Social and political issues

[DFO]

Originally Posted by redforever

The working class has turned on the left because of comments just like yours. These type of comments close the conversation before it even starts.

Excuses. Why can't these folks be challenged? The onus is on them to put in some effort to be informed voters.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by DFO

Excuses. Why can't these folks be challenged? The onus is on them to put in some effort to be informed voters.

Challenged? Sure. Treated with sneering contempt? It's takes a special kind of hubris to think that will win anyone over.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Okay, so you state two reasons why the working class is leaving the left:

1) Economic anxiety, and;
2) Political correctness/identity politics

So, what's the solution for #1? Most left-leaning politicians and parties tend to argue that taxes for the middle class and poor should be lowered while taxes for the wealthy should be increased. Most left-leaning types argue that social safety nets should be in place for those displaced by automation or other economic circumstances. They also argue that, at least in the case of the US, healthcare should be universal and a trip to the ER shouldn't bankrupt a family.

What solutions are right-leaning types offering for this economic anxiety? If anything, it's the stuff that doesn't actually help those suffering from it. Instead, they wrap their programs with lies and tell the gullible that it's actually good for them when it's not.

Regarding #2:

The argument that political correctness is running amok has been overstated. Every case is reported in the media like it's a plague. If each case of campus rape was reported in the media like it is for campus censorship there would be a massive outcry. Yes, censorship happens and it usually sucks. So what is okay censorship? Is the "N" word okay to say? Not in most circles. We censor ourselves. The loudest cry against political correctness and censorship is usually by those that have 'deplorable' things to say.

Additionally, I don't buy the "identity politics" is driving people to the political right. The right uses identity politics just as much, if not more, than the left. The argument of identity politics just ends up being a convenient excuse to say and do stupid stuff.

So, you've presented two points of view as to why the WHITE working class is leaving the left. Both of which are, as New Era stated, mostly due to "stupidity and lack of self-awareness". You seem to beat this drum fairly regularly. What are you suggesting for a solution? Or to put it more crudely: what's your point?

At the end of the day modern left-wing economic philosophy is failing the working and even middle classes. Current economic policy makes things easier for upper and upper middle class and panders to interest groups.

The USA is a great example, as they just had 8 years of one of the most left wing presidents in history and it now being followed up by a very non-left wing president, in Trump.

The unfortunate reality is that growth for the working class in America was stagnant during Obama's administration. They watched globalization push real estate out of their grasp and force jobs out of America. The wealth gap between the rich and the working class grew to new heights. Under Trump things are much better economically for the working class. Part of this may just be luck and outside economic conditions. Obama, however, did little to challenge globalization and outside forces like China.

The very unfortunate part of all of this is that Trump is likely to get re-elected, as America is in a much better position economically right now. The world is going to be stuck with everything that goes along with Trump.

If the Democrats could realize they need to take a more pragmatic approach and also abandon their entrenched political establishment (ex. Hillary), they could decimate the Trump voting block. It consists of a vocal minority of ignorant fanatics and a large group of voters who are holding their noses. It would be so easy to separate the good from Trump's economic approach and combine it with a message of tolerance. This would likely, however, require a significant philosophy change and resulting purge within the Democrat party, which I don't see happening.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by DFO

Excuses. Why can't these folks be challenged? The onus is on them to put in some effort to be informed voters.

If there's anything the working class loves, it's being called ignorant by a bunch of college kids.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by blankall

The USA is a great example, as they just had 8 years of one of the most left wing presidents in history and it now being followed up by a very non-left wing president, in Trump.

Sorry, but what makes Obama "one of the most left wing Presidents in history" exactly? By most non-partisan accounts he was largely centrist. The only really lefty thing Obama did was the Affordable Care Act and even that was for-profit health insurance.

The unfortunate reality is that growth for the working class in America was stagnant during Obama's administration. They watched globalization push real estate out of their grasp and force jobs out of America. The wealth gap between the rich and the working class grew to new heights. Under Trump things are much better economically for the working class. Part of this may just be luck and outside economic conditions. Obama, however, did little to challenge globalization and outside forces like China.

The decline of the wages and jobs for the working class have been in decline since the Great Recession. Those jobs have not returned with Trump despite his lies to the contrary.

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...s-wages-arent/

Essentially, the administration was in a position to do nothing and take credit for the continuing improvement of the economy—but that’s not what happened. A large tax cut for corporations and the wealthy put upward pressure on interest rates, making large purchases more expensive. Changes in the U.S. posture toward the Middle East have contributed to significantly higher gas prices, while the early effects of the administration’s trade shenanigans have started to drive up the price of imports.6 Each of these issues by itself is not huge, but the sum total is enough that for the second month in a row, real wages are lower today than they were a year ago.

According to this^ Trump's anti-globalization agenda is actually costing the working class.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Sorry, but what makes Obama "one of the most left wing Presidents in history" exactly? By most non-partisan accounts he was largely centrist. The only really lefty thing Obama did was the Affordable Care Act and even that was for-profit health insurance.



The decline of the wages and jobs for the working class have been in decline since the Great Recession. Those jobs have not returned with Trump despite his lies to the contrary.

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...s-wages-arent/


According to this^ Trump's anti-globalization agenda is actually costing the working class.

What we consider centrist has changed considerably in the last 10 years. Issues like gay marriage, abortion, and even some kind of basics public funding for health care are no longer considered far left but centrist now. Even in this more liberal modern day, Obama was widely considered one of, if not the most, liberal members of the US Senate prior to his election. His voting record in the Senate was very left of centre, as was his campaign message.

People can twist the figures any way they want, but there are more people working now than under Obama's administration. Like I said, this could just be a coincidence caused by economic factors outside of a president's control. And while I agree that the widening economic gap between rich and poor is a long term problem, Obama did absolutely nothing to correct it. People being back at work now, may not actually correct it either, but it certainly provides that perception to the voters who are working again.

Edit: The link you provided sites increasing oil prices as a driver of decreased buying power. Blaming the current mess in the middle east on Trump is a huge stretch. Increased oil prices have nothing to do with anyone's middle east policy. The increase in prices was caused by OPEC deciding to limit supply for the purpose of increasing prices and profits. The USA, while they still import crude, is a net exporter of refined oil products. Increases in prices are not entirely negative for them.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by redforever

The working class has turned on the left because of comments just like yours. These type of comments close the conversation before it even starts.

Bull. The people that are turning away do so because of dog whistle language that appeals to their inner darkness. It is amazing what you can get people to do when you appeal to their fears and activate their emotions and deep-seeded biases. The problem is these people allow their emotions to drive them more so than their intellect. That is America in a nutshell. The working class continues to vote against their best interests because they believe they are a break away from being something they aren't, rich or famous. That is a complete lack of self-awareness. When they continue to display these behaviors, and continue to believe the impossible, what does that make them?

[redforever]

Originally Posted by New Era

Bull. The people that are turning away do so because of dog whistle language that appeals to their inner darkness. It is amazing what you can get people to do when you appeal to their fears and activate their emotions and deep-seeded biases. The problem is these people allow their emotions to drive them more so than their intellect. That is America in a nutshell. The working class continues to vote against their best interests because they believe they are a break away from being something they aren't, rich or famous. That is a complete lack of self-awareness. When they continue to display these behaviors, and continue to believe the impossible, what does that make them?

And calling them stupid and uneducated also incites them. There are ways to have a conversation with people and get your point across. That is not one of them.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by New Era

Bull. The people that are turning away do so because of dog whistle language that appeals to their inner darkness. It is amazing what you can get people to do when you appeal to their fears and activate their emotions and deep-seeded biases. The problem is these people allow their emotions to drive them more so than their intellect. That is America in a nutshell. The working class continues to vote against their best interests because they believe they are a break away from being something they aren't, rich or famous. That is a complete lack of self-awareness. When they continue to display these behaviors, and continue to believe the impossible, what does that make them?

This just reeks of contempt for the working class. As others have pointed out, you're not helping the problems with this rhetoric.

Many working class people in America (and elsewhere) have genuine and warranted fears for their economic safety in a globalized world. There are people who have to worry about how they will pay their rent and how they will feed themselves and their families. The social net in America is much less forgiving than in Canada.

Yes Trump absolutely panders to the worst and most bigoted avenues of these concerns, but that doesn't mean that genuine concerns don't exist either. Where Trump has success is that he at least knows how to pander. Hillary tried to do the same thing, and it came across as clumsy and unrelated every time.

From my experience with the college educated and liberal crowd, there are many of them with delusions of grandeur and entitlement. Your assertion that the working class are largely motivated by a desire for extravagant wealth and fame is downright bizarre.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

People can twist the figures any way they want, but there are more people working now than under Obama's administration. Like I said, this could just be a coincidence caused by economic factors outside of a president's control. And while I agree that the widening economic gap between rich and poor is a long term problem, Obama did absolutely nothing to correct it. People being back at work now, may not actually correct it either, but it certainly provides that perception to the voters who are working again.

Edit: The link you provided sites increasing oil prices as a driver of decreased buying power. Blaming the current mess in the middle east on Trump is a huge stretch. Increased oil prices have nothing to do with anyone's middle east policy. The increase in prices was caused by OPEC deciding to limit supply for the purpose of increasing prices and profits. The USA, while they still import crude, is a net exporter of refined oil products. Increases in prices are not entirely negative for them.

Do you see anything funny about these two paragraphs, one after the other?

In the first you bring up the importance of perception. In the second, you forget the lesson.

Do rising oil prices have anything to do with Trump? Nah. Does increased employment have anything to do with Trump? Nah. Does the perception of these things being connected matter more than the facts? Unfortunately, yeah.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Sorry, but what makes Obama "one of the most left wing Presidents in history" exactly? By most non-partisan accounts he was largely centrist. The only really lefty thing Obama did was the Affordable Care Act and even that was for-profit health insurance.

The decline of the wages and jobs for the working class have been in decline since the Great Recession. Those jobs have not returned with Trump despite his lies to the contrary.

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...s-wages-arent/



According to this^ Trump's anti-globalization agenda is actually costing the working class.

Originally Posted by blankall

What we consider centrist has changed considerably in the last 10 years. Issues like gay marriage, abortion, and even some kind of basics public funding for health care are no longer considered far left but centrist now. Even in this more liberal modern day, Obama was widely considered one of, if not the most, liberal members of the US Senate prior to his election. His voting record in the Senate was very left of centre, as was his campaign message.

People can twist the figures any way they want, but there are more people working now than under Obama's administration. Like I said, this could just be a coincidence caused by economic factors outside of a president's control. And while I agree that the widening economic gap between rich and poor is a long term problem, Obama did absolutely nothing to correct it. People being back at work now, may not actually correct it either, but it certainly provides that perception to the voters who are working again.

Edit: The link you provided sites increasing oil prices as a driver of decreased buying power. Blaming the current mess in the middle east on Trump is a huge stretch. Increased oil prices have nothing to do with anyone's middle east policy. The increase in prices was caused by OPEC deciding to limit supply for the purpose of increasing prices and profits. The USA, while they still import crude, is a net exporter of refined oil products. Increases in prices are not entirely negative for them.

I don't think this is accurate, I think Bill and Hillary both are to the left on Obama in key areas like the economy, the environment and healthcare. Jimmy Carter is certainly to the left of Obama and potentially/arguably is JFK.

Obama might be most centrist democratic president in living memory, aside from LBJ maybe.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by redforever

And calling them stupid and uneducated also incites them. There are ways to have a conversation with people and get your point across. That is not one of them.

And what is wrong with calling a spade-a-spade? You're making them sound like the very snowflakes they point at liberals and say are ruining America. They can't have it both ways. Also, what is wrong with calling them just that?



What do you call someone who is not well versed in things beyond their own particular (very) limited world view? I mean, what would you call someone who has never been outside of their own county, and has no desire to know anything beyond the confines of that county? The United States is just plum full of people like that who live in rural areas. Is uneducated not an accurate term?


What would you call someone who repeatedly does the exact same thing, time-and-time again, regardless of information that should correct the behavior? Would you call someone who walks down the same dark alley and gets mugged, but never alters the behavior? Would stupid not be accurate?


See, I don't get this. The right can do and say whatever hateful #### they want, and its okay. But someone points out, in the very same terms the right would use to describe these behaviors, and it's all offensive up in this joint? Why is it wrong to call them what they are?

Originally Posted by blankall

This just reeks of contempt for the working class. As others have pointed out, you're not helping the problems with this rhetoric.

Contempt? I came from a working class family. Those are my roots. Thye would use these very same terms for people who are doing exactly what they are doing. You're also making Cliff's point for him. You're proving that the left are a bunch of snowflakes and can't get their hands dirty and play the game the same way the right does. That is why the right wins in America.

Many working class people in America (and elsewhere) have genuine and warranted fears for their economic safety in a globalized world. There are people who have to worry about how they will pay their rent and how they will feed themselves and their families. The social net in America is much less forgiving than in Canada.

Give me a break. These people you are talking about don't understand globalization or the global economy. That is the point! They are ignorant about this very topic you think is resonating with them and driving them to vote specific ways. For crying out loud, they just voted in a bunch of globalists! They just voted for a guy that has leveraged his brand around the globe! You think for a second they have any concept of what Trump's policies would have on their lives? No, they voted because they heard a fairy tale they could comprehend, one that was based on a false promise from the very type of people they supposedly fear and loathe, because of their economic safety.

Yes Trump absolutely panders to the worst and most bigoted avenues of these concerns, but that doesn't mean that genuine concerns don't exist either. Where Trump has success is that he at least knows how to pander. Hillary tried to do the same thing, and it came across as clumsy and unrelated every time.

So pandering=good, but honesty=bad. Got it.

From my experience with the college educated and liberal crowd, there are many of them with delusions of grandeur and entitlement. Your assertion that the working class are largely motivated by a desire for extravagant wealth and fame is downright bizarre.

So its okay to say educated liberals are "entitled" and have "delusions of grandeur" but its wrong to call those salt of the earth working class folk "uneducated" and "stupid" because of the very behaviors they display on a consistent basis? Interesting double standard you have there. And you talk about bizarre?

[Sliver]

Yeah, these morons can't be reasoned with. It's beyond anything a conversation or open dialogue can fix. The only thing that can be done is to out vote them. Once in power, try to rig the system against these idiots. They're not mentally equipped to run a country and never will be.

[CliffFletcher]

People realize 'these morons' include millions of people who voted for Obama twice, right? 44 per cent of voters in 2016 were non-college whites. Those numbers are even higher in the rust belt states (including former Democrat strongholds) that cost Clinton the election: Michigan 54 per cent, Ohio 55, Wisconsin 58, Iowa 62.

The Democrats can't afford to write off that many voters. If Clinton had done as well with non-college whites as Obama, she would have won. It she'd matched Obama's historic highs with African American voters, she still would have lost.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/201...ton-obama-base

It's foolish to fall into the trap of assuming that your most dedicated and passionate opponents are representative of everyone on the other side. Traditional and social media, animated by perverse incentives and algorithms, massively magnify the extremes. Most people are not hopelessly partisan or wild-eyed zealots. Most people are persuadable.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I don't think this is accurate, I think Bill and Hillary both are to the left on Obama in key areas like the economy, the environment and healthcare. Jimmy Carter is certainly to the left of Obama and potentially/arguably is JFK.

Obama might be most centrist democratic president in living memory, aside from LBJ maybe.

I'd rate LBJ the most progressive and interventionist of the bunch. He wanted to be a second FDR, and passed the most progressive set of legislation the U.S. has seen.

Bill Clinton moved the party to the centre. He was the poster boy for the Third Way movement that reconciled left-wing and right-wing platforms.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

People realize 'these morons' include millions of people who voted for Obama twice, right? 44 per cent of voters in 2016 were non-college whites. Those numbers are even higher in the rust belt states (including former Democrat strongholds) that cost Clinton the election: Michigan 54 per cent, Ohio 55, Wisconsin 58, Iowa 62.

Your numbers are really misleading. Trump won on 77,000 votes across three states. This can all be attributed to Clinton not campaigning in these particular states more so than anything Trump did. Clinton was a bad candidate who ran a very poor campaign, and she deserved to lose. But Trump did not win this election with some majority, nor did he gain any sort of mandate. This is a candidate who lost the popular vote by 4M votes.



[/QUOTE]The Democrats can't afford to write off that many voters. If Clinton had done as well with non-college whites as Obama, she would have won. It she'd matched Obama's historic highs with African American voters, she still would have lost. [/QUOTE]


Voting turnout was at its lowest level in two decades, with less than 56% f the population getting out to cast a ballot. Nothing diabolical about this, just people were disenchanted with both candidate and decided to sit things out. Will that same malaise grip the nation again in the future? We're going to find out shortly.

It's foolish to fall into the trap of assuming that your most dedicated and passionate opponents are representative of everyone on the other side. Traditional and social media, animated by perverse incentives and algorithms, massively magnify the extremes. Most people are not hopelessly partisan or wild-eyed zealots. Most people are persuadable.

No, most people are not persuadable. This is patently false. Most people are already locked into their pre-programmed political thinking long before basic discussion begins. It's the way our brains are wired, especially when it comes to elections. The only you hope you have to influence election numbers is to dissuade voters from becoming engaged. Those who can activate their base, while depressing the numbers of those on the other side, stand the greatest chance of winning. This is American political campaigning 101. This is how elections are won and lost, and exactly what happened to Democrats. Trump activated his base, and managed to depress the Democratic base. Voter turnout was at a 20 year low. That won the election for Trump, not the millions of people who are insulted by being called uneducated or stupid.



BTW, you're right. Conservatives complain that they shouldn't be called uneducated or stupid. They prefer to be called fools.


http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/18/...heyre-foolish/


But my point still stands. They were uneducated and stupid in what they believed and how they cast their vote.


https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10...ican-democrat/

[Sliver]

Cliff's hilarious. Conservatives have never been more mean spirited toward democrats from their leader down to racist rants in Wendy's drive-thrus, but his solution is to be nicer to them? Hillary tried the approach of being rational, professional and clear in her policies and the response was, 'lock her up' from the chorus of dopes. No, these people are unsaveable and need to be voted down. You're not going to win them over as they're lost causes.

[81MC]

I have little to add, other than sometimes some of you come off as really ignorant of life that is different than our own, and way too self-assured to realize it.
Carry on.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Cliff's hilarious. Conservatives have never been more mean spirited toward democrats from their leader down to racist rants in Wendy's drive-thrus, but his solution is to be nicer to them? Hillary tried the approach of being rational, professional and clear in her policies and the response was, 'lock her up' from the chorus of dopes. No, these people are unsaveable and need to be voted down. You're not going to win them over as they're lost causes.

Cliff's hysterics and hypocrisy on this issue is one of the longest running jokes on CP.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Cliff's hilarious. Conservatives have never been more mean spirited toward democrats from their leader down to racist rants in Wendy's drive-thrus, but his solution is to be nicer to them? Hillary tried the approach of being rational, professional and clear in her policies and the response was, 'lock her up' from the chorus of dopes. No, these people are unsaveable and need to be voted down. You're not going to win them over as they're lost causes.

No different than the extreme environmentalists, non-vaxers etc on the other side of the equation. Extremists exist on both sides of the equation.