10 ms·

For me the real story here is that despite the ascendance of right wing populism the GOP in D.C. is doing the exact same thing it has always done : tax cuts for

For me the real story here is that despite the ascendance of right wing populism the GOP in D.C. is doing the exact same thing it has always done : tax cuts for the rich while shrinking services for the rest. That and deregulating wall street. Sure, the GOP in D.C. doesn't give two pennies about climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, or the rest, but they also are doing nothing different that will substantially help the Atlanta warehouse worker either.

maxxxxx 9y ago
That's the genius of the GOP. They can motivate the working class while pretty much every policy they make is against the working class.
- throwawaymanbot 9y ago
  Not Genius, but kind of a cool but disgusting trick. And Karma is natures greatest boomerang.
- manyoso 9y ago
  And when the hoi polloi start to catch on they just dangle some more red meat identity politics at them. "No, it isn't us, it is all the other people who are taking your American Dream away!" When you think about it, isn't it remarkable how well this works that a rich billionaire blowhard from New York City convinces the hoi polloi that he is one of them?
  - throwanem 9y ago
    This is much easier to accomplish - perhaps only even possible to accomplish - when the hoi polloi don't see any meaningful prospect of worthwhile change from the only other party that can get a candidate elected. As I find myself reiterating every time the subject arises here - it's not possible accurately to understand Trump's electoral victory without reference to the DNC's own internal politics and their gravely suboptimal effect on the party's 2016 nomination. Sanders vs. Trump would've been a much more interesting election, and its outcome much more in doubt, than what we actually got; as things were, the choice came down to more of the neoliberal, globalist, job-exporting same on the one hand, and a wild card who at least gave lip service to working-class folks' problems on the other. Granted, it's becoming increasingly clear that lip service is about all that candidate was prepared to give - but that still puts him ahead of his erstwhile opponent, who couldn't be bothered even with that much, not even when it became obvious that to do so would be tactically wise. You can blame people, if you like, for going with the sole candidate who at least pretended to give a shit about their problems. But what do you imagine it helps, to do so? Regardless of whether or not any individual finds it personally satisfying to despise people who voted in a way that individual does not like, those people did so vote, and here we all are as a result. Does recrimination really offer the most realistic prospect of a way forward that doesn't continue to steer our country along a course toward disaster?
    - manyoso 9y ago
      This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said. He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him. No, Occam's razor: this is just tribalism. He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful and hopeless to countenance the other.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said. “Continued support”? No, Trump's seen a significant decline in support since taking office. > He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him. No, again, in fact, the decline in his strong support in polling has been more rapid than the decline in his overall support.
        throwanem 9y ago
        A lot of it, too, is that regardless of one's private doubts, it's considered preferable to present a united front to a potentially hostile interlocutor. I tend to think that the Republican base is better at this, at least in the last decade or two, than the Democratic; for all the infighting one observes among the GOP establishment, GOP voters tend to back their man pretty firmly, at least in public.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwanem 9y ago
        > He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful and hopeless to countenance the other. That sounds less like tribalism than like desperation to me. And in any case, what difference does it make? Either way, it boils down to a stark choice: on the one hand, the Democratic Party may work out how to offer a credible alternative to Trump - more accurately, to whoever comes after Trump, and will no doubt be to Trump as Trump to Bush - and on the other hand, the Democratic Party may watch impotently as events continue more or less as they have done.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    It really is impressive. I remember having a discussion with my neighbor about how Clinton was a rich elitist and Trump is a down to earth regular person. I told him they are probably both rich elitists that would never to talk to either of us but he totally hung on to the idea that Trump is a regular guy. I don't know how they pull this off. It was the same with Bush.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > That's the genius of the GOP. They can motivate the working class while pretty much every policy they make is against the working class. That's kind of been easier since 1992, since Third Wayism means the Democrats at the Presidential level (which gets outsized media attention and often shapes perception of downballot races) and often (though less consistently) at lower levels aren't even trying to offer a credible alternative for the bulk of the working class on some of the most salient issues. It's easier to get people to vote against their own interests when no one is offering the clear opportunity to vote for those interests.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    I somewhat agree that let's not forget that third-wayism was a response by the Democrats to being locked out of executive power at the federal level for the previous 12 years, or all but 4 of the previous 24 years if you want to look back to the 1960s. When the choices were 'never get any power again' or 'accept the dominance of market economics and try to operate within that framework' it's hard to blame them for choosing the latter. Socialism and communism as political/economic philosophies are not an easy sell in the USA. My memory of the 1992 election is that Clinton managed to exploit general dissatisfaction with a relatively minor recession and conservative disenchantment (and consequent core voter apathy) with Bush's pragmatic decision to hike taxes, along with the split vote on the right created by Ross Perot's candidacy. Out of pragmatism, Clinton tacitly endorsed the dominant tropes of an authoritarian approach to criminal justice and the unwavering commitment to military supremacy that had culminated in the collapse of the USSR, end of the Cold War, and a quick and decisive victory in Iraq that was thought to be end of the Vietnam Syndrome. Normally you would think that having the USSR collapse and the Berlin Wall be torn down would have propelled Bush into an easy second victory and had him and/or Reagan added to Mount Rushmore as the triumphant receivers of the Communist surrender. I absolutely understand why the progressive left felt betrayed by the Clinton-Carville machine, but as an outside observer I think the notion that the Democrats would have got anywhere with a Eugene Debs style democratic socialist in 1992 (or any of many similar pipe dreams) is delusional. Delusional. Clinton only got in because of the ideological hubris that brought Ross Perot into the race. Please understand that I'm not casting aspersions on the ideological alternatives to the dominant economic paradigms of the time. I'm saying that there could not have been a credible alternative democratic candidate promoting sensible sustainable policies that supported working-class and other interests because most people are not rational voters. Stupidity and pervisity are facts of sociopolitical life and this isn't something that can be overcome in any single electoral campaign.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
That's because the GOP won the culture war. Sure the dems have civil rights, gay rights, transgender rights, etc. but the GOP has managed to convince most of the US population that success is achieved through wealth, that people with lots of money are good people who deserve what they have, that government is inherently less efficient than business, that markets are good and they get better the less regulation, that liberty = economic freedom, that unions are bad for workers and so on. They've done this so effectively that dems now feel they have to play into it. It's a sad indictment of the lack of any real leftist movement here.

maxxxxx 9y ago

That's the genius of the GOP. They can motivate the working class while pretty much every policy they make is against the working class.

throwawaymanbot 9y ago
Not Genius, but kind of a cool but disgusting trick. And Karma is natures greatest boomerang.
manyoso 9y ago
And when the hoi polloi start to catch on they just dangle some more red meat identity politics at them. "No, it isn't us, it is all the other people who are taking your American Dream away!" When you think about it, isn't it remarkable how well this works that a rich billionaire blowhard from New York City convinces the hoi polloi that he is one of them?
- throwanem 9y ago
  This is much easier to accomplish - perhaps only even possible to accomplish - when the hoi polloi don't see any meaningful prospect of worthwhile change from the only other party that can get a candidate elected. As I find myself reiterating every time the subject arises here - it's not possible accurately to understand Trump's electoral victory without reference to the DNC's own internal politics and their gravely suboptimal effect on the party's 2016 nomination. Sanders vs. Trump would've been a much more interesting election, and its outcome much more in doubt, than what we actually got; as things were, the choice came down to more of the neoliberal, globalist, job-exporting same on the one hand, and a wild card who at least gave lip service to working-class folks' problems on the other. Granted, it's becoming increasingly clear that lip service is about all that candidate was prepared to give - but that still puts him ahead of his erstwhile opponent, who couldn't be bothered even with that much, not even when it became obvious that to do so would be tactically wise. You can blame people, if you like, for going with the sole candidate who at least pretended to give a shit about their problems. But what do you imagine it helps, to do so? Regardless of whether or not any individual finds it personally satisfying to despise people who voted in a way that individual does not like, those people did so vote, and here we all are as a result. Does recrimination really offer the most realistic prospect of a way forward that doesn't continue to steer our country along a course toward disaster?
  - manyoso 9y ago
    This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said. He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him. No, Occam's razor: this is just tribalism. He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful and hopeless to countenance the other.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said. “Continued support”? No, Trump's seen a significant decline in support since taking office. > He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him. No, again, in fact, the decline in his strong support in polling has been more rapid than the decline in his overall support.
      - throwanem 9y ago
        A lot of it, too, is that regardless of one's private doubts, it's considered preferable to present a united front to a potentially hostile interlocutor. I tend to think that the Republican base is better at this, at least in the last decade or two, than the Democratic; for all the infighting one observes among the GOP establishment, GOP voters tend to back their man pretty firmly, at least in public.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwanem 9y ago
      > He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful and hopeless to countenance the other. That sounds less like tribalism than like desperation to me. And in any case, what difference does it make? Either way, it boils down to a stark choice: on the one hand, the Democratic Party may work out how to offer a credible alternative to Trump - more accurately, to whoever comes after Trump, and will no doubt be to Trump as Trump to Bush - and on the other hand, the Democratic Party may watch impotently as events continue more or less as they have done.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  It really is impressive. I remember having a discussion with my neighbor about how Clinton was a rich elitist and Trump is a down to earth regular person. I told him they are probably both rich elitists that would never to talk to either of us but he totally hung on to the idea that Trump is a regular guy. I don't know how they pull this off. It was the same with Bush.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> That's the genius of the GOP. They can motivate the working class while pretty much every policy they make is against the working class. That's kind of been easier since 1992, since Third Wayism means the Democrats at the Presidential level (which gets outsized media attention and often shapes perception of downballot races) and often (though less consistently) at lower levels aren't even trying to offer a credible alternative for the bulk of the working class on some of the most salient issues. It's easier to get people to vote against their own interests when no one is offering the clear opportunity to vote for those interests.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  I somewhat agree that let's not forget that third-wayism was a response by the Democrats to being locked out of executive power at the federal level for the previous 12 years, or all but 4 of the previous 24 years if you want to look back to the 1960s. When the choices were 'never get any power again' or 'accept the dominance of market economics and try to operate within that framework' it's hard to blame them for choosing the latter. Socialism and communism as political/economic philosophies are not an easy sell in the USA. My memory of the 1992 election is that Clinton managed to exploit general dissatisfaction with a relatively minor recession and conservative disenchantment (and consequent core voter apathy) with Bush's pragmatic decision to hike taxes, along with the split vote on the right created by Ross Perot's candidacy. Out of pragmatism, Clinton tacitly endorsed the dominant tropes of an authoritarian approach to criminal justice and the unwavering commitment to military supremacy that had culminated in the collapse of the USSR, end of the Cold War, and a quick and decisive victory in Iraq that was thought to be end of the Vietnam Syndrome. Normally you would think that having the USSR collapse and the Berlin Wall be torn down would have propelled Bush into an easy second victory and had him and/or Reagan added to Mount Rushmore as the triumphant receivers of the Communist surrender. I absolutely understand why the progressive left felt betrayed by the Clinton-Carville machine, but as an outside observer I think the notion that the Democrats would have got anywhere with a Eugene Debs style democratic socialist in 1992 (or any of many similar pipe dreams) is delusional. Delusional. Clinton only got in because of the ideological hubris that brought Ross Perot into the race. Please understand that I'm not casting aspersions on the ideological alternatives to the dominant economic paradigms of the time. I'm saying that there could not have been a credible alternative democratic candidate promoting sensible sustainable policies that supported working-class and other interests because most people are not rational voters. Stupidity and pervisity are facts of sociopolitical life and this isn't something that can be overcome in any single electoral campaign.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

That's because the GOP won the culture war. Sure the dems have civil rights, gay rights, transgender rights, etc. but the GOP has managed to convince most of the US population that success is achieved through wealth, that people with lots of money are good people who deserve what they have, that government is inherently less efficient than business, that markets are good and they get better the less regulation, that liberty = economic freedom, that unions are bad for workers and so on. They've done this so effectively that dems now feel they have to play into it. It's a sad indictment of the lack of any real leftist movement here.