussed had nothing to do with race and therefore she should not have connected them to race? Or is it just that she had her sentence constructed the way it was that is the problem? Or that she claimed an advantage period?
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Perhaps eventually this site will be renamed the KKK underground?
Uncle Joe
(58,596 posts)That you would only prove the author's point and/or miss it entirely.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,596 posts)many of us know it, but too many don't.
The powers that be ie; corporate media conglomerates for one consistently use race propaganda when it suits their purposes to divide and conquer the working people of all races when we seriously challenge their economic interests and seek a more just society on all levels.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)But try to imagine our society working without money. I can't really. Poets and artists maybe.
Uncle Joe
(58,596 posts)nobody is suggesting for our society to do away with money.
What we are asking/demanding is that there be pay equity, health care be a right covered by the state, that public colleges and universities be tuition free, that the growing crisis of climate change be addressed, to quit waging wars for money and invest our hard earned tax dollars rebuilding our nation's infrastructure and inner cities, that the monopolized banking system which threatens the nation's economy be broken up as they have grown too powerful, that we have publicly funded elections with voting days being a national holiday, that we have major criminal justice reform, that our government operates from an ethical basis that best represents the American People as a whole not just the billionaires and mega-corporations, that the War on Drugs be ended with addiction being treated as a medical condition instead of a criminal one, that all Americans are automatically registered to vote on their 18th birthday, that the U.S. operate as democracy versus an oligarchy.
That's just to name a few items on the list, there is much more.
We're not trying to kill capitalism but to reign in its grotesque inequities, what we have now is unrestrained capitalism and this has grown to the point of threatening our democratic republic.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)But the D's and R's better understand that either one doesn't represent a third of the tents in the village, and the village pushes back when being told what to do.
Uncle Joe
(58,596 posts)As a consequence, the percentage of U.S. adults identifying as Democrats is now at the lowest point in the past 27 years, down from the prior low of 30% in 2014. Gallup's shift from in-person to telephone interviewing in 1988 complicates the ability to directly compare party identification data collected between the two methods. However, Gallup data from 1951-1987 collected in person never found a yearly average Democratic identification less than 37%, making it safe to conclude that the current 29% is also the low point in Gallup polling history.
The percentage of Republicans is now just one point above its recent low of 25% in 2013. Before 1988, there were several years when the average percentage of Republican identifiers in Gallup polls was lower than 25%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx
But don't tell that to Debbie Wasserman Schultz; her strategy of alienating Independents and fostering a closed system for the Democratic Party will only lead to more erosion and entropy.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Because all independents vote Sanders. You watch out for the KKK, I'll back you all the way to the door.
Uncle Joe
(58,596 posts)the entire white population or even those that just make up Independents.
TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)Democrats are now the largest voting bloc.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification
brush
(53,978 posts)Why are you jumping to such an outrageous conclusion?
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Currently the talking point is that if you're supporting Bernie, "YOU'RE HELPING TRUMP!"
This is, of course on top of the regular assumption that Bernie only has white supporters. I've even been told by a prominent host of the AA group that all of Bernie's black supporters are actually white people playing pretend. This isn't the host that proclaimed a black woman to be "self-hating" for disagreeing with Obama's foreign policy, but it's not too divergent.
So if Bernie only has white supporters, and supporting Bernie is exactly the same as supporting Trump, then...? Work it through.
brush
(53,978 posts)of the coalition as any other demographic group.
Anyone lumping them with Trump's racist supporters is nuts.
Some of them are Sanders supporters but if he loses, the sensible ones who don't want a repug appointing the next 3 SCOTUS justices will vote blue in November, just as they did in '08.
Notice, the operable word there is "sensible".
Squinch
(51,096 posts)not being included.
It is accurate to say that "white MEN" are recognized as not being the strongest part of Hillary's coalition. It is also accurate to say that Hillary is not specifically addressing their needs over all others as BS did.
So once again, we are treated to an article that talks about the "injustice" about the fact that those who have always been blocked might get a place at the table that was traditionally populated solely by white men.
There is palpable horror and lots of teeth-gnashing articles like this one to describe the "injustice" of a justice that is finally emerging for the first time in history.
There is no prejudice here. The "misunderstanding" by the large swaths of women and people of color that the Bros always point to, which amounts to, "You don't realize that what is best for ME is what is best for EVERYONE! My needs first! Bernie gets it!" is not a misunderstanding at all.
This IS an excellent analysis of the viewpoint and panic experienced by people who have always ridden a high wave of unearned privilege losing SOME (not nearly all) of that privilege.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Squinch
(51,096 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)the conservative organizations. That has been evident via other conservative astroturffed organizations.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)This article from today's Washington Post, on yet another town being destroyed by corporations moving jobs overseas. THIS is why Trump is getting their votes (he is completely and utterly wrong as to the cause and he has no intention of actually doing anything about it). The Democratic establishment, first and foremost, is for the corporations and Clinton is buddying up to the same people sending these jobs to Mexico.
Americans are far too passive. They seem to let these things happen. What they should do is man the barricades, but they will not, whether that is out of fear or because we are too individualistic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/from-belief-to-resentment-in-indiana/2016/05/14/d1642222-16fa-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_huntington-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory