GOP Senator Lindsey Graham said it in 2012: “The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” (Trump is shown below publicizing Graham’s cell phone number to the world.)
Now the NYT speculates on the possible effect of a Nominee Trump:
Many leading Republican officials, strategists and donors now say they fear that Mr. Trump’s nomination would lead to an electoral wipeout, a sweeping defeat that could undo some of the gains Republicans have made in recent congressional, state and local elections. But in a party that lacks a true leader or anything in the way of consensus — and with the combative Mr. Trump certain to scorch anyone who takes him on — a fierce dispute has arisen about what can be done to stop his candidacy and whether anyone should even try.
Are these “leading Republican officials” right? (Just who are they talking about, anyway? Charlie Baker? Ted Nugent? But I digress.) Would a Trump nomination mark the collapse of the GOP into a racist, misogynist, immigrant-baiting party without majority appeal (Lindsey Graham again, from the NYT piece: “If you’re a xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot, you’re going to have a hard time being president of the United States, and you’re going to do irreparable damage to the party.”) or would it be the billionaire-powered challenge to governing orthodoxy that could enable the party to capture the last branch of national government still held by Democrats?
The assumption is that folks on the right portion of the spectrum who oppose Trump won’t vote for not-Trump and downticket Republicans. Similarly, that those in the center portion of the spectrum who oppose Trump won’t do the same.
It seems to me that its reasonably likely for a moderate Republican in a moderate district to say something like “Mr. Trump isn’t my cup of tea — I’ll be opposing him on issues X, Y, and Z if elected.”
is one of the reasons why angry white men support Trump.
” There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti – intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
ISAAC ASIMOV
Fred Rich LaRiccia
That’s what gets me pissed about being a Democrat and an angry white man. When I am canvassing door to door, there is always that moment of fear/hope/anticipation when the door opens. Is it a white woman, a person of color, someone under 30? Yes? Oh good, this is going to go well.
On the other hand, is it someone who looks like me? Yes? My gut tightens and I brace myself for the pain.
Why is it that the Democratic Party can’t reach out to angry white men? What can we offer them? This Trump thing ought to be an opening for us, to offer an alternative to “The Donald”.
You can start by offering them respect.
Oh, and promise not to change anything ever.
The simple fact is that many of these folks have been screwed since the early Seventies. I don’t see the downside of outreach, based upon that fact, and offering policies and approaches to enhance buy-in.
It’s not all that difficult to do (albeit it requires empathy and patience), but I repeat: you have to respect your audience. Furthermore, respectful outreach shouldn’t be limited to white men.
Don’t forget that white women went for Romney 56% – 42% in the 2012 Presidential election, as did white millennials of both genders (51% – 44%).
I’m related to plenty of angry white men. They require a staggering amount of deference. They want to believe they’re special even though they’ve done nothing special. What they need is a swift kick in the tail pipe.
Tax cuts aren’t magic. It wouldn’t kill anyone to treat minorities with basic respect. The middle class desperately needs a socialism injection. Trickle down is a wealth redistribution scheme for the extreme upper class. Yet the Republican mantra of “you’re the good people, you’re the right people, you’re the people who built this country” acts like political dopamine and you get people voting against their own interests.
Heavy-duty Appalachia.
The arrogant hostility you describe isn’t (and never has been) my experience with the people there, who run the gamut (and I include the women) from labor populist to Tea Party; few would define themselves as “progressive”.
Most of these people are not conservative; they are, however profoundly anti-left. And the reason is twofold:
The structural abandonment of white blue collar communities by the Democratic Party, starting in the Seventies; and
The contempt shown to the white working class by progressives, also institutionalized then.
Democrats are still paying the price for their abandonment of Hubert Humphrey liberalism.
Given this, and given that I have yet to see any serious attempt to address their civic (not “social”) and economic interests, it could be argued that the white working class in most cases has no reason to presume that the Left gives a damn about them, other than as abstractions to despise. This makes them manipulable by the Right (which often has the advantage of operating in a vacuum).
It’s been my personal experience that – if an organic connection exists or can be established – these folk are open to counterargument.
Hence, white working-class Republican support can be addressed and (to a degree) countered, but one has to start with the fact that white working class Americans have legitimate gripes.
…that the left despises the white working class. In my mind helping them is the very definition of what it means to be left. I realize you are hardly the only one to express this and I think your history is accurate, but I still don’t understand it.
Despise? No. offer little more than lip service? Well, yeah. Lots of talk, for sure, but let’s acknowledge that wages have been flat for 40 years. What have Democrats done about that?
They condescend. Ceaselessly. Stereotype, too.
And how do you characterize the behavior of the GOP?
Surely if the Democrats “condescend” and “stereotype” (and I don’t agree that we do), then the GOP simply lies (see my income distribution statistics down-thread).
Tell me, is the GOP obsession with Mr. Obama’s citizenship an example of objective thinking, or is it a stereotype based on his name and race? Is the GOP obsession with “illegal immigration” an example of objective thinking, or is it a stereotype based on national origin? Is the GOP emphasis on Voter ID an example of solving an actual problem, or is it simply a way to suppress minority votes?
Did the GOP selection of Clarence Thomas as Supreme Court Justice exemplify finding the best person for the job, or condescension? Somebody in the GOP decided that Sarah Palin will appeal to female GOP voters. Did that choice exemplify finding the most qualified candidate, or of condescension to a sexist stereotype of female voters?
I suggest that to the extent that condescension and stereotyping matter to your opinion of a political party, then choosing the GOP over the Democrats is jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
…or the plight of the working poor?
Hello? Anyone? Bueller?
I’m also familiar with that region (though not as much as you).
I notice a striking omission in your characterization of the demographic in question: racist. There is simply no way to avoid recognizing that this demographic strongly supported racist Democrats when the Democratic party embraced them, and shifted en-mass to the GOP when the Democratic Party repudiated racism and the GOP embraced the resulting candidates and voters with open arms and explicit encouragement.
I agree that the Democratic Party left them behind — explicitly so. I suggest that that decision had very little to do with economics and a great deal to do with racism. This is a demographic that resolutely asserted that the welfare programs instituted by LBJ, HHH and the Democrats primarily benefited blacks, even though the reality was exactly the opposite — especially in Appalacia. In fact, recipients of AFDIC were dominated by Appalachian whites. The statistics of that era, in fact, showed that a significantly higher percentage of eligible Appalachian whites actually received AFDIC benefits than their black urban counterparts. In fact, if there was a racial bias in those programs it was in FAVOR of rural whites and AGAINST urban blacks.
I suggest that another reality that must be addressed is that a significant factor in white working-class Republican support is the explicit and outright pandering to racism that the GOP has made its “Southern Strategy” since 1968. It is also true, and correct in my view, that the Democratic Party has insisted that racism NOT be part of its platform, policy, or campaigns since then. That insistence has driven away large segments of “angry white men”.
There is simply no way to avoid addressing racism when discussing how the two major parties address this demographic.
ALL working class Americans have legitimate gripes against BOTH major parties. BOTH major parties are beholden to the 1%, as is our government. Alongside the legitimate gripes of white working class Americans are also some absolutely ILLEGITIMATE gripes and beliefs, including implicit and explicit racism.
I enthusiastically support reaching out to this demographic by addressing those legitimate gripes. I equally enthusiastically reject the premise that we must soften, suppress, or hide our rejection of racism while doing that outreach.
I does however require the ability to confront and refute premises of the zero-sum game in which these issues are framed.
That brings me back to my original point of respecting the audience as a precondition for addressing its fears.
And racism, in particular its Massachusetts variant, is hardly limited to the white working class…
Your last statement is surely correct.
My point, though, is that what the GOP does and the Democrats refuse to do is pander to and inflame their racism.
The audience absolutely must be respected. In my view, an aspect of that respect is respectfully refusing to indulge the biases and prejudices of the audience. Racism can be acknowledged and discussed in a pastoral way that neither demonizes the audience nor encourages the racism. We do not demonstrate respect to a person by encouraging their racism (or misogyny, or xenophobia) — in fact, we do just the opposite by presuming that are unwilling and unable to change.
A bromide from social services is “love the person, hate the crime”. In my view, we are called to respect the person, while rejecting the racism, misogyny, and xenophobia that virtually ALL of us suffer from.
To keep things simple, there’s the old joke. A rich white Republican like Trump walks into a break room and takes 11 doughnuts for himself from the dozen on the table, and tells the white guy ‘keep an eye on that mexican, they might take your doughnut’. ‘that mexican’ also morphs into ‘that arab’ or ‘that queer’ or ‘that black’ or ‘that broad’, but it’s always the same. It’s our job to get that white guy to be angry at the guy taking the 11 doughnuts, not judging him for being protective of the one he has left.
Virtually all of the gripes that I hear about “libtards” involve either direct or indirect references to race.
These guys are angry with “political correctness”, which means they aren’t happy they can’t either denigrate or insult minorities anymore.
They are angry with “black lives matters”, siding instead with the belief that black people are more likely than not criminals.
They are displeased with “affirmative action” – they believe that they are at a massive disadvantage to black people when applying for a job (despite the fact that virtually every employer has a smaller share of black people than the general population).
They are unhappy with “welfare” – and almost always describe it in terms of black people.
They are also generally unhappy with gay people.
The strange thing is, they seem to be afraid. Afraid of change, afraid of people not like them, afraid of the future.
…to denigrate others? For me the notion Deval Patrick expressed often that we need to turn to each other rather than on each other is a self-evident truth. Is their self-esteem so low that like the schoolyard bully the only way they can think of to build themselves up is to tear each other down? I know others disagree, but I still say the solution is to deliberately move AWAY from conscientious sorting by race so that we all see each other as “us” rather than some as “them”.
I’ll give you three non racial examples why I distrust the system. All anecdotal but I personally witnessed. The husband of a friend of my wife received disability for years. He had a bad heart. He actually took a nitroglycerin pill before being examined by a doctor so he could get disability.
A neighbor is over 65, receives Social Security and owns over 100 acres of land. Because half of his income was earned on “under the table” jobs his meager Social Security now allows him to apply for heating assistance to the elderly.
Another neighbor hired a guy who was on disability to come out and paint his deck, rake leaves, paint his dock etc every spring and fall for 3 years. 10 hrs, Sat and Sun for 2-3 weekends. His disability, a recovering drug addict.
All white, all cheats. If the system can be scammed so easily (and I have other examples) it makes me distrust the ability of all these programs to maintain integrity as they try to level the playing field for all.
Interesting. So three acquaintances defrauded the already overburdened system. What is your point, then? Are you citing this as a failure of the system, or of your three friends?
I have a few questions.
If you knew that a neighbor or acquaintance was embezzling tens of thousands of dollars from the already meager retirement account of an elderly neighbor, would you keep silent? Would you shrug your shoulders and ignore it? Would you oppose any move to strengthen local police because they failed to prevent this crime? Or would you do as I would and report the neighbor to authorities?
What steps have you taken in your neighborhood to put an end to the fraud that you know your neighbors are perpetrating?
I have some more questions. If one of those perpetrators was Mexican or black, would you be similarly silent?
My premise about the role of government is that it should do what the people cannot do for themselves. It seems to me that you are blaming the government for failing to do what you and your neighbors most certainly CAN do for yourselves.
Every system can be scammed by those who try hard enough.
Exactly how or to who CAN you report these things? What steps CAN be taken, as you suggest could be easily done?
IS there a fraud report hotline of any kind?
I gave them as an example of what angry white men are angry about. Its not all racial, crooks with no personal ethics come in all colors. My problem is the system is too easy to scam. They aren’t friends, they’re people I know personally. And where do you report these things?
If I knew someone was embezzling from the personal account of a neighbor the situation would be quickly remedied. When I see people cheating the government I assume they’re getting some practice in and they’ll be running for office in the legislature.
Maybe they violate the letter of the law as currently written, but it sounds to me like those people make a little money through working and supplement it through public assistance. Seems to me we should encourage that where possible.
The left gives them plenty of reasons to vote the other way. That’s the side saying you deserve an education, health care, Social Security and community investment.
What the right gives them is a furious bum kissing and the opportunity to feel like valued culture warriors. Mind you, angry white man syndrome extends well beyond class boundaries. Yet if we’re talking working class, the only thing Republicans are offering is a bag of sweet nothings.
I believe Elizabeth Warren has said that of her parents, FDR and Truman said it about the people they were trying to help, pretty sure that’s the backbone of our party. The entire working class. That’s the big difference.
Where the GOP gets it wrong is by slicing and dicing it between deserving and undeserving, white and black and native born or immigrant. I am saying all are deserving, all have been screwed, but immigrants and minorities actually do have it significantly harder. We can still appeal to the white working class without denying that truth or running away from addressing racial inequality.
The generations of working class people who built this country have largely passed. I come from what was 50 years ago a working class family. I’m a firm believer in policies that benefit the working class, but it’s because that’s the right thing to do and the system doesn’t work unless it benefits everyone. The people who currently comprise the working class have not provided the moral backbone that spurred this nation to new heights. They’ve been dragged kicking and screaming into modest social progress. For 35 years they’ve often voted against their own financial interests.
They’re riding the historical coattails of former working classes, who were far from perfect yet almost always landed in favor of fairness. Much as I love Liz Warren and agree with her at a policy level, she fawns a little too much over the people who call her Fauxcahontas.
and the value of nothing.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
To quote Will Rogers:
As we’ve seen on this thread alone, too much of what GOP supporters and candidates think they know just ain’t so.
with someone who disagrees with themselves on public policy. The angry white man that I am and those that I talk with everyday have to grow up at some point in their life. The truth is that many of my Baby Boomer generation — born between 1946 to 1964 — are whiney spoiled brats. They never had it so good and have only themselves to blame for selling out their progressive principles in vain pursuit of the almighty dollar. Many sold their souls to their corporate masters a long time ago.
I don’t suck up to them politically at all. On the contrary I kick ’em in the ass and shame them for their flirtations with neo-Fascist Trumpism. It shocks the piss out of them. Totally disarms them. lol. I call them ignorant, know-nothing shills of the 1% and expose them for the tools they are.
Not surprisingly, some of the marginally sane ones are starting to come around to my Adlai Stevenson world view : ” If the Republicans ( aka con pukes ) stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans ( aka con pukes ) .”
The most effective way to fight Fascism is to spit it its’ eye with mockery.
Never back down to a bully.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Trump has an easy and false way out, promising walls and barriers he knows are impossible to build, and that would severely hurt the American economy if he tried.
Hillary Clinton’s best domestic policy has been her most unheralded. But a few weeks ago, she announced a bold plan to transition coal country to a post-coal future. While today’s Wall Street Journal continues the lie that Obama killed this industry, production has been down 25% going back to 2005 when Bush was in office. Free market energy policies have allows natural gas and renewables to take it’s place, the market for coal simply isn’t there anymore.
Hillary’s plan is the biggest proposed investment in that part of the country since the Great Society:
And it’s not just education and retraining, but green collar jobs through ecotourism and construction jobs with unprecedented broadband and highway connectivity. These are some of the most isolated parts of America and it’s time to get them back on the grid.
No reason this full spectrum poverty alleviation program can’t work in Detroit, Akron, or Youngstown where union voters say they are torn between Trump and Sanders. America is aching for it.
that we* are ready to invest heavily in the hollers of West Virginia but can’t seem to provide a steady, coherent economic policy for New Orleans or Detroit. The difference is rather stark. Some might even say the difference is white and black.
* the royal we
Pitting the white working class against minorities is a Republican strategy. Right now the perception is that anti-poverty programs benefit blacks to the exclusion of whites. We haven’t had a major domestic anti-poverty program since Johnson, and having one that addresses white poverty alongside black poverty will have a better shot at passage, sad to say.
He wisely addressed both with his pathbreaking initiative, and we can and should do the same. Sanders has called for an urban jobs program and Clinton should endorse it alongside her post-coal initiative. White poverty and black poverty are different, but instead of arguing which is worse how about we eliminate both? If we can bail out the banks we can bail out coal country, Detroit, New Orleans, and Youngstown were NAFTA devastated white and black factory workers in equal number.
…is a big enough city relative to Louisiana as a whole that if we can run the table there it would have the effect of turning Louisiana reliably blue. NYC and Chicago have that effect on their respective states despite both states having lots of pretty red counties in the hinterlands.
Populist politics there generally involve black/Cajun coalitions.
The urban political center of gravity in Louisiana is more Baton Rouge than New Orleans.
I know BR is the capital, but I thought NO was quite a bit bigger. If cultivating the black/Cajun coalition is what it takes that’s fine too.
It’s Baton Rouge’s status as state capital and (relatively) upstate geographical position that gives the city its advantage.
Does the population of New Orleans turn out and vote with the regularity of Baton Rouge, which is a government company town? Likely not. Politicians talk about people, but care about voters.
From Wikipedia:
My reference was not to voting patterns, but to cutting deals and forming alliances, which is what Louisiana politics are all about. In any case voting in LA state elections are tallied by parish, not municipality.
Orleans Parish Results (New Orleans) are here:
East Baton Rouge Parish Results (Baton Rouge) are here:
Our state committee has outreach for Women, Affirmative Action, Disability, GLBT, Labor, Latino, Senior, Veterans, Youth, but NO outreach for Men.
How do we win them over when we’re not even reaching out to them?
I’m not sure what you are looking for that isn’t already covered by default someplace else. Just because they don’t have a committee doesn’t mean we are not reaching out. In fact, the assumption is still that (white) men are the default audience. They are certainly plenty of us on the DSC.
“In fact, the assumption is still that (white) men are the default audience”
“What we used to call the white working class — voted for Republican House candidates 64-34.”
Or will they assume this is more of Obama’s clean coal initiative?
Obama bent over backward to help the coal industry as a Senator and as a President and got rewarded with Republicans blaming market failure they encouraged on the ‘socialist’ policies of the President.
Hillary is wise to cut with the bullshit and say ‘coal is dead, let’s move on’. I doubt she was going to win over coal country either, but I wouldn’t be surprised if after her election Republican members of Congress jump on her initiative. They know it’s the only way forward. Coal is never coming back, the free market killed it. Clean coal is a pork project smacking of the worst kind of protectionism.
My dad’s family comes from PA coal county. Had a great grandfather who lost a foot in a mining accident. Decided not to take his antibiotics to prevent gangrene so he could die quickly rather than slowly from his black lung. Coal is the devil.
And it is also a fine example of a lie told to working class white men by Democrats. Which is why they don’t like or trust you now.
The Republicans have spent generations eroding programs that benefit the working class white men and pushing economic policies that punish working class white men. They’ve lied about wars and public health risks. But somehow you like and trust them?
It’s a lie the GOP is also trading in, all the Republicans are saying they can save coal country but you and I both know the energy market has made natural gas more attractive, and even solar and wind in Texas and the Southwest. The Salem plant didn’t close due to two decades of activism to shut it down, it got transitioned to a cleaner gas plant with a much smaller footprint by a new startup energy firm. The old owner didn’t want to pay for the upkeep to the 53 year old plant nor for the higher price of shipping coal via barge.
I’ve attacked Hillary for her pandering and dishonesty in the past, but she was honest about this policy. King Coal is dead, strangled by Smith’s invisible hand, time to do something new down there.
FROM POPULAR MECHANICS
Coal will never be clean. It is possible to make coal emissions cleaner. In fact, we’ve come a long way since the ’70s in finding ways to reduce sulfur–dioxide and nitrogen-oxide emissions, and more progress can be made. But the nut of the clean-coal sales pitch is that we can also bottle up the CO2 produced when coal is burned, most likely by burying it deep in the earth. That may be possible in theory, but it’s devilishly difficult in practice.
I agree a massive reinvestment in downtrodden America would be a fabulous idea, but foreign misadventures and limitless military spending will gobble up the money that could go to that kind of initiative.
Bob Neer asks “Would a Trump nomination mark the collapse of the GOP into a racist, misogynist, immigrant-baiting party without majority appeal…?”
The final stage of that collapse happened when Barack Obama was elected in 2008. The nomination of Donald Trump would cement that collapse in stone. The racist, misogynist, immigrant-baiting “base” that GOP has been pandering to since 1968 has finally coalesced into the Tea Party, and the Tea Party in turn has destroyed the GOP “moderates” in Congress who’ve been trying to resist the tide of hatred. We’re talking about the party of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck here, folks.
The question is whether the American majority can overcome the propaganda of the mainstream media — especially Fox News — who desperately seek a close election.
First, the GOP is the majority party, as measured by its advantage in the House, which is the most democratic party of the government. And of course they also control the Senate, further emphasizing the party’s significant appeal as presently constituted. Second, Republicans like Charlie Baker are not running to the same base as Trump, however similar their views may be in private. Trump’s billions, however, are a wild card and should not be forgotten. Personally, I think the GOP is still up for grabs but Nominee Trump will definitely jerk it Tea Party-ward.
…but remember it’s been so gerrymandered lately that the last one or two cycles DEMOCRATS have actually received the higher raw vote totals nationwide for House candidates.
First, Republicans won an absolute majority of the House popular vote in 2014: they are the majority party in the US until the next election. Second, to the title of my post, angry white men do indeed vote in large numbers as Rob Ritchie lucidly explained in The Nation shortly after the last national election in November 2014 …
constituted 39 percent of the respondents in a Pew Center poll last spring, while 32 percent said they were Democrats and only 23 percent said they were Republicans. A national poll like that would seem a more accurate way to gauge the majority party in the US than the makeup of Congress. In fact, it lends support to the gerrymandering charge with regard to Congress.
Please don’t use the word party when referring to independents or unenrolleds. They are not a party by definition and leads to confusion especially when a party decides to use independent in its name.
Also, Bob and I were discussing votes cast as opposed to party registration, which as he mentions favored the GOP most recently. I guess I was thinking 2012 with my previous comment about raw totals.
that has to be reckoned with, particularly in the general election. But the real point I was trying to make is that it is problematic to refer to Republicans as the majority party in the US, given that in national polls, fewer people tend to identify themselves as Republicans than as Democrats or independents.
The fact that Republicans control Congress despite the low percentage of ordinary voters who identify themselves as Republican raises a number of questions. It may be that a greater percentage of angry white males, who are more likely to be Republican, do vote in statewide races than do registered Democrats or independents. It may have to do with gerrymandering of congressional districts.
On the other hand, we continue to elect Democratic presidents, so it’s hard to conclude, in my view, that Republicans are the majority party or that Congress should be the standard in determining which party is the majority.
Today’s GOP does not command a majority of registered voters.
The GOP majority in the House is largely an artifact of arcane manipulations of Congressional districts. There is a reason why the GOP has so aggressively imposed racist VoterID laws across the nation.
I suggest that everyday Americans are the real battleground, and that they are being besieged by right-wing propaganda bought and paid for by the same bigots that own and control Fox News.
Yes, there’s Fox News, but there’s also MSNBC. Does the former really have much greater reach than the latter in terms of households served? I agree the saturation exists as even I can sometimes more quickly remember the right-wing talking point than the left-wing one, but I don’t see why that inherently has to be the case.
The audience statistics are clear, and google is your friend. I invite you to consider, for example, this March 2015 report and this April 2015 Pew Research Center report.
From the first (emphasis mine):
From the second link (emphasis mine):
The plain fact is that Fox News dominates the mainstream media, and it is no accident that our culture turns more hateful as its vile propaganda permeates ever more deeply into our collective pysche.
I understand that Fox has tended to clobber MSNBC in the ratings, but my question is WHY do people choose to tune to one channel over the other. My argument is they are not forced to watch Fox for 24-hour news UNLESS their service provider offers Fox, but not MSNBC. Of course, this leaves out CNN which I’m not aware of any service provider that does not offer that channel.
You asked: “Yes, there’s Fox News, but there’s also MSNBC. Does the former really have much greater reach than the latter in terms of households served? ”
I don’t see that the “why” is either measurable or important. You correctly asked about “reach”. The point is that ENORMOUS numbers of Americans get their “news” from, and therefore their opinions molded by, Fox News.
MSNBC is the only outlet that leans left-of-center. The majority of television news outlets are (1) owned by the same 1%, and (2) apply the same biases as Fox (though to a lesser extent). Talk radio is dominated by Rush Limbaugh and his various right-wing sycophants, and those outlets are owned by the same 1%.
The right-wing bias of our mainstream media is real and pervasive, as are its impacts.
angry white men vote, or will vote in this election, starting with the caucuses and primaries? I’m not dismissing the danger of Trump as the nominee, or God forbid, the President, but I still see his candidacy as a reality TV program, with Donald Trump, host of ‘The Apprentice” playing the part of Donald Trump the candidate. In any case, voters should leave no campaign stone unturned to prevent this man from proceeding down this path.
…and Trump has held a lead. I’m still holding out hope that primary voters and caucus goers will get serious after Christmas.
Perhaps someone should ask middle age white males (who are not BMG posters) why they feel the Democrat party does not appeal to them.
What would you like to see from either party addressing your concerns?
and I’ve been a Republican since my 20’s. My conversion came watching the 1984 Democrat convention and then were going through the demographics of the delegates. People of color (they were then called blacks), government employees, union members, feminists (funny how that was a thing). I looked at that crowd and thought “hey that’s not me.”
Mondale later talked about the rich being people making over $60K, and as I was making about $35K at the time I thinking that was not rich. Besides I wanted to make $60K, so I assumed I was a Republican.
I find it funny that there’s all this endless speculation when the answers are out there. There’s also a this vast generalization- all white middle aged men in one bucket. If someone said “black men” were all _________ then that’s racist. It’s not racist to characterize all white men, but it’s inaccurate.
Who are the most solid Democrats in this state? In order, my opinion: People for whom English is not a first language. African Americans. Government workers. People employed by social service agencies. Well-off suburban liberals. Union workers. You can see why a non-union middle income white person might not feel solidarity.
Republicans have convinced laborers like you (and me for a time) that the reason they might not be rich is because people for whom English is not a first language, African Americans, government workers, people employed by social service agencies, well-off suburban liberals and union workers are all “takers” suckling from the public teat. And all of these people are taking your taxes, taking your opportunity, your right as a white make in the USA. They promote this to distract from the reality that guys like Mortimer and Randolph Duke are really at the root of low wages and the rest of our misery.
As LBJ said back in 1960, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” ~
As Democrats, we need to break free of Mortimer and Randolph Duke (Sorry Hillary…) in order to regain the angry white male.
We all have our version of this, but in short the US used to produce a lot of goods. The high value add in that activity left room for good wages for many people (mostly men). Most of that production involved a lot of manual labor (like assembling a car for example). First comes competition from abroad. Then women begin entering the labor force adding to the number of workers. Then automation really begins to take hold. Then additional competition from abroad. Then add in more technology. Then more foreign competition. Oh, and the cost of the inputs has increased so the value-add in less and there’s less money for workers.
Our economy needs less men, it doesn’t specifically need men, it definitely doesn’t need unskilled middle-aged men and when it does need men (think non-union trades), people of color will probably be doing the work (not a dig on them- but they are harder working lower paid competition that’s for sure).
Republicans (not the mythical ones always cited here on BMG) say create enough jobs by favoring business and that should drive demand for workers and ultimately wage improvement. Democrats say…..?
The same thing, sadly, and it has not worked for 40 years.
but obviously not in manufacturing.
They would also suggest that their efforts have been hamstrung, much in the same way the left would suggest their efforts have been blocked as well.
I don’t know the answer to that. I’m only giving the party line. I don’t believe the Democratic solution so I’m not planning on ditching my current party. I have voted for Democratic presidential candidates, but I have to admit that’s been more based on the person than an embrace of what they profess to stand for.
a) Stop the bleeding-no more ‘free’ trade agreements that exacerbate this status quo
b) Stop the bleeding-a stronger safety net to help everyone including health care as a right
c) Invest in infrastructure-creates construction jobs, improves the business climate, makes it easier to move goods and people
d) Invest in education*-plenty of jobs exist that are going unfilled due to skills shortages, invest in working training to do this, and many of them don’t require a traditional college education as the Globe points out
e) Regulate big business to help small business
It’s incredibly difficult and requires far more up front capital than it used to to start small businesses, and it doesn’t help when big business doesn’t play by the same set of rules, so I would change the regulatory and incentive structure to help small businesses thrive. Favoring community banking, worker cooperatives, anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations, and having the government cover healthcare would also significantly help small businesses.
But these are broad outlines, I would say the cut taxes and business will grow agenda hasn’t really worked. But I will concede my agenda up there is not universally embraced by my party, particularly my education focus on vocational skills and jobs rather than ‘universal’ college which Obama and Sanders seem to favor, and could use a lot more specifics.
What would your suggestions be to add to that agenda or modify it?
if you are a self-identified Republican.
You point out the splinters in the Democratic party eyes while conveniently ignoring the beams in the eyes of your fellow Republicans.
I fail to understand how ANYONE can justify the rhetoric and bigotry coming out of the Republican party today.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I won’t psycho analyze Merrimack Guy. I will say that other friends and relatives of mine who followed the same trajectory in Massachusetts did so for similar reasons. And calling them bigots doesn’t change anything. It just confirms their suspicions that we care more about minorities and women than we do about helping a working fella out.
And I can honestly say that the Republican party has done nothing for Merrimack Guy and his demographic in the last thirty years, and maybe the Democrats have not done enough either, which is why they need to actually address the problems affecting this demographic instead of blaming it all on racism or pretending they don’t exist.
I truly fear we are on a path of slicing the electorate on our own as well, and hoping enough suburban social liberals will be enough to carry us over on our wedge issues of choice and gay rights. It’ll work at the Presidential level, but returning to a Congressional majority requires more work than just fighting gerrymandering or bemoaning population changes. It requires really addressing these primarily economic pocketbook concerns with a concerted agenda while changing the way our party reaches out to these voters. We aren’t winning them all back and rebuilding the New Deal coalition tomorrow, but we aren’t going to be able to govern the country without finding messages and messengers that resonate with a portion of this demographic.
If you read Merimackguy’s description of 1984/Mondale Convention closely, you’ll note that a lot of this is about identity and not policy. Generally, that’s been the appeal of conservatism. It’s an attractive identity for a lot of people: morally righteous, frugal, tough, resilient, independent, etc. It embodies many of the traditional masculine virtues.
The recent example of Kansas will show that the type of governance the Republicans have on offer does no one any favors.
and not trying to justify the rhetoric. I don’t think anyone of either party needs to justify what is said by every single one of it’s prominent members.
I think the dialogue above is a bit better, where you put us on the spot, since I agree with you and John T May that the Democrats haven’t really focused on this to their detriment. It’s an agenda largely opposed to the Republicans on cultural and foreign policy questions without really offering a forward thinking economic vision. I like Sanders a lot on those sorts of questions, but also recognize his vision is likely never going to be implemented.
Both Clintons did/do a better job than Obama at aligning their political and policy priorities towards addressing the reality of the economic climate you describe with outside the box ideas like her post-coal transition that would actually work in a short amount of time and get bipartisan support. How much of it is a band aid instead of a vision is an open question, and he exacerbated the problems on some fronts during his term, but you can’t say they aren’t pragmatic.
I guess that leaves me with your good question, if cutting taxes and letting businesses create jobs is not enough, and if the band aids the Democrats are proposing is not enough, what is a broader agenda that can actually deal with these trends?
the energy industry has been a great source of jobs over the last 10 years, maybe saving us from a worse recession. The drop in gas prices puts money in everyone’s pocket- but of course that industry is hated here.
In order to increase margins and hopefully increase wages, companies have to reduce costs. Though of course reducing energy costs and reducing regulatory costs is also not a BMG solution.
So I don’t know. I think we need better infrastructure, but for most people that means improving roads and that’s not popular here.
Housing prices in many parts of the country are through the roof and that’s a problem. Some studies have show that reducing environmental regulations would help. Others say places don’t want more houses because of increased school costs. We all know what would be said if state funding was shifted to suburbs.
While Republicans like to talk about lower taxes for businesses (or in general) they don’t often get it passed. I know that Federal corporate tax reform might help (just based on all the cash corporations have stashed abroad), but that’s a pretty complex topic.
You offer Mr. Mondale’s 1984 single-person income threshold of $60K, and seem to imply that he was incorrect in characterizing that as “rich”.
My handy-dandy inflation calculator tells me that a 1984 income of $60K corresponds to a 2015 income of $137,346.90.
Leaving aside the important distinction between wealth and income, sites like this suggest that the 2015 HOUSEHOLD income threshold for the upper quintile is $194,053. Since most households today have at least 2 income-earners. Mr. Mondale’s number is more than SEVENTY PERCENT of that top-quintile HOUSEHOLD threshold.
A single income-earner with an annual 2015 income of $137,346.90 is comfortably within the top 20% of the taxpayer population.
Inspection of the figures in the second link reveals that virtually ALL the income growth since you became a Republican in 1984 has happened to the top quintile (and much of THAT has happened to the top 5%). Wealth distribution data for the same period will show even more concentration of gains among our wealthiest households.
Whether or not a “non-union middle income white person” feels “solidarity” with the Democrats, the data shows conclusively that the GOP has been SCREWING HIM for thirty years.
Why is he and you, then, still a Republican?
It doesn’t even buy you a home in Somerville, Malden, or about 250 MA cities and towns.
And now back to the GOP bashing……
It sounds as though your definition of “rich” is “more than I make”.
The criteria I used is the threshold for the top quintile (20%) of incomes. You seem to be arguing that that isn’t high enough. What IS your threshold then?
It seems to me that an agreement about the criteria for what constitutes “rich” or “wealthy” is reasonable basis for any discussion about these matters, whether that discussion is “bashing” or not.
but I know that it’s always a quick pivot in any discussion coming from the progressive side.
You offered the income level cited by Mr. Mondale in 1984 as “rich” as your first motivation for becoming a Republican.
There’s no “pivot”, I’m responding to your point.
You followed that up with an egregiously incorrect statement about the price of home ownership, and explicitly named my town.
The GOP is selling lies, and has been for 30 years. They sell lies about the relationship between GOP policies and middle-class prosperity. They sell lies about race, lies about immigration, lies about women, lies about Planned Parenthood.
In this part of the thread, we are discussing the comment you made about “middle class white men”:
You volunteered your reasons for choosing the dark side (that’s a JOKE!), and income was at the top of your list. That’s why I’m discussing income with you — no “pivot”.
Is it “GOP bashing” for me to expect you to be receptive to correcting your wildly erroneous claims about my town?
on the facts.
” The best disinfectant is sunlight.” JUSTICE LOUIS BRANDEIS
Fred Rich LaRiccia
and with 5,000 liberals arguing with 1 conservative it’s a bit churlish to dive into ad hominem too.
The current criteria applied by banks for mortgage approval is a first ratio of 33%. For a single person making $137K, that’s $3,767K/month.
I assure that at today’s mortgage rates (in the vicinity of 4%), that most certainly will buy a home in Somerville. That monthly payment gets you into a mortgage of something in the vicinity of $1M. There are a number of very nice condos and single-family homes in Somerville for well under that.
and your numbers are way off.
Don’t forget jumbo rates are higher.
http://www.bankrate.com/partners/sem/mortgage-calculator-rates.aspx?loanAmount=1000000&years=30&terms=360&interestRate=4.50&loanStartDate=02+Dec+2015&show=false&monthlyAdditionalAmount=0&yearlyAdditionalAmount=0&yearlyPaymentMonth=+Dec+&oneTimeAdditionalPayment=0&oneTimeAdditionalPaymentInMY=+Jan+2016&ic_id=mtg_calc_calculate_btn
The first ratio is 33% of monthly gross, not net.
I have a 4% jumbo loan for a property in Somerville, with a starting principal balance of $500K. Our monthly PIT is about $3300 (it varies with property tax and insurance rates).
A single person grossing $137K/yr is grossing 11.4K/month. I wouldn’t want to take on a $3300 monthly house payment, but it is possible. Single family homes and condos in Somerville are available on the market today for well under the numbers we’re talking about.
For example, our prospective Somerville resident could purchase 34 Spring St #4 for $415K. Assuming an $85K down payment, that’s a mortgage of about $330K. The mortgage payment on that will be about $1100/month. Add a $330/month condo fee, and your at $1430/month. Even with property taxes and insurance, that’s going to be monthly nut of about $2,000 or less.
I’m using very rough approximations, but I bet they’re within 10-20% of the actual numbers.
The point is that our contemplated $137K salary most certainly CAN buy a very nice home in Somerville today. Many of the other cities and towns are far more affordable.
I ran the numbers on your calculator for the above listing. I grant you that my estimate for the mortgage portion is about $400/month too low.
So the monthly nut is $2,500, instead of $2,000.
Still, a $2,500/month house payment on a monthly gross of $11K/month is very possible — lots of people do it.
My wife and I chose to buy an owner-occupied two-family, our monthly payment is about half of that after rental income from our tenants is included.
The point is that you greatly exaggerate the cost of home ownership in Somerville.
And $60K was not rich in 1984. As we all know Mondale got creamed, so he wasn’t particularly effective with that or any other line of reasoning.
You’re really putting too much effort into this.
Like most cons I know you live in bubble where facts — both historical and scientific— are denied.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
In my view, “rich” is a characterization of a person’s wealth or income level in the overall distribution.
One definition of “wealthy” that I find useful is when the yield from a person’s portfolio (over and above whatever is needed for the portfolio to keep pace with inflation) exceeds their spending in a given year. A person in that position has no need for wages, and for many of us that is a concrete definition of “wealthy” that works.
When we talk about policy, taxes, and so on, it seems to me that being concrete about the language we use is important.
I’m therefore not sure what you mean when you say “137K is not rich”. If you mean “being in the top quintile does not bring the benefits that it used to”, then I enthusiastically agree with you.
When our politicians of both parties use the term “middle-class”, the generally refer to a standard of prosperity that was destroyed decades ago. In both cases, we are using “rich” and “middle-class” to characterize life-styles and states of being.
We have been practicing Republican trickle-down economic dogma for more than thirty years, since Reagan. We have slashed marginal tax rates on the very wealthy. We have slashed capital gains rates. We have privatized government. In the recovery from the Great Crash of 2008, we did NOT expand government hiring the way prior administrations have done. We have had annual or semi-annual threats of government shutdown for years now. We have operated the federal government under budget constraints that were draconian when introduced and retain draconian now. All these were sold to us by the GOP and by “moderate” Democrats as measures that would “create jobs” and “increase prosperity”.
In fact, exactly the opposite has happened. What we have, in fact, done is transfer an ENORMOUS quantify of wealth from the 99% to the 1%. The GOP now strives to eliminate the estate/gift tax entirely, ensuring that this plundered wealth can be retained and passed from generation to generation.
The result is that traditional measures of “middle class” stability such as home ownership, a comfortable retirement, and all that supported by reasonably stable wages from a reasonably available job are now available ONLY to the uppermost regions of our wealth and income distribution.
You argue that having a higher income than EIGHTY PERCENT of the rest of Americans is not “rich”, at least as you use the term. In the sense that you use it, you are correct. The state of mind and lifestyle that we once associated with the middle class is now available only to those at the 90th or 99th percentile (or higher).
Yet the GOP tells us that we still haven’t been austere enough. Our taxes are still too high. Our government is still too large. You presumably will not support the Democratic nominee, presumably because that nominee will not perpetuate these GOP lies about income, wealth, and government policy.
One definition of insanity is continuing to repeat the same behavior in hopes that its outcome will be different. What we have been doing, after 30 years of this rubbish, is insane by that definition.
The GOP candidates — and those who support them — would have us double-down on that insanity.
is that everyone who votes Republican is insane. Not exactly the way to be inclusive, but I get that’s the point. It’s us versus them and if this was eighteenth century France, heads would be rolling.
This isn’t eighteenth century France, this is twenty first Massachusetts. We are, hopefully, able to disagree without cutting off heads.
We are among the wealthiest states in the wealthiest nation in human history. We are discussing an apparently significant number of white males in Massachusetts who feel angry.
Choose a less provocative characterization if you like, but the facts remain the same. We have been doing what the GOP says it wants to do for thirty five years, and the results are exactly the opposite of what the GOP dogma says they should be. Some people have been using the phrase “cognitive dissonance” lately. Whether “insanity” or “cognitive dissonance”, it remains an abject refusal to admit the facts that surround us, coupled with an abject refusal to change behavior or rhetoric to match those facts.
We have not created jobs, we have slashed them. We have not “raised the tide” of the middle class, we have destroyed it. You just finished arguing that someone with more income than eighty percent of the population is not rich. We have not helped small business, we have destroyed it. We have not helped home ownership rates, we have destroyed them. We have not helped retirement security, we have destroyed it.
This agenda and dogma we’ve been following for thirty five years is yours, not mine. If being “inclusive” means tiptoeing around the long list of utter failures of the dogma your party continues to promote, then I have no interest in being “inclusive”.
If angry white males are ready to direct their anger towards the handful of the very wealthy who ARE plundering them (not to mention oppressing!), then I welcome them with open arms.
Have there not been Democratic administrations? Democratic Congresses? Elections where Republicans could have been voted out?
Jobs are up significantly. It’s just that the population has increased. Participation rates need to be higher though.
I would guess the number of businesses created in the last 35 years in the millions.
Home ownership rates peaked around 2006, and then returned to the norm, which was a good thing. There’s plenty of evidence that some people prefer (and/or shouldn’t) own.
I agree retirement for many is not what it should be. That’s not the fault of the Republicans. Maybe people should save more. Maybe some people are luckier (buying a home at the right time in the right place). As both you and I know, divorce has a significant effect on your finances. It’s many things, and I don’t blame the BMG scapegoat.
The defined benefit model for the private sector was unsustainable, and it will eventually prove to be unsustainable for the public sector as well. We’ll see what people have to say when services are getting cut to fund pensions.
If you moved in different crowds then you would know that many on the right are not fond of the influence of the rich. It’s hard to address the issue of the power of money though when the leadership of both parties are at the trough.
The GOP mythology has dominated federal policy even during Democratic administrations, perhaps in large part because both GOP and Democratic parties and candidates are beholden to big-money donors.
Still, it is the GOP that has led the charge for the various aspects of the mythology, even while Democrats have held office. The memes of “small government is better”, “deficits are bad”, “regulation is bad”, “lower taxes improve the economy”, “giving tax breaks to the already wealthy will help the working class”, etc., etc., etc. are Republican memes.
Do you call the crash of 2008 “returning to the norm”? Really?
My assertion remains that the GOP has promised, since the election of Ronald Reagan, that the various articles of faith it promotes would solve or improve each of the problems you enumerated. We’ve done them, and they haven’t worked.
The current social security system is NOT a “defined benefit” plan, surely you know that. A defined benefit plan, by construction, is funded by contributions that are retained for later distribution. That is NOT what social security has ever been.
The GOP strove mightily to kill social security in favor of a mandatory “privatization” plan where workers would be forced to invest in the stock market. Had we done that, millions MORE Americans would have been wiped out in the crash of 2008 by losing their retirement benefits as well as their homes.
I move in multiple crowds, thank you very much. I agree with you that too many Democrats are at the same trough as the virtually the entire GOP. I think the common ground between us may well be the recognition that it is the plundering of our economy by our very wealthiest that has created most of our current malaise.
So, having said all that, it seems to me that we have a selection of GOP candidates and a selection of Democratic candidates to choose from during the upcoming primary season. One of these candidates will be our next president, and will likely serve for eight years afterwards.
I suggest that any of the Democratic candidates are far more likely than any of the GOP candidates to make effective progress towards blocking or reversing the wealth concentration that has been doing such catastrophic damage to our consumer economy, and especially working-class men and women.
You missed college-educated urbanites of all colors, service sector workers, and Asians and Hispanics regardless of their first language, who are overwhelmingly Democrat. It’s a big tent. What the Dems generally offer is education, health care, Social Security and community investment. The Republicans are offering small government (which probably won’t deliver for you), militarization and, mostly, a safe place to practice identity politics. If what you want is to look around the room and see a collection of people who mostly look like you, then the Dems can’t and won’t compete with that.
Identity solidarity is not on the table when it comes to the Democratic Party. As a middle class white guy, strikes me as a silly thing to want in our nation, but there’s a big market for it and the Republicans go after it with gusto.
Some of those people can swing. Service sector workers? That’s about 75% of the workforce so not sure what you’re getting at there.
So I pay for education via taxes, I get health care from my employer, Social Security has been around for awhile and I’m not sure what community investment is. Maybe Dems are offering more? Note how you didn’t mention “good business climate that encourages companies to hire people.”
Last I recall it’s Obama that been waging war across the Middle East and I’m pretty sure (based on what I see here) there’s no monopoly on identity politics.
Then surely you aren’t voting Republican. We have the data on that.
What identity is it you see being pushed by the left? If your answer is fundamentally “everyone but me,” that’s not identity politics. That’s the pushback against your identity politics. You typed this:
That’s the very definition of identity politics. You looked at a crowd of people where someone like you wasn’t the overwhelming majority and ran toward a place where it was. The Republicans are offering you membership in the People Like Me Club. It’s not really about what the club does so much as who’s in it. I’ll give you some credit for being honest about it, but I’ll counter it’s good that you live in MA where you can claim affiliation with what you deem to be your people while enjoying the benefits of Democratic policies.
and you’ve never been in a Republican crowd so you could not identify them. You’d be surprised at how many old small cars are in the parking lot.
Not only that, but it would be impossible for an outsider to tell the difference between the Andover RTC and the DTC. There’s a couple of kooks on the DTC but you might think they’re Tea Party.
Almost everyone here so overgeneralizes it’s ridiculous.
Of course I enjoy the benefits of Democratic policies, just like you enjoy the benefits of Republican ones.
Local level, state level and the 2004 RNC.
Though you keep dodging the very point you started. Republicans offer you a feeling of solidarity. Yep, that’s what they’re putting on the table. If that’s what matters to you, then you’re definitely voting Republican. The Dems, quite proudly, do not offer that.
Maybe if the Dems weren’t so smug about inclusion this whole post wouldn’t be necessary.
Don’t know why you’ve back away from your earlier moment of honesty. Republicans offer you something Dems won’t. Let’s try this another way: why does that matter to you?
and you’ve never been in a Republican crowd so you could not identify them. You’d be surprised at how many old small cars are in the parking lot.
Not only that, but it would be impossible for an outsider to tell the difference between the Andover RTC and the DTC. There’s a couple of kooks on the DTC but you might think they’re Tea Party.
Almost everyone here so overgeneralizes it’s ridiculous.
Of course I enjoy the benefits of Democratic policies, just like you enjoy the benefits of Republican ones.
…to convince non-union workers that the answer to any disadvantage they have vis-a-vis union workers is not to envy and tear down unions, but to JOIN them? Dems have to be all-in on protecting an absolute right to organize and create the conditions for making that as easy as possible IMO.
I remember watching the 1984 Democratic Convention in San Francisco with my late mother, a first generation Italo – American, in which the recently elected New York Governor Mario Cuomo fearlessly challenged President Reagan’s trickle down economics in a passionate speech that electrified the nation.
He said : ” Our government should be able to rise to the level where it can fill the gaps that are left by chance or by a wisdom we don’t full understand. We would rather have laws written by the patron of this great city, the man called the ‘world’s most sincere Democrat’, St. Francis of Assisi, than laws written by Darwin.”
As he finished I saw Mom wipe away tears and I asked her why she was crying ? She told me it was because Cuomo had given voice to the hopes of all immigrants in search of the American Dream.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
to their racism, xenophobia, misogyny. and homophobia.
Why don’t we start there ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia