|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 16 2016 07:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 07:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 16 2016 06:31 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 05:07 Dan HH wrote:
Maybe without this programmed disgust towards protests and unions, Americans wouldn't have had to go straight for the nuclear option and elect Trump to be heard they didn't have to do that to be heard either. and firing around nukes tends to cause a lot of fallout. and despite bio's claims in the post after yours, they were in fact always heard. They do in fact have some representation, and their interests are and were looked after to a fair extent. I've yet to see any proof that that's not the case; rather than it being simply a lie they were told to get their votes to go one way or another. But no matter how much people look after your interests, some things just aren't possible. and you have to recognize the difference between being heard and acted for, and the situation getting actively better in a generalized sense. sometimes that's simply not possible. Biologymajor actually hit the nail on the head. I don't know in what world you think "they were always heard", but rural/working class white America has been completely ignored for the past generation. The only time that the Left ever talked about helping them was in general terms, e.g. "reducing healthcare/education/childcare costs for everyone", while at the same time constantly talking about issues that specific demographics (poor black communities, LGBTQ folk, etc.) face. The Right only ever went on about "religious freedom" and being incredibly pro-business. It's no wonder that this voting block finally had enough, and deservedly so. No one has even come close to attempting to address the crippling economic problems that rural white America faces. That's why, when one candidate finally did, they flocked to him, even if all of his ideas are bogus and won't work at all and the voters are clueless on these actual economic issues. The Left got everything they deserved in the election and, as pretty much everyone has said, this should galvanize them to move on from the entrenched Old Guard of the Democratic party to a newer generation. While xDaunt, Danglars, and Biologymajor tend to undermine themselves with sensationalist and disingenuous rhetoric, they've definitely been correct about the over-reaction the Left has had to the racism/xenophobia/homophobia of the right by focusing so much on minority communities to win office. You know, those minorities (outside of white women, and a little bit of gay white men) feel like Democrats haven't been focusing on us either. That's what's so troubling about this new focus on white rural voters. All Democrats really gave us was lip service, apparently just enough to piss off white people, but far short of really changing the situation. If Democrats focus even less on minority issues, what makes people think we're just going to sit politely and keep voting for them?
538 had an article about how the fact that blacks are too loyal undermined their ability to receive policy support from the Democrats. I guess we have some consistency here.
The question, then, is what is the Dem Party actually interested in? Hard to give an answer as to who/what they actually stand for unless you want to go with platitudes like "the liberal international order."
|
How would one fix their economic situation? Is there some general consensus, or is Trump's idea (not a good idea, but an idea nonetheless) the only one at the table?
|
On November 16 2016 07:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 06:31 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 05:07 Dan HH wrote:
Maybe without this programmed disgust towards protests and unions, Americans wouldn't have had to go straight for the nuclear option and elect Trump to be heard they didn't have to do that to be heard either. and firing around nukes tends to cause a lot of fallout. and despite bio's claims in the post after yours, they were in fact always heard. They do in fact have some representation, and their interests are and were looked after to a fair extent. I've yet to see any proof that that's not the case; rather than it being simply a lie they were told to get their votes to go one way or another. But no matter how much people look after your interests, some things just aren't possible. and you have to recognize the difference between being heard and acted for, and the situation getting actively better in a generalized sense. sometimes that's simply not possible. Biologymajor actually hit the nail on the head. I don't know in what world you think "they were always heard", but rural/working class white America has been completely ignored for the past generation. The only time that the Left ever talked about helping them was in general terms, e.g. "reducing healthcare/education/childcare costs for everyone", while at the same time constantly talking about issues that specific demographics (poor black communities, LGBTQ folk, etc.) face. The Right only ever went on about "religious freedom" and being incredibly pro-business. It's no wonder that this voting block finally had enough, and deservedly so. No one has even come close to attempting to address the crippling economic problems that rural white America faces. That's why, when one candidate finally did, they flocked to him, even if all of his ideas are bogus and won't work at all and the voters are clueless on these actual economic issues. The Left got everything they deserved in the election and, as pretty much everyone has said, this should galvanize them to move on from the entrenched Old Guard of the Democratic party to a newer generation. While xDaunt, Danglars, and Biologymajor tend to undermine themselves with sensationalist and disingenuous rhetoric, they've definitely been correct about the over-reaction the Left has had to the racism/xenophobia/homophobia of the right by focusing so much on minority communities to win office.
PROOF or it didn't happen.
you expect me to believe that an entire massive voting bloc was COMPLETELY ignored for an extended period of time and NOONE at any time did ANYTHING about it?
Yes, the left might not talk about them as much, btu the right did; and the right surely did things to address it.
Have they spent decades electing politicians who completely ignore their issues? or is it the case that they are simply in a bad place structurally and it's going to HURT no matter what?
it's very easy to claim you were ignored even if you weren't. and it's very important to argue from a position of facts, because facts can at least have some potential universality. so I'd like stronger evidence/proof that it was in fact the case that they were ignored almost entirely; rather than a claim of a perception which could easily be wrong and manufactured.
also, is it rural, or working class, or rural&working class people or what? those two groups aren't the same.
re: howie
trump's ideas are not helpful generally; he hasn't really added new ideas or solutions. if he could take old known solutions that are politicially hard to do and implement them that'd be good; but mostly he just picks things that will not in fact work.
their economic situation is, in considerable part, a result of structural factors in the changing world for which there are no truly great answers, only damage mitigation. and yes the damage mitigation should be better.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 16 2016 07:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
How would one fix their economic situation? Is there some general consensus, or is Trump's idea (not a good idea, but an idea nonetheless) the only one at the table?
Not an easy answer but I wrote this to give some background as to what has been/could be done with that situation.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 16 2016 07:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 07:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 16 2016 06:31 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 05:07 Dan HH wrote:
Maybe without this programmed disgust towards protests and unions, Americans wouldn't have had to go straight for the nuclear option and elect Trump to be heard they didn't have to do that to be heard either. and firing around nukes tends to cause a lot of fallout. and despite bio's claims in the post after yours, they were in fact always heard. They do in fact have some representation, and their interests are and were looked after to a fair extent. I've yet to see any proof that that's not the case; rather than it being simply a lie they were told to get their votes to go one way or another. But no matter how much people look after your interests, some things just aren't possible. and you have to recognize the difference between being heard and acted for, and the situation getting actively better in a generalized sense. sometimes that's simply not possible. Biologymajor actually hit the nail on the head. I don't know in what world you think "they were always heard", but rural/working class white America has been completely ignored for the past generation. The only time that the Left ever talked about helping them was in general terms, e.g. "reducing healthcare/education/childcare costs for everyone", while at the same time constantly talking about issues that specific demographics (poor black communities, LGBTQ folk, etc.) face. The Right only ever went on about "religious freedom" and being incredibly pro-business. It's no wonder that this voting block finally had enough, and deservedly so. No one has even come close to attempting to address the crippling economic problems that rural white America faces. That's why, when one candidate finally did, they flocked to him, even if all of his ideas are bogus and won't work at all and the voters are clueless on these actual economic issues. The Left got everything they deserved in the election and, as pretty much everyone has said, this should galvanize them to move on from the entrenched Old Guard of the Democratic party to a newer generation. While xDaunt, Danglars, and Biologymajor tend to undermine themselves with sensationalist and disingenuous rhetoric, they've definitely been correct about the over-reaction the Left has had to the racism/xenophobia/homophobia of the right by focusing so much on minority communities to win office. PROOF or it didn't happen. you expect me to believe that an entire massive voting bloc was COMPLETELY ignored for an extended period of time and NOONE at any time did ANYTHING about it? Yes, the left might not talk about them as much, btu the right did; and the right surely did things to address it. Have they spent decades electing politicians who completely ignore their issues? or is it the case that they are simply in a bad place structurally and it's going to HURT no matter what? it's very easy to claim you were ignored even if you weren't. and it's very important to argue from a position of facts, because facts can at least have some potential universality. so I'd like stronger evidence/proof that it was in fact the case that they were ignored almost entirely; rather than a claim of a perception which could easily be wrong and manufactured. also, is it rural, or working class, or rural&working class people or what? those two groups aren't the same. re: howie trump's ideas are not helpful generally; he hasn't really added new ideas or solutions. if he could take old known solutions that are politicially hard to do and implement them that'd be good; but mostly he just picks things that will not in fact work. their economic situation is, in considerable part, a result of structural factors in the changing world for which there are no truly great answers, only damage mitigation. and yes the damage mitigation should be better.
I don't know if you are going to be satisfied:
There was a book over a decade ago "What's the Matter with Kansas." Talking about Kansas going red (republican) over social conservatism while being betrayed by the Democratic party on economic issues. At that point, via the leadership of the DLC, Democratic party had moved into the free trade and business friendly camp while paying lip service to eroding power of the working class. Michigan potentially flipping into the Trump camp is only the culmination of 20 years of continued neglect by the Democratic party at the national level.
As it is not my assertion, I'm not going to respond to any more "PROOF OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN" demands.
|
On November 16 2016 07:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 07:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 16 2016 06:31 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 05:07 Dan HH wrote:
Maybe without this programmed disgust towards protests and unions, Americans wouldn't have had to go straight for the nuclear option and elect Trump to be heard they didn't have to do that to be heard either. and firing around nukes tends to cause a lot of fallout. and despite bio's claims in the post after yours, they were in fact always heard. They do in fact have some representation, and their interests are and were looked after to a fair extent. I've yet to see any proof that that's not the case; rather than it being simply a lie they were told to get their votes to go one way or another. But no matter how much people look after your interests, some things just aren't possible. and you have to recognize the difference between being heard and acted for, and the situation getting actively better in a generalized sense. sometimes that's simply not possible. Biologymajor actually hit the nail on the head. I don't know in what world you think "they were always heard", but rural/working class white America has been completely ignored for the past generation. The only time that the Left ever talked about helping them was in general terms, e.g. "reducing healthcare/education/childcare costs for everyone", while at the same time constantly talking about issues that specific demographics (poor black communities, LGBTQ folk, etc.) face. The Right only ever went on about "religious freedom" and being incredibly pro-business. It's no wonder that this voting block finally had enough, and deservedly so. No one has even come close to attempting to address the crippling economic problems that rural white America faces. That's why, when one candidate finally did, they flocked to him, even if all of his ideas are bogus and won't work at all and the voters are clueless on these actual economic issues. The Left got everything they deserved in the election and, as pretty much everyone has said, this should galvanize them to move on from the entrenched Old Guard of the Democratic party to a newer generation. While xDaunt, Danglars, and Biologymajor tend to undermine themselves with sensationalist and disingenuous rhetoric, they've definitely been correct about the over-reaction the Left has had to the racism/xenophobia/homophobia of the right by focusing so much on minority communities to win office. PROOF or it didn't happen. you expect me to believe that an entire massive voting bloc was COMPLETELY ignored for an extended period of time and NOONE at any time did ANYTHING about it? Yes, the left might not talk about them as much, btu the right did; and the right surely did things to address it. Have they spent decades electing politicians who completely ignore their issues? or is it the case that they are simply in a bad place structurally and it's going to HURT no matter what? it's very easy to claim you were ignored even if you weren't. and it's very important to argue from a position of facts, because facts can at least have some potential universality. so I'd like stronger evidence/proof that it was in fact the case that they were ignored almost entirely; rather than a claim of a perception which could easily be wrong and manufactured. also, is it rural, or working class, or rural&working class people or what? those two groups aren't the same. re: howie trump's ideas are not helpful generally; he hasn't really added new ideas or solutions. if he could take old known solutions that are politicially hard to do and implement them that'd be good; but mostly he just picks things that will not in fact work. their economic situation is, in considerable part, a result of structural factors in the changing world for which there are no truly great answers, only damage mitigation. and yes the damage mitigation should be better.
I don't understand how you can try to prove a negative (i.e. absence of something).
You also don't seem to understand that there's a difference between local/state elections and national elections, and this was obviously a national one.
Finally, you also don't seem to quite understand rural economics. Small towns and rural communities are often completely built around one factory/industry, and this is why working class/rural communities are talked about together.
You just keep saying, "They have had attention, they just don't realize it" without providing any of the proof that you are so adamant about. What specific policies has the Left provided to alleviate the crushing economic collapse of rural America? Not only this, but it's pretty easy to see how disaffected they can become with the Left when they're always the butt end of our jokes (e.g. uneducated hillbillies) and just scoffed at and have their problems ignored because of white privilege.
Really, there's pretty concrete proof that these communities are pissed off because we lost to a fucking racist, misogynistic clueless moron that had more unfavorability ratings than Clinton did. It blows my mind that you can write in all caps about how PROOF is needed, yet try to summarily write off this phenomenon by trying to talk down to rural America and say, "we paid attention to you, you just didn't listen". That's the kind of Liberal arrogance that defines the caricature of the Left that the Right constantly makes fun of.
Sure, if you want to just brush off this election as racism and ignorance, go ahead, but then we'll just get to lose next time around as well.
How would one fix their economic situation? Is there some general consensus, or is Trump's idea (not a good idea, but an idea nonetheless) the only one at the table?
That's the exact problem, Trump's was the only one on the table.
If Democrats paid a little more attention to this voting bloc and didn't just let them get brushed aside with "white privilege, don't care about your community", then they would've wiped the fucking floor with this election. Remember that throughout the last 50 years or so the unionized working class has been a pretty damn strong Democratic stalwart.
|
On November 16 2016 07:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 07:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
How would one fix their economic situation? Is there some general consensus, or is Trump's idea (not a good idea, but an idea nonetheless) the only one at the table? Not an easy answer but I wrote this to give some background as to what has been/could be done with that situation.
Finally remembered to read that post. The one thing I continue to have trouble with, despite agreeing and understanding most of it, is what you say about culture and cultural preservation. The way I see it, as technology continues to develop end cities continue to develop, we are never going to see companies feel like moving to rural areas.
With there being *so* much incentive to stay in big towns and coastal big towns, I just don't see a way out of this situation for rural america. They don't seem to have a choice but to eventually move away into larger cities. Whether it is slow and steady or otherwise, rural America does not have a 50-year plan.
|
On November 16 2016 08:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 07:37 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 07:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
How would one fix their economic situation? Is there some general consensus, or is Trump's idea (not a good idea, but an idea nonetheless) the only one at the table? Not an easy answer but I wrote this to give some background as to what has been/could be done with that situation. Finally remembered to read that post. The one thing I continue to have trouble with, despite agreeing and understanding most of it, is what you say about culture and cultural preservation. The way I see it, as technology continues to develop end cities continue to develop, we are never going to see companies feel like moving to rural areas. With there being *so* much incentive to stay in big towns and coastal big towns, I just don't see a way out of this situation for rural america. They don't seem to have a choice but to eventually move away into larger cities. Whether it is slow and steady or otherwise, rural America does not have a 50-year plan.
And this answer is part of the problem. This is in large part true; you can't just magically bring high-paying manufacturing jobs back so that the economic model of the 1950's can come back in full force. There needs to be a shift to new industries (renewable energy) and an investment in improving pre-university education, especially an emphasis on community colleges and trade skills.
But just think about what we're saying here: we're saying that these rural, working-class communities have to change their culture and way of life, moving away from there homes and abandoning their culture to survive. When you say the same thing to any minority community (e.g. "you need to assimilate better"), it's seen as pretty damn racist, but here, it's OK to tell these rural communities to do something similar. That's the kind of thing that pisses people off and turns them away from the Democratic party. We can kick and scream about "ignorant voters" all we want (just like the Republicans did post-2012 with minorities), but it doesn't get you any votes.
|
On November 16 2016 08:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 08:14 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2016 07:37 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 07:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
How would one fix their economic situation? Is there some general consensus, or is Trump's idea (not a good idea, but an idea nonetheless) the only one at the table? Not an easy answer but I wrote this to give some background as to what has been/could be done with that situation. Finally remembered to read that post. The one thing I continue to have trouble with, despite agreeing and understanding most of it, is what you say about culture and cultural preservation. The way I see it, as technology continues to develop end cities continue to develop, we are never going to see companies feel like moving to rural areas. With there being *so* much incentive to stay in big towns and coastal big towns, I just don't see a way out of this situation for rural america. They don't seem to have a choice but to eventually move away into larger cities. Whether it is slow and steady or otherwise, rural America does not have a 50-year plan. And this answer is part of the problem. This is in large part true; you can't just magically bring high-paying manufacturing jobs back so that the economic model of the 1950's can come back in full force. There needs to be a shift to new industries (renewable energy) and an investment in improving pre-university education, especially an emphasis on community colleges and trade skills. But just think about what we're saying here: we're saying that these rural, working-class communities have to change their culture and way of life, moving away from there homes and abandoning their culture to survive. When you say the same thing to any minority community (e.g. "you need to assimilate better"), it's seen as pretty damn racist, but here, it's OK to tell these rural communities to do something similar. That's the kind of thing that pisses people off and turns them away from the Democratic party. We can kick and scream about "ignorant voters" all we want (just like the Republicans did post-2012 with minorities), but it doesn't get you any votes.
My point is: What if they don't have a choice? Renewable energy has no reason to go to old coal towns. Both biological methods and solar power are both industries that borrow a lot from similar tech industries. Solar panel manufacturing is basically the same as computer chip manufacturing, so solar companies tend to make fabs in the same areas that Intel does. As LegalLord mentioned, this talent would not even consider living in a rural area. At least not generally speaking. These industries don't have a reason or ability to go to rural America.
|
Job retraining. There's the answer for rural America.
|
Here's the thing: if the white rural community is not being heard and is trying to be heard, shouldn't we be able to point out anyway that it's choosing a terrible vessel to getting heard? There are two different conversations here.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 16 2016 08:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 08:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 16 2016 08:14 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2016 07:37 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 07:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
How would one fix their economic situation? Is there some general consensus, or is Trump's idea (not a good idea, but an idea nonetheless) the only one at the table? Not an easy answer but I wrote this to give some background as to what has been/could be done with that situation. Finally remembered to read that post. The one thing I continue to have trouble with, despite agreeing and understanding most of it, is what you say about culture and cultural preservation. The way I see it, as technology continues to develop end cities continue to develop, we are never going to see companies feel like moving to rural areas. With there being *so* much incentive to stay in big towns and coastal big towns, I just don't see a way out of this situation for rural america. They don't seem to have a choice but to eventually move away into larger cities. Whether it is slow and steady or otherwise, rural America does not have a 50-year plan. And this answer is part of the problem. This is in large part true; you can't just magically bring high-paying manufacturing jobs back so that the economic model of the 1950's can come back in full force. There needs to be a shift to new industries (renewable energy) and an investment in improving pre-university education, especially an emphasis on community colleges and trade skills. But just think about what we're saying here: we're saying that these rural, working-class communities have to change their culture and way of life, moving away from there homes and abandoning their culture to survive. When you say the same thing to any minority community (e.g. "you need to assimilate better"), it's seen as pretty damn racist, but here, it's OK to tell these rural communities to do something similar. That's the kind of thing that pisses people off and turns them away from the Democratic party. We can kick and scream about "ignorant voters" all we want (just like the Republicans did post-2012 with minorities), but it doesn't get you any votes. My point is: What if they don't have a choice? Renewable energy has no reason to go to old coal towns. Both biological methods and solar power are both industries that borrow a lot from similar tech industries. Solar panel manufacturing is basically the same as computer chip manufacturing, so solar companies tend to make fabs in the same areas that Intel does. As LegalLord mentioned, this talent would not even consider living in a rural area. At least not generally speaking. These industries don't have a reason or ability to go to rural America.
The government has to lead those industries towards the rural direction. That is a truly daunting task but to the extent that it can be done it should be. If the trade deals fall apart, for example, to some extent that will force companies to look elsewhere for business opportunities, possibly inward.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 16 2016 08:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Job retraining. There's the answer for rural America.
Job retraining to do what? Work that you would have to move to the cities to do? That doesn't really work for stopping the community decline.
|
On November 16 2016 08:35 Nebuchad wrote:
Here's the thing: if the white rural community is not being heard and is trying to be heard, shouldn't we be able to point out anyway that it's choosing a terrible vessel to getting heard? There are two different conversations here.
They aren't going to listen to the left when the left is hurling many of the same epithets at them. And relentlessly shitting on their guy isn't going to win them over, either.
|
For someone not that much familiar with American culture and poltics like some of the posters in here seem to be , i would be really thankfull if anyone could explain me how on earth u can call HC or the DCP "Left". Or how it is possible to accuse someone to belong to the establishment and at the Same time to be left. if u interpret "left" like i do ( Marx etc.) it is a contradiction isnt it?
Besides Bernie they all seem to me like mid-right more then anything else.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 16 2016 08:43 Nakama wrote:
For someone not that much familiar with American culture and poltics like some of the posters in here seem to be , i would be really thankfull if anyone could explain me how on earth u can call HC or the DCP "Left". Or how it is possible to accuse someone to belong to the establishment and at the Same time to be left. if u interpret "left" like i do ( Marx etc.) it is a contradiction isnt it?
Besides Bernie they all seem to me like mid-right more then anything else.
US left = Europe right.
US right = Europe far-right
US far-left = Europe left
Roughly speaking, of course.
|
On November 16 2016 08:35 Nebuchad wrote:
Here's the thing: if the white rural community is not being heard and is trying to be heard, shouldn't we be able to point out anyway that it's choosing a terrible vessel to getting heard? There are two different conversations here.
Do you think that anyone would care about them had Hillary been president?
|
stratos -> you failed to read my argument carefully, so I'm ignoring the bulk of your post.
The issue was not whether they were ignored by the Left; but whether they were ignored by EVERYONE including the right. My claim specifically included the right.
to counter my claim you have to assert that noone in the right was working for them much at all.
The discussion chain also was, at least to my eye, in part about whether they were being ignored by everyone (i.e. the entire political establishment, both parties), not just being ignored by the left.
|
On November 16 2016 08:43 Nakama wrote:
For someone not that much familiar with American culture and poltics like some of the posters in here seem to be , i would be really thankfull if anyone could explain me how on earth u can call HC or the DCP "Left". Or how it is possible to accuse someone to belong to the establishment and at the Same time to be left. if u interpret "left" like i do ( Marx etc.) it is a contradiction isnt it?
Besides Bernie they all seem to me like mid-right more then anything else.
Yeah, US standards are not the same as West Europeans ones. The median point in the US political spectrum is more to the right.
|
Bernie Sanders isn't mid right anywhere though. He's a social democrat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
