3 ms·

> And one is for globalization. And the other is for stronger US labor unions, as mentioned in the article. Weird, I never thought of the Republicans as being

> And one is for globalization. And the other is for stronger US labor unions, as mentioned in the article. Weird, I never thought of the Republicans as being pro-Union.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Historically, the parties in the US have swapped core interests. The Republicans used to be quite working-class oriented.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The Republicans used to be quite working-class oriented. When exactly? Because thinking back through the history of the party from it's emergence, I can't see any time when I would say that, without some strong geographic, racial/ethnic, or other caveats. Their current status as the party of white working-class resentment is probably the most working-class they've ever been, unless you consider the original anti-slavery focus as a focus on the plight of a particular segment of the working class.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Well, Lincoln was a Republican. They were formed as an anti-slavery movement. After the war it was the farmer's party of choice for generations.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > The Republicans used to be quite working-class oriented. They still are. Democrats are either globalists or Communists, neither of which represent anyone's interest other than powered elites.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Troll? Democrats are Americans that generally want sufficient social programs, because we're a powerful nation and don't need to let anyone suffer.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Weird, I never thought of the Republicans as being pro-Union. And they aren't. The current crop of Democrats mostly is, even with the continued strength of the pro-globalization factions of the party (which include a substantial faction that is basically neoliberal, but many members of which acknowledge some harms of neoliberal capitalism and see unions as a local mitigation for those harms.)

3 ms·

> And one is for globalization. And the other is for stronger US labor unions, as mentioned in the article. Weird, I never thought of the Republicans as being

by mieseratte 7y ago

> And one is for globalization. And the other is for stronger US labor unions, as mentioned in the article. Weird, I never thought of the Republicans as being pro-Union.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Historically, the parties in the US have swapped core interests. The Republicans used to be quite working-class oriented.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The Republicans used to be quite working-class oriented. When exactly? Because thinking back through the history of the party from it's emergence, I can't see any time when I would say that, without some strong geographic, racial/ethnic, or other caveats. Their current status as the party of white working-class resentment is probably the most working-class they've ever been, unless you consider the original anti-slavery focus as a focus on the plight of a particular segment of the working class.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Well, Lincoln was a Republican. They were formed as an anti-slavery movement. After the war it was the farmer's party of choice for generations.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > The Republicans used to be quite working-class oriented. They still are. Democrats are either globalists or Communists, neither of which represent anyone's interest other than powered elites.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Troll? Democrats are Americans that generally want sufficient social programs, because we're a powerful nation and don't need to let anyone suffer.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Weird, I never thought of the Republicans as being pro-Union. And they aren't. The current crop of Democrats mostly is, even with the continued strength of the pro-globalization factions of the party (which include a substantial faction that is basically neoliberal, but many members of which acknowledge some harms of neoliberal capitalism and see unions as a local mitigation for those harms.)