Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not about race. You never mentioned policy. Not once.
It's always about policy.
I completely disagree. Race and ethnicity are stronger binding forces than class or policy. Why do poor whites vote Republican? Why do wealthy Jews and Asians vote Democrat?
Last edited by Avondalist; 11-20-2017 at 08:08 AM..
Republicans cannot be described as a "party of workers" in any sense.
They are the party of interior landowners, maybe.
Democrats are the party of professionals, leftists, and minorities. The latter group may make up a large part of the proletariat but they also make up a large part of the non-working welfare class.
Republicans are the party of the religious, some rich, and the white middle class, the latter of which are definitely workers. Moreover among the upper class Republican allegiance is declining because of social issues and stigma. There are only a few parts of the country where you can still be a publicly known Republican and a member of "polite society".
Class-based party definitions are becoming less relevant. Obama's tenure saw the lot of workers get worse, while the professional and upper classes did great.
The Republican party is moving downscale economically, tracking the trajectory of whites as a whole, while the Democrats are moving upscale, tracking the trajectory of certain groups such as Jews and Asian immigrants.
As far as influence on party policy, the rump worker wing of the Democrats has very little sway. Meanwhile the Republican party made policy concessions to workers as a result of Trump. These concessions have mostly been rhetorical, but due to the promises made and the electoral reality of breaking them (Republicans as an upscale WASP party is no longer politically viable) passage of pro-worker policy is inevitable.
Republicans used to be the party of northeastern wealth. Now they are the party of interior workers.
Democrats used to be the party of southern workers. Now they are the party of coastal wealth.
This proves that blood is thicker than bank accounts. When building political coalitions, ethnicity trumps class. The Republicans moved downscale economically as they became the party of most whites and not just wealthy whites. Likewise Democrats moved upscale as they became the party of non-whites, not just poor workers and immigrants.
So which new coalition will prove more durable?
On the face of it, the Democrats are more riven with differences, between a liberal white and Asian gentry and a black and Hispanic worker class. But as I said, blood is thicker than bank accounts and I think mutual antipathy to whites will keep the Asians, blacks, and Hispanics united despite unwieldy class tensions.
The Republicans are comparatively more united, since their coalition encompasses fewer ethnic and class tensions.
The X factor in American politics is the liberal white gentry, which is currently allied with Democrats. Will they stay that way? Remember blood is thicker than bank accounts.
I'm a white person who is a blue collar worker but have become "affluent" I guess by working hard and running my own business and investing well while working for someone else. My Children have all surpassed me in education already and a couple in income. I voted for Trump, my older sons voted for Trump. My wife voted for Hillary along with our younger kids.
But the trend is towards Republican if our family represents anything in your theory.
The RAISE act and renegotiation of NAFTA would be huge concessions to workers. The fact that they have been mooted in itself is huge.
Already the cancellation of the TPP has been a concrete concession to workers rather than investors. Attitudes towards trade and immigration are the most leading indicators of the shift I'm describing, in which Democrats and Republicans have switched places to match the rising and falling fortunes and interests of their constituent ethnic groups.
The Republican party used to be the natural abode of secular, socially-liberal, affluent, well-educated, worldly people – regardless of race or ethnicity (but most of those who met the aforementioned criteria happened to be white). People who had their names were embossed on their office-door – instead of on their shirts – traditionally voted Republican. Now these voters are adrift. Should they stick with a Republican party, which has become an alliance between populist-nationalists and social conservatives? Or should they go to the Democrats, whose economic platform is generally opposed to these voters’ interests?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist
...So which new coalition will prove more durable?...
You’re right, about the Democrats being a motley and unstable coalition, lacking union either along lines of finances, culture or creed. This is why Democrats can really only win elections if they have the good fortune to find a charismatic leader (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama), to energize and glue together this coalition, also swaying moderates. Republicans not only have the advantage of a more coherent coalition, but the Republican story is more condign with the American narrative, or at least the version of this narrative in the popular imagination. So, all else being equal, Republicans are just more likely to win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockwiz
Republicans used to be the party of censorship of speech because it might offend certain groups, while democrats were the ones promoting free speech. This is especially true in the 90's. ...
Now the republicans are the ones promoting free speech and the democrats want to censor everything because it might offend people.
Democrats pioneered "political correctness" in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I remember this vividly as a college student. This was an entire generation before the diatribes against "snowflakes". Much of the modern Conservative/Republican movement was spawned by so-called conservative media, such as talk radio. "Conservatives" totally dominated the talk-wars, because they embraced provocative and incisive speech, while liberals shunned it, as being contrary to decorum, or to listeners' sensitivity. Just imagine what would have been the modern political landscape, if in the 1980s there were an explosion of radical provocateurs, lambasting the "Reagan Revolution" as a crass power-grab dispossessing the workers, and a cynical continuation of Nixon's southern strategy? Imagine if the Limbaugh-Savage-Liddy-Hannity etc. contingent were leftists, saying things like religion being the opiate of the masses, and a scheme for dumbing down the workers and peasants; that American-style capitalism is barbarous and baleful; that only a grotesquely exploitative society fails to deliver free universal health care, and so forth. Where would we be today? I don't know, if modern life and politics would have been better, or worse. But they certainly would be starkly different!
The first part of your sentence is false, and betrays a partisan approach to economics.
Believing that green card restrictions and trade restrictions help American workers is a partisan approach to economics.
Economists would tell you that your immigration arguments run afoul of the Lump of Labor Fallacy, and your NAFTA argument doesn't seem to account for comparative advantage.
The two parties have been a complete inversion to the intent of the formation of this country since at least 1913. They are both parties of statist authoritarians who use government aggression to impose their will upon the individual and to destroy individual freedom.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
