4 ms·

> Democrats? They remain obsessed with cultural issues. I fully understand why transgender bathrooms are important, but I also understand why progressives’ obse

by byuu 10y ago

> Democrats? They remain obsessed with cultural issues. I fully understand why transgender bathrooms are important, but I also understand why progressives’ obsession with prioritizing cultural issues infuriates many Americans whose chief concerns are economic. I'm sorry, but this cuts both ways. The Republican primary issues are social as well. Is the author forgetting that GWB won in 2004 on the back of marriage discrimination amendments in key battleground states like Ohio to entice Republican voter turnout? I don't believe the shrewd Republican politicians at the top care about social issues anymore than the top Democrats care about reigning in Wall Street. But that is definitely how they energize their base for voter turnout. Meaning, it's what the voters care about. And this was the nastiest election I've seen in my lifetime by far for baiting with all those buzzwords the left is being derided for using now. But if the shoe fits. No, I don't believe all Trump voters are racists, bigots, or xenophobes. But I do believe there is a line in the sand when it comes to respect and dignity for all Americans, and Trump didn't just step over it, he flew his private jet across it. I don't even believe Trump really meant all of what he siad, but he played his base like a fiddle. If social issues aren't what's really important, and it's economic issues that won, then they could have had a sweeping landslide victory by adopting a more inclusive platform that didn't promise to stack the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges. One that didn't promise to undo all transgender protection executive orders. One that didn't suggest a registry for all Muslims and to ban refugees. One that didn't run on building a wall to keep out immigrants. He could have nominated a VP that didn't believe in conversion therapy for gay teens, one that didn't enact the gay version of Jim Crow laws in Indiana. If they had stuck to the economic issues: oppose trade agreements that only benefit the rich, give tax cuts primarily to the working class, provide good-paying infrastructure jobs, etc ... they would have won 'bigly.' I would have loved to vote against Clinton for such an economy-first party. As would most of the disenfranchised Bernie Sanders voters. But I can't do that when these social wedge issues directly affect my own life (he's talking about overturning my marriage) and that of my friends in the transgender community. Basic fairness and equality is much more important to me than my paycheck size. I'm sorry to play this card, but I think it's really easy when white, middle and upper class, cisgendered heterosexuals call for inclusivity and finding common ground with these social regressives. They have no basic rights to fear losing. The worst they're going to suffer is increased pollution (won't affect them in their lifetime anyway); but hey, those tax breaks sound nice, right? I'm not saying their economic concerns are unimportant. But don't ask the victims having their rights stripped away and peeled back to reach out and find common ground with the people trying to take them away. We're essentially being told now, "look, I know the Klan has some bad ideas around African Americans and gays, but what's really important to them are blue collar jobs. So can you please stop calling them racists and bridge the divide, LGBTs and people of color?" -- and my answer is no, sorry. I can't do that.

NamTaf 10y ago
"Basic fairness and equality is much more important to me than my paycheck size." That may be because your paycheque affords you a comfortable enough life on that front that you don't have to stress over it. As you said, it cuts both ways. Where you worry about the social issues that could rob you of your marriage, some of the working class worry about the economic issues that appear to be imminently robbing them of their income that feeds their family. Yes, the straight white male tends to not care about social issues because he isn't affected by that inequality. Similarly, the upper-middle class tends not to care so much about job creation because they're afforded enough education and job security that they don't have to stress over the prospect of not having an income.
- byuu 10y ago
  > That may be because your paycheque affords you a comfortable enough life on that front that you don't have to stress over it. I won't deny I currently make a fairly decent amount of money. I'm not rich, but am somewhere around the top 20% or so of income earners at $70,000 a year or so. And I know I have that job due to both luck and privilege. Not white privilege, but being born with a brain that was well-suited to learning and enjoying computer programming. Which just happened to be the in-demand thing. But I have been extremely poor before. I've worked full-time at Wal-Mart and near full-time at McDonalds simultaneously to afford the apartment I had to share with three roommates. I've lived for years on ramen noodles and bologna sandwiches. Believe me, I know what it's like to pay credit card interest with other credit cards, to have to finance food purchases, to dodge constant collector calls (even at work, yes even though that's illegal) and worry about a court case leading to wage garnishments. To have to drive without car insurance to afford food and have your heart rate skyrocket to 170/110 whenever you see a police cruiser on your side of the road. If it meant we could treat all people as equals with dignity and respect unde the law, I would accept going back that far. I very much don't want to, but to me, social issues are more important. One thing I will say is that I've never had to provide food for my children (I don't have any.) I can certainly understand how having children leads many people to be more conservative. I've seen it happen to some of my best friends I've known over half my life now.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago

by byuu 10y ago

NamTaf 10y ago

"Basic fairness and equality is much more important to me than my paycheck size." That may be because your paycheque affords you a comfortable enough life on that front that you don't have to stress over it. As you said, it cuts both ways. Where you worry about the social issues that could rob you of your marriage, some of the working class worry about the economic issues that appear to be imminently robbing them of their income that feeds their family. Yes, the straight white male tends to not care about social issues because he isn't affected by that inequality. Similarly, the upper-middle class tends not to care so much about job creation because they're afforded enough education and job security that they don't have to stress over the prospect of not having an income.

byuu 10y ago
> That may be because your paycheque affords you a comfortable enough life on that front that you don't have to stress over it. I won't deny I currently make a fairly decent amount of money. I'm not rich, but am somewhere around the top 20% or so of income earners at $70,000 a year or so. And I know I have that job due to both luck and privilege. Not white privilege, but being born with a brain that was well-suited to learning and enjoying computer programming. Which just happened to be the in-demand thing. But I have been extremely poor before. I've worked full-time at Wal-Mart and near full-time at McDonalds simultaneously to afford the apartment I had to share with three roommates. I've lived for years on ramen noodles and bologna sandwiches. Believe me, I know what it's like to pay credit card interest with other credit cards, to have to finance food purchases, to dodge constant collector calls (even at work, yes even though that's illegal) and worry about a court case leading to wage garnishments. To have to drive without car insurance to afford food and have your heart rate skyrocket to 170/110 whenever you see a police cruiser on your side of the road. If it meant we could treat all people as equals with dignity and respect unde the law, I would accept going back that far. I very much don't want to, but to me, social issues are more important. One thing I will say is that I've never had to provide food for my children (I don't have any.) I can certainly understand how having children leads many people to be more conservative. I've seen it happen to some of my best friends I've known over half my life now.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago