6 ms·

Interesting. Useful cross-references: Thomas Franks, book, Listen, Liberal. http://www.worldcat.org/title/listen-liberal-or-what-ever-happened-to-the-party-o

Interesting. Useful cross-references: Thomas Franks, book, Listen, Liberal. http://www.worldcat.org/title/listen-liberal-or-what-ever-happened-to-the-party-of-the-people/oclc/908628802 http://www.worldcat.org/title/listen-liberal-or-what-ever-ha... Franks makes the point that the USA is the only developed nation in the world where the major leftward-leaning political party does not appeal to working people, but rather to elites. A Bloomberg piece on how Larry Summers, president of Harvard, economic bigshot in Obama 44's first term, blasted Trump's move to keep some United Technologies (Carrier) mfg jobs in Indiana instead of moving them to a maquiladora. He blasted Trump on the grounds that politicians have no business trying to influence keeping jobs in their districts. That's an astonishing position. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/summers-slams-trump-s-carrier-move-as-threat-to-u-s-capitalism https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/summers-s... Max Weber, book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_S... This three-generation-old work digs in to the moral roots of lonely striving.

rubberstamp 10y ago
People like Larry Summers won't change their position unless their jobs get exported out of the country. Then they will sing a different song.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  Before jobs like his will be exported there will be legal action against that. The "free market" is only for the little guy.
  - sjg007 10y ago
    Yep.. faculty have unions.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      Not at private universities they don't.
      - sjg007 10y ago
        Sure they do.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>A Bloomberg piece on how Larry Summers, president of Harvard, economic bigshot in Obama 44's first term, blasted Trump's move to keep some United Technologies (Carrier) mfg jobs in Indiana instead of moving them to a maquiladora. He blasted Trump on the grounds that politicians have no business trying to influence keeping jobs in their districts. That's an astonishing position. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/summers-s.. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/summers-s.... True, especially since there are fine grounds to oppose Trump's "deal", namely that the same amount of government money could have just paid the workers' salaries directly, or the government could seize the factory and put it under worker ownership, or the government could use the money as part of the proposed trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. Bribing a company to "save jobs" with more money than it will actually pay out in salaries is just plain wasteful.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>namely that the same amount of government money could have just paid the workers' salaries directly Your math is off. The company agreed to keep 700 jobs in the US, and will in return get $7 million in tax breaks over 10 years. That's only $700,000 per year.
  - Eridrus 10y ago
    Especially when you speed it out across 500 jobs it's only $1400, which is nothing compared to what welfare would cost and the loss in tax revenue. So it's not a bad deal if you look at it in isolation, but there are reasonable concerns on whether this is scalable and whether we want to introduce protectionist policies with the expectation that the rest of the world may retaliate. Because if that's not the plan, then the Carrier deal is just showmanship with little substantive impact.
- EvanAnderson 10y ago
  I find your use of "Obama 44" amusing. It's as though you've fallen through a wormhole from a future in which there has been a second Obama presidency (Michelle, perhaps, or a second Barack Obama administration after passage of an amendment to repeal the 22nd?). If prior convention held true were Barack Obama ever re-elected it would be considered a different presidency distinct from the 44th. (A poorly attributed State Department "ruling" that I'm seeing references to says the two non-consecutive terms of Grover Cleveland are considered two different presidencies-- the 22nd and 24th. See: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/opinion/l-cleveland-makes-two-767089.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/opinion/l-cleveland-makes-...)
analog31 10y ago
What I wonder is whether the leftward-leaning political party abandoned working people, or vice versa. In my state, that party has consistently fought for unions, safety net, employment, education, you name it. They have largely been rejected by working class voters. Perhaps "elites" are just a hobgoblin, invented to be feared. The leaders of both parties are elites, by definition.
- rokosbasilisk 10y ago
  What state ? Its pretty clear there was a disdain for the working class from the democrats at the national level, and even the republicans too. Thats why Bernie and Trump did so surprising well.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >What I wonder is whether the leftward-leaning political party abandoned working people, or vice versa. In my state, that party has consistently fought for unions, safety net, employment, education, you name it. ... and immigration, both legal and illegal. To have both a robust safety net and also unrestricted immigration is to turn poor people into wards of the state, and they know it. It shouldn't be any surprise this is rejected by the working class, which after all would prefer to be the working class and not the lay-about-the-house-and-collect-benefits class.
martythemaniak 10y ago
You know Sanders' candidacy was basically the Thomas Franks theory put to the test and it didn't work out. I know some Sanderites will complain about "corruption" and "rigged election" (where have we heard this recently?). If you'll recall, before the first votes came in Iowa he was supposed to lead a "political revolution" because rather than appealing to coalition of interests and identity politics, he would cut across it all with universal class appeal and bring back. After the votes started coming in, it became clear that revolution never came and he was just another left wing politician, who couldn't get the numbers like all the others before him (Dean, Bradley, Brown, Jackson etc) Leftists always imagine that if they talk about class and nothing else it'll magically erase all other distinctions between their voters and they'll come to power. Maybe that works in other places, but not in America. If you're on the lower rungs of the social ladder and you get treated like shit and some politician offers you some extra cash/benefit, you know you're still gonna get treated like shit afterwards.
- rokosbasilisk 10y ago
  Or the working class revolution simply moved to trump.Trump had alot of overlap with Bernie on messaging. Michael Moore explains it pretty well. A large population of americans simply wanted to a hurl a human molotov into the current system which failed them.
wcummings 10y ago
The leftward leaning party appeals to working class people, just not a certain white subset of working class people. More than half the country can't be "elite" by definition.
CM30 10y ago
Not sure it's the only one. Seems the Labour Party in the UK was more into appealing to elites than working people in recent years, and it's caused quite a bit of tension recently. There's definitely a divide between the Blairite Labour members (aka those who basically want Conservatism with slightly more left wing social policies than the Conservative Party) and the old school left wing types (which may or may not include Jeremy Corbyn).
wycx 10y ago
Thomas Frank on Listen Liberal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38JNg210L24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38JNg210L24 I also suggest the following talk by Mark Blyth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY which concisely outlines the economics behind the decline of western middle classes, and the link to sentiment against mainstream political parties. If you are interested in how bad things look for europe (from 2013, but the fundamentals have not changed): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM

rubberstamp 10y ago

People like Larry Summers won't change their position unless their jobs get exported out of the country. Then they will sing a different song.

maxxxxx 10y ago
Before jobs like his will be exported there will be legal action against that. The "free market" is only for the little guy.
- sjg007 10y ago
  Yep.. faculty have unions.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Not at private universities they don't.
    - sjg007 10y ago
      Sure they do.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>A Bloomberg piece on how Larry Summers, president of Harvard, economic bigshot in Obama 44's first term, blasted Trump's move to keep some United Technologies (Carrier) mfg jobs in Indiana instead of moving them to a maquiladora. He blasted Trump on the grounds that politicians have no business trying to influence keeping jobs in their districts. That's an astonishing position. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/summers-s.. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/summers-s.... True, especially since there are fine grounds to oppose Trump's "deal", namely that the same amount of government money could have just paid the workers' salaries directly, or the government could seize the factory and put it under worker ownership, or the government could use the money as part of the proposed trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. Bribing a company to "save jobs" with more money than it will actually pay out in salaries is just plain wasteful.

enraged_camel 10y ago
>>namely that the same amount of government money could have just paid the workers' salaries directly Your math is off. The company agreed to keep 700 jobs in the US, and will in return get $7 million in tax breaks over 10 years. That's only $700,000 per year.
- Eridrus 10y ago
  Especially when you speed it out across 500 jobs it's only $1400, which is nothing compared to what welfare would cost and the loss in tax revenue. So it's not a bad deal if you look at it in isolation, but there are reasonable concerns on whether this is scalable and whether we want to introduce protectionist policies with the expectation that the rest of the world may retaliate. Because if that's not the plan, then the Carrier deal is just showmanship with little substantive impact.
EvanAnderson 10y ago
I find your use of "Obama 44" amusing. It's as though you've fallen through a wormhole from a future in which there has been a second Obama presidency (Michelle, perhaps, or a second Barack Obama administration after passage of an amendment to repeal the 22nd?). If prior convention held true were Barack Obama ever re-elected it would be considered a different presidency distinct from the 44th. (A poorly attributed State Department "ruling" that I'm seeing references to says the two non-consecutive terms of Grover Cleveland are considered two different presidencies-- the 22nd and 24th. See: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/opinion/l-cleveland-makes-two-767089.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/opinion/l-cleveland-makes-...)

analog31 10y ago

What I wonder is whether the leftward-leaning political party abandoned working people, or vice versa. In my state, that party has consistently fought for unions, safety net, employment, education, you name it. They have largely been rejected by working class voters. Perhaps "elites" are just a hobgoblin, invented to be feared. The leaders of both parties are elites, by definition.

rokosbasilisk 10y ago
What state ? Its pretty clear there was a disdain for the working class from the democrats at the national level, and even the republicans too. Thats why Bernie and Trump did so surprising well.
gozur88 10y ago
>What I wonder is whether the leftward-leaning political party abandoned working people, or vice versa. In my state, that party has consistently fought for unions, safety net, employment, education, you name it. ... and immigration, both legal and illegal. To have both a robust safety net and also unrestricted immigration is to turn poor people into wards of the state, and they know it. It shouldn't be any surprise this is rejected by the working class, which after all would prefer to be the working class and not the lay-about-the-house-and-collect-benefits class.

martythemaniak 10y ago

You know Sanders' candidacy was basically the Thomas Franks theory put to the test and it didn't work out. I know some Sanderites will complain about "corruption" and "rigged election" (where have we heard this recently?). If you'll recall, before the first votes came in Iowa he was supposed to lead a "political revolution" because rather than appealing to coalition of interests and identity politics, he would cut across it all with universal class appeal and bring back. After the votes started coming in, it became clear that revolution never came and he was just another left wing politician, who couldn't get the numbers like all the others before him (Dean, Bradley, Brown, Jackson etc) Leftists always imagine that if they talk about class and nothing else it'll magically erase all other distinctions between their voters and they'll come to power. Maybe that works in other places, but not in America. If you're on the lower rungs of the social ladder and you get treated like shit and some politician offers you some extra cash/benefit, you know you're still gonna get treated like shit afterwards.

rokosbasilisk 10y ago
Or the working class revolution simply moved to trump.Trump had alot of overlap with Bernie on messaging. Michael Moore explains it pretty well. A large population of americans simply wanted to a hurl a human molotov into the current system which failed them.

wcummings 10y ago

The leftward leaning party appeals to working class people, just not a certain white subset of working class people. More than half the country can't be "elite" by definition.

CM30 10y ago

Not sure it's the only one. Seems the Labour Party in the UK was more into appealing to elites than working people in recent years, and it's caused quite a bit of tension recently. There's definitely a divide between the Blairite Labour members (aka those who basically want Conservatism with slightly more left wing social policies than the Conservative Party) and the old school left wing types (which may or may not include Jeremy Corbyn).

wycx 10y ago

Thomas Frank on Listen Liberal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38JNg210L24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38JNg210L24 I also suggest the following talk by Mark Blyth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY which concisely outlines the economics behind the decline of western middle classes, and the link to sentiment against mainstream political parties. If you are interested in how bad things look for europe (from 2013, but the fundamentals have not changed): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM