What does the white working class want?

[JHan]

The Populism Perplex : Paul Krugman
NOV. 25, 2016

First, a general point: Any claim that changed policy positions will win elections assumes that the public will hear about those positions. How is that supposed to happen, when most of the news media simply refuse to cover policy substance? Remember, over the course of the 2016 campaign, the three network news shows devoted a total of 35 minutes combined to policy issues — all policy issues. Meanwhile, they devoted 125 minutes to Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Beyond this, the fact is that Democrats have already been pursuing policies that are much better for the white working class than anything the other party has to offer. Yet this has brought no political reward.

Consider eastern Kentucky, a very white area which has benefited enormously from Obama-era initiatives. Take, in particular, the case of Clay County, which the Times declared a few years ago to be the hardest place in America to live. It’s still very hard, but at least most of its residents now have health insurance: Independent estimates say that the uninsured rate fell from 27 percent in 2013 to 10 percent in 2016. That’s the effect of the Affordable Care Act, which Mrs. Clinton promised to preserve and extend but Mr. Trump promised to kill.

Mr. Trump received 87 percent of Clay County’s vote.

Now, you might say that health insurance is one thing, but what people want are good jobs. Eastern Kentucky used to be coal country, and Mr. Trump, unlike Mrs. Clinton, promised to bring the coal jobs back. (So much for the idea that Democrats need a candidate who will stand up to the fossil fuels industry.) But it’s a nonsensical promise.

Where did Appalachia’s coal mining jobs go? They weren’t lost to unfair competition from China or Mexico. What happened instead was, first, a decades-long erosion as U.S. coal production shifted from underground mining to strip mining and mountaintop removal, which require many fewer workers: Coal employment peaked in 1979, fell rapidly during the Reagan years, and was down more than half by 2007. A further plunge came in recent years thanks to fracking. None of this is reversible.

You can’t explain the votes of places like Clay County as a response to disagreements about trade policy. The only way to make sense of what happened is to see the vote as an expression of, well, identity politics — some combination of white resentment at what voters see as favoritism toward nonwhites (even though it isn’t) and anger on the part of the less educated at liberal elites whom they imagine look down on them.

To be honest, I don’t fully understand this resentment. In particular, I don’t know why imagined liberal disdain inspires so much more anger than the very real disdain of conservatives who see the poverty of places like eastern Kentucky as a sign of the personal and moral inadequacy of their residents.

One thing is clear, however: Democrats have to figure out why the white working class just voted overwhelmingly against its own economic interests, not pretend that a bit more populism would solve the problem.

Indeed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/opinion/the-populism-perplex.html?_r=1

[nycbos]

1. As LBJ said...

"If you can convince the lowest white man he is better than the best colored man he won't notice you picking his pockets."

[WhiteTara]

3. Indeed. So, the vote was for White Male Identity Politics.

[Uponthegears]

2. Not to beat a dead horse

Including the one Krugman's riding, but the answer to that question appears to be, "Exactly what Democrats were offering" because the sub $50K/year working class favored Hillary over Trump by about the same percentage they favored our President over Romney.

[elleng]

4. Jobs

[ooky]

67. Not just any jobs though. Jobs they don't have to re-train for. In this election they rejected

the offer of college education - free tuition for working families - first offered by Bernie Sanders and later adopted as part of the Dems platform. Apparently they want exactly what the OP correctly said isn't coming back - their old jobs. Given the option to work in underground coal mines or keep packing roller bearings vs training for a new high tech job and they made clear to stick the free training and education where the sun doesn't shine. They think Trump's going to bring back their old jobs and salaries and benefits that were lost lost to third world countries cheap labor and/or technological obsolescence. They are putting their head in the sand over both technology and climate change. Trump lied to them about both to get elected, as they will soon learn. Now they will get neither their old job or free training for a new one. Just more cuts to their health care assistance.

[TheKentuckian]

72. They were offered vapor ware with no estimated time of resolution

So, the only "real" offer was take your ass to school, pile up some debt to carry you into retirement age for a job that doesn't exist and may never exist before being outsources or automated and may never replace the lost pay and benefits even if it does.

[ooky]

74. That's the current plan. Its called

F*ck America Again.

[JI7]

5. The ones that voted for Trump want certain groups of people to go away

And this applies to trump supporters at all income levels.

[davidn3600]

6. Calling rural voters in the Rust Belt racist wont get them to vote for you

Are some of Trump's voters racist? Yeah.

But many of them are simply people who used to be Democrats and are now sick and tired of a party that no longer even respects their existence.

We just had a Democratic convention in Philadelphia. We had a parade of diversity on that stage. We talked about the plight of migrants and immigrants. We talked about the problems facing the inner-cities and gun control. We talked about women's rights. But no one said a word about rural whites who have seen their jobs vanish thanks to free trade agreements that the presidential nominee's husband signed into law. For years there was warning. Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, various politicians from the Rust Belt was warning the DNC of their problem in failing to out reach middle class whites.

When a party or politicians no longer respects your issues, you tend to get angry. You tend to stop voting for them. This can't be explained by simple racism. You are talking as if middle class whites in rural Pennsylvania and Michigan need to "sit down and shut up. Your issues no longer matter in a changing America!" That's the attitude they perceive coming from the Democratic party.

[JI7]

7. I'm calling those in suburbs cities etc racist also

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

13. Calling millions of people you don't even know racists is ignorant

And makes you a bigot, and a hypocrite for being exactly what you claim to despise.

[JI7]

14. lol. i know they voted for trump. you sure have no problem judging mr

But i can't say something about those who voted for an open bigot and made it the main part of his campsign. .....

[EffieBlack]

20. Interesting, isn't it?

Funny how quick these people are to jump in your face defending the people who elected a racist, insisting we must go out of our way to make and keep them happy and, by all means NEVER EVER OFFEND THEM! But let a black or brown Democrat say, "Excuse me, sir. Might I have just a little more attention?" they're shouted down with "STOP WHINING!!!" "YOU'RE PLAYING THE RACE CARD!!!" - and my new favorite- "ENOUGH WITH THE IDENTITY POLITICS ALREADY!!!"

[JI7]

30. it really is something. somehow the trump voters are made into victims

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

21. Then call HIM a bigot because he IS one.

It's NOT OK to call millions of VOTERS you don't even know bigots. I'm seeing this kind of thing all over this forum and I have to say it's turning me off BIG TIME. I'm dangerously close to saying screw it and looking at third party candidates from now on. The GOP wants to kick out Mexicans, Muslims and their platform sucks. Now many Democrats here want to push the DNC to kick out blue collar and working poor whites, rural whites and anyone who doesn't agree with every tiny thing they demand. The average/moderate people who just wants things to be good and fair for EVERYONE is getting pushed out of BOTH parties. It's getting harder and harder to justify supporting EITHER party. I hope that there is a new party of truly MIDDLE/MODERATE candidates that rises up out of all this bullshit because I am tired of two sides that only want to be divisive.

[brush]

29. Kind of naive to think Trump voters wouldn't insist on pulling the party to the right

Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 02:37 AM - Edit history (1)

They have right wing views and voted for white supremacist campaign — a classic white back lash the happens in this country whenever black people get a law passed or reach a goal that knocks down some of the racism constantly confronting them (see the Obama presidency).

You may as well face it, that's who they are. There is no excuse for voting for a candidate who ran on racism, and bringing them into a party of left-leaning Latino Americans, progressive whites, African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, gay Americans etc. is probably the quickest way to splinter this party.

It's been done, been there, done that. Why do you think the dixiecrats (precursors of Trump voters) left the party in a huff in 1964? LBJ seated the Freedom Democratic Party (African Americans) at the Dem convention.

The two factions just don't mix and to call for African Americans and other POCs to coddle and rub shoulders with them . . . no thank you.

[JHan]

37. Either you call them bigots or recognize they had no problem voting for a bigoted platform..

either way they voted for a demagogue.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

41. Have you ever been to an economically devastated rural area?

When people are desperate to keep a roof over their kids head and put food in their kids' bellies they don't give a fuck about ANYTHING else. The Democrats didn't help those poor rural white people from counties that voted overwhelmingly for Obama and flipped to Trump because he convinced them he cared about their plight. It's bad enough to ignore the needs of these poor and suffering Americans but to then turn around and call them all racists when they got fed up with being ignored and voted for the other side is stupid and unproductive.

[JHan]

42. I know people struggling to make ends meet yes.

they didn't vote for Trump.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

51. So you know every struggling person in the rust belt?

If you don't know every person then you don't know their story or struggles.

[JHan]

43. As for Clinton "ignoring" people...

You may have missed this, I've shared this link already in the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2642910

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

52. Where did I say Clinton specifically? I was talking about long term ignoring

And the rust belt voters have strong feelings about trade deals, so they really do not like Clinton for that reason. She didn't do enough to reach out to them to overcome those negative feelings they had for her.

[DemonGoddess]

39. You're missing the point

systemic racism. It's real. That was certainly greatly at play this election cycle. So many people who consider themselves not racist, in point of fact, usually ARE.

It can be a rude awakening. I remember mine, years ago. Yep, I changed those viewpoints, thankfully, many years ago. But, the viewpoints, opinions and attitudes were there.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

45. I know full well what racism IS and what it's NOT

What ALWAYS gets left out of the equation is that sometimes people just don't like another person because that person is behaving like an asshole and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with race or religion or anything like that.

The issue is far more complicated than most realize and it turns into a viscous circle because people take the worst possible approach and least helpful attitudes.

I am going to illustrate my points and explain myself using the black/white race issue.

There is absolutely plenty of overt racism out there. It is harder for black people to find good housing in good neighborhoods. It's harder to find good jobs. The legal system is not fair and has a bias and there is DEFINITELY a problem with black men who are unarmed getting shot and killed by police because of the institutional biases. Anyone who denies these things is not being honest.

Putting up with this on a day to day basis must get extremely old. After awhile I would imagine that anyone who is black grows to just expect this kind of bias and for many they may even start to look for it. Ultimately, that can and often does, lead to black people looking for racism and sometimes imagining it where it doesn't exist.

Many times a white person can be a vocal opponent of racism and STILL be accused of being a racist over some perceived slight or intent that never existed. This HURTS people because the issue matters to them.

Just like when a black person who experiences racism enough times starts to notice every potential slight, white people who are unfairly accused of being a racists when they aren't WILL start to feel unfairly persecuted too. Over time resentment may build and the seeds of racism is born at that point.

Now there are also cases of people being insensitive without it being intentional. Those people are not racists. They are just unaware and need to be engaged in conversation.

Now that I've said my piece...I never judge anyone by their race, gender or anything else. I judge them based on whether or not they are an asshole.

And to anyone who thinks I don't understand the pain and fear from Trump being elected...I had to hold my own child while she sobbed, fearful for herself and our family members who are black, hispanic, LGBT and disabled. I cried when he won and was deeply sickened by the hate crimes. I bitched about them profusely all over social media, too.

I will say it again...calling ALL Trump voters racists and attacking them only PERPETUATES distrust between races. If the pattern continues it's only going to get worse and worse. It's GOT to stop.

[JHan]

44. I don't understand..

the defensiveness about this.

Are you ignoring the platform Trump had this year, and just selectively deciding that it's not a big deal?

Why avoid discussions about race and xenophobia?

No one denied rural workers are hurting, so are many other workers in the country, so are blue collar workers of color - what happened to them in all this discourse? They don't exist?

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

53. If you think it's defensiveness then you aren't paying attention

I'm standing up to stereotyping and labeling millions of people unfairly. Too many people on here are saying ALL white people who voted for Trump are racists. That is a bigoted thing to say because it's not true, it's unfair and it involves lumping millions of people together and accusing them of something terrible without so much as knowing them. That is NEVER OK.

[JHan]

56. I never said they were all racists:

I said either they were bigots or bigotry and xenophobia weren't deal breakers for them at the ballot box.

Their votes speak for itself. Humans are complex, it's a mix of factors and since Trump was peddling fear, that's what they responded to: Fear of the future, fear of "the other" -whether muslim or mexican, fear of someone taking their guns .. fear fear fear which leads to xenophobia.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

64. You actually responded to my reply to someone else

You may have thought it was a reply to you but if you go back through our interaction you'll see I was responding to I think J17 or something like that.

[JHan]

9. How do you reconcile your view with this:

If economic anxiety was the motivating factor:

"Exit polls show Hillary Clinton winning a majority of the vote from people who told pollsters that the economy was the most important issue facing the country. What's more, in each state, a majority of voters said that was the case.

In fact, if we extend that out to every state for which we have exit polling, in 22 of those 27 states a majority of people said that the economy was the most important issue. And in 20 of those states, voters who said so preferred Hillary Clinton. In 17, in fact, a majority of those voters backed Clinton....

n nearly every state, Clinton did better (and Trump worse) with voters worried about the economy than with the overall pool of voters. (Notice how the blue slices in the smaller circles extend further than the blue slices in the larger ones.)

How can that be? How can she win a majority of the majority and still lose? Because she lost with other groups worse.

The exit poll questionnaire gave voters a choice between four options for the most important issue. Clinton was generally preferred by those who said foreign policy was the most important issue, too, but Trump was preferred by those who saw immigration or terrorism as most important. The key is the margins. On average, about 13 percent of people in the 27 states said foreign policy was most important and they preferred Clinton by an average of 30 points. On average, voters who said the economy was most important preferred Clinton by 7.3. But on terrorism, rated most important by a fifth of voters, on average, Trump led by an average of 21.8 points. On immigration (most important to an average of 12.2 percent of respondents)? A huge 42.1 percentage point lead for Trump."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/in-nearly-every-swing-state-voters-preferred-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/?utm_term=.3428cb06d380

One of the pithy comments sums it up

"People react to fear, not love; they don't teach that in Sunday School, but it's true." ~Richard Nixon
#FearTrumpsLove"

[Madam45for2923]

24. On average, voters who said the economy was most important preferred Clinton by 7.3

On average, voters who said the economy was most important preferred Clinton by 7.3

On average, voters who said the economy was most important preferred Clinton by 7.3

On average, voters who said the economy was most important preferred Clinton by 7.3

On average, voters who said the economy was most important preferred Clinton by 7.3

On average, voters who said the economy was most important preferred Clinton by 7.3

[JHan]

34. Hopefully repeating it makes it stick :P

[Madam45for2923]

50. Hoping it makes it important as in READ THIS! What does it tell you?

Hmmmmm!!!! .....

[TheKentuckian]

73. That still leaves an appreciable minority that didn't.

Winning a demographic or a bracket isn't winner take all nor does those affirmative votes mmean a stamp of approval for the candidates policy. I voted Clinton but I think we have a long ways to on economic policy too.

[jack69]

11. Poor rural white

As a group, they have always been the first to be taken care of, even if only minimally. They will not admit that or appreciate that. When they were doing well, did they worry about the poor rural minorities? Their children were not profiled automatically when some crime was committed nearby. The list goes on.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

15. No, they actually haven't been

Service centers with all the help are not set up in rural areas. They are set up in urban areas. If you are poor you can't afford to travel to urban areas to access help. Funding for programs is allocated based on population. That means less programs and resources for rural areas. There are less jobs in rural areas. Less food banks when families have no food. Less homeless shelters when someone can't pay the rent.

ALL poor rural people (regardless of race, group, etc) have less resources and help to access just because they are in rural areas.

THAT is why when they are desperate for someone to help after being ignored over things like legalized recreational pot use they got pissed off and voted for Trump. It's hard for some people to actually admit that is what it is because they would have to examine their own selfishness to do that.

[JHan]

38. Remind me who governs these rural districts at the local level...

But of course, the dems are to blame. the dems are "not listening".

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

49. Great points, which will be entirely ignored by

No Good Sense Left and the rest of that crowd. We should pity those people who continually vote against their own best financial, health, and educational interest to support racist, misogynistic, homophobic politicians, and believe that they suddenly were voting for their own financial interest despite the racism, misogyny, and homophobia (not to mention outsourcing, defrauding and cheating which makes his economic promises to the non-wealthy highly suspect) of their chosen candidate. Yeah, right.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

54. Those states and districts voted for Obama twice for change and gave him a chance

He wasn't able to deliver enough to them to make things better in THEIR areas. He tried very hard, and he was blocked by the GOP every way. That being said, when people vote their perception is reality. Obama was president for 8 years and things did not change enough. Yes, he saved the auto industry early on and that mattered, but what else was there? And don't quote national statistics because the rust belt has not really improved on the national level, so local/regional statistics only, please.

This was a race for President, so I am speaking about presidents only. Apples to Apples not Apples to Oranges.

[JI7]

16. ask them what they think of blm

See if you still get sympathy for family of innocent black people killed.

[LenaBaby61]

32. Come on now. Don't be mean JI7 ...

You know that not all whites in Rural Amerikkka are racist....

"Pamela Ramsey Taylor, who was director of the Clay County Development Corp., took to social media to comment on the upcoming shift from Obama to Melania Trump, writing: “It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House.”

She added: “I’m tired of seeing a Ape in heels.”

Oh, dear

"Mayor Beverly Whaling, who had commented approvingly on a Facebook post comparing the first lady to an ape, turned in her letter of resignation Tuesday. Joe Coleman, the town recorder, said the resignation was effective immediately; officials here are now scrambling to replace the mayor, who had three years left on her term."

Now Democrats REALLY need to run to recruit THOSE two into the Democratic party ASAP! Get them on OUR side. Maybe Mrs. Taylor was having a bad day, happens to everybody, right? I mean, she at least said in heels. She could have said bear foot ape, at least she knew that Michelle LOVES her some high heels, right? I bet both Taylor and Whaling would support BLM in a heart beat if we sat them down and explained WHY BLM came about, right? I bet those sweet, kind wonderful rural towns ladies who know government like the back of their hands would probably bring BLM members a nice peace offering. Something along the lines of fried chicken and a watermelon & banana compote, and I'm sure that BLM would be jubilant that these ladies though enough of them to bring those tasty, delicious dished that those ladies just KNOW would go over well with BLM crowd

Oh, and both ladies would greet all BLM members with a big, loving hug right before the friend chicken and goodies were passed out

[Kathy M]

18. Agree ... with the above

They know plants are not coming back etc ......

It may have been better if Bush won 92 and signed NAFTA Since republicans got the ball started at the time .......

[Adrahil]

58. In the end, NAFTA did not cause the decline...

... of manufacturing jobs. We are just witnessing the inevitable march towards the obsolescence of unskilled and semi-skilled labor. It will continue, no matter what we do. The question is how we react to it.

Trump and the GOP have chosen to tell fairy tales.

[Kathy M]

65. I agree with you ...... Change was going to happen ... There has been other change

and more in the future .............

Should have used sarcasm notation at some point above . Every so many years get tired of hearing nafta linked with Clinton .

I realize many things are worked on for years behind the scenes ......

[Adrahil]

66. Cheers! NT

[Adrahil]

57. A lot of those folks just want someone to lie to them.

They want to believe that the old factory jobs are coming back (they won't). They want to believe that we'll reopen coal mines and put miners back to work (we won't, and shouldn't), and they want to believe that brown-skinned people are taking the few good jobs left and/or that the brown-skinned people are sucking the country dry through government benefits (they aren't).


Trump is willing to tell them those lies. Democrats (for the most part) are telling them a more realistic story: The old ways are gone, we need to adopt a new way. So, on the one had, they have a bombastic orange man telling them they can have everything they want and that everything they believe is true. On the other, they have a bunch of kill joys telling them they will have to eat their broccoli.

TBH, the only way I see out of this (without become shameless liars ourselves) is wait for the bombastic orange man to let them down (he will).

[Garrett78]

8. Many want Democrats in power. Others want the 1950s.

Except for that part where the top marginal tax rate was 91%.

[jack69]

10. Well said

Those jobs are just not coming back, no matter what anyone promises. Technology has bypassed the industry. If they want the companies back, be prepared for huge strip mines.

[mcar]

12. Krugman gets it

A shame others don't.

[JCanete]

17. We will never get anybody back if the corporations continue to control the message. Focusing on what

these voters want is silly. Focusing on what they believe and why they believe it in the face of continued decline is what we should do.

Getting them to distrust the messaging they've always relied on requires tying that messaging to the corporations and tying their suffering to corporate greed. Take away for them the lie that the media is liberal, not by saying it is conservative, but by showing them that it is wholly owned by corporations, which have a vested interests against supporting the middle class and the poor.

Krugman sadly, is part of the corporate messaging that is the problem, which is why I would never expect him to put his finger on the real issue. I much prefer Wolfe or Reich.


If the democrats are going to make this argument though, and commit to waging a class war to right these wrongs(which I know you don't agree with), our party has to stop also being beholden to corporate interests. We are never going to do that, even if we could, but that makes it impossible for us to use any kind of populist messaging, or to properly diagnose the greatest sickness we have in this nation, which is the death of the fourth estate.

[JHan]

31. Yeah I get that..

The realities of campaigning sucks. The amount of money required to advertise etc. Trump didn't need to spend much with the coverage he got because he could manipulate the media and he was ratings gold, and the coffers of the Koch Brothers supported the GOP along the flanks.

As for our party and corporate influence: Our best bet, in my view, is understanding why certain positions are taken. I saw no evidence of collusion in any of the policy positions this year. There are two major areas I pay attention to where corporate influence is concerned: subsidies and legislation.

I'll use trade as an example of influence and subsidies:
Trade often exposes the collusion between politics and industry. Now I'm big on trade - I love it. I think trade brings people together, it's pure commerce, a pathway between nations to exchange ideas and goods. However, while I'm pro-trade and defend it, I'm also aware that these same subsidies I just mentioned favor big corporations- it's not really "free trade" in its purest form. For instance NAFTA caused Mexico to completely change her corn policy. Subsidized US Agribusinesses flooded the mexican market with cheap corn, killing off small Mexican producers in these countries - some varieties of corn disappeared and thousands of mexican farmers were displaced. So while there were benefits to trade deals that help lift people out of poverty, there were also SERIOUS drawbacks, felt here as well of course. Which agribusinesses funded republican and democratic campaigns at the time it was drawn up? And while I support the TPP broadly, it seeks to implement an artificial monopoly on intellectual property which worries me. Which is why demonizing the entire deal distracts us from focusing on the parts of it that have merit and the parts which don't - always follow the money and see who benefits from a clause or a provision.

Another thing I ask is what kind of friendships between my politicians and industry or wall st types are influencing certain bills introduced to the house. Legislative politics is complicated, cutthroat, but we all need to take more than a passing interest in what gets passed on our behalf. Again understanding why and what purpose --

"Getting them to distrust the messaging they've always relied on requires tying that messaging to the corporations and tying their suffering to corporate greed. Take away for them the lie that the media is liberal, not by saying it is conservative, but by showing them that it is wholly owned by corporations, which have a vested interests against supporting the middle class and the poor. "

Yes. But not all media - I think some of the more traditional media, like WaPo, and to a lesser extent New York times, did great work this year.

There's mainstream media and fringe media and pop media and every hybrid in between, spanning a wide ideological spectrum. To keep this media jungle alive, profits and ratings are important. For Cable News Media, I think this is even more obvious: It is about profit and ratings. Unfortunately, as we complain we still watch these same networks we complain about.

Bannon, Trump & Co. would love for an all out assault on the Media and the fourth estate. I do believe they wish want to de-legitimize our institutions. So we have to pierce through their noise somehow with intense grassroots activism.

Somewhat related to the story and your post, give this a read- it's interesting. :http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1048&pid=362

[JCanete]

40. But you can't say that when it counts, those lauded journalistic institutions haven't let us down.

Focusing on Trump's failings and promoting Clinton as a good choice, does not equate to good journalism by the way. It is at least sane journalism and editorial, I'll give it that, but it doesn't automatically make the paper's overall contributions to public awareness excellent.

Good journalism would be giving the proper attention to the things that ail us, like hey, corporate media ownership. Also, calling "fantasy" on Sanders platforms, you will be surprised to learn, comes across to me as your standard corporate take-down. I know that calls into question whether I would accept any criticism of Sanders platforms from any source. I would. I actually think they are worth serious discussion ...serious discussion...not dismissal out of hand...which has tended to be the journalism I've seen from papers like WaPo. The lack of depth and implicit biases in the framing has not exactly renewed my faith in the media's role as our watchdog. And frankly, any time the person or institution promoting something has a vested interest in that thing, (granted this is most of the time) we should probably pause and give that work extra scrutiny to pinpoint the unexamined assumptions and blindspots..those statements that are proffered off like "everybody knows blah blah blah" without a hint of irony.

And lets not forget, the New York Times, as one shining example of a "truly independent" fourth estate, helped to sell us the Iraq War. An absolute boondoggle, and the evidence was there to report on.

As to whether or not profits or ratings are important, news used to be a public service that if I'm not mistaken, networks had to provide, as loss-leaders, not profit-makers. NOTHING about adding profit into the equation is good for journalism, because the biggest profit an institution can make is through advertisers. These advertisers may be buying more than product exposure. Sometimes they're just buying a friend in the media. as far as it goes, I wonder how often CNN goes after GE or Comcast in its stories, or MSNBC after Time Warner, or Disney, or anybody else. I wonder what their anti-monopolization coverage looks like. Nobody in their right minds would start a blood-bath with each other. Its not like all these places are Fox and literally get their marching orders, but what producers are promoted, and what those producers and editors, and by extension their bosses want, is not just reflected in who they hire to anchor their shows and write their columns, but what they expect of those people. Some may have more rope than others because they have a name for themselves, but more often than not, they already fit the mold enough anyway.

The fact that these same institutions can excuse their lazy-ass reporting and diminishing journalistic departments on needing to grab the viewers with pop-culture, sensationalism and human interest stories does not make the profit motive any more convincing as a generator of good product. Its just a convenient scapegoat they point to any time somebody calls them out for the horrible job they do at the thing they pretend to be. And for that horrible job, their bottom line, and more importantly, the bottom line of their parent company, still gets met. And lets face it, the actual scandals are way better than the ones they peddle. They are far more juicy, but the media barely touches them. It's not because they don't get traction. It's just not. The media determines in large part, what gets traction. People clearly don't make up their own minds about what's important in this nation. They let somebody tell them. How many times have you heard about Bengazi or the emails from people you know? Well, the media kind of decided where to focus.

As to trade deals, there are good things in them no doubt. I got the impression Sanders took issue with the things that were not good, and asserted that as written, they did more harm than good. As somebody who believes that anything that transfers more wealth to the top than it does to people at the bottom(and where the hell does it come from anyway--it has to come from somewhere) is ultimately not in our best interest as a nation or world, I'm inclined to agree. The pie is not expanding. It isn't dark energy. It has a direct correlation to physical resources, whether they be people, land area, sea, animal life, minerals, etc. Exploiting more out of the earth or getting more efficient with those resources, doesn't alter that fact. If more is going to the top, even if it came from what was previously untapped, less remains for the rest of this dramatically increasing world population going forward, and more is leveraged for political influence, destroying smaller competition, influencing education and media, etc. etc. all of which contributes to this cascading effect that further enriches the top tier of our population at great cost.

[DeminPennswoods]

19. Look to Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 11:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Here's the hierarchy from lowest to highest:

Lowest: physiological (food, water, warmth, rest)
Next: safety (security, safety)
Next: belonginess and love (intimate relationships, love)
Next: esteem (prestige, feeling of accomplishment)
Highest: self-actualization (achieving full potential, including creative activities)

This segment of Americans is now at the lowest two levels, the basic needs. They used to be at the belonging and esteem steps, but have been slowly slipping back. They are grasping at any straw. First it was Obama's "hope", now it's Trump, but it's the same thing they want - keep us afloat, then get us to shore, then get us back on our feet.

The sad part is, these old manufacturing jobs with good pay and benefits aren't coming back. They need a dose of the hard truth, but also to know that their government won't abandon them. I think proposals like a basic income guarantee would go a long way toward re-assuring these displaced Americans who are simply too old and lack the skills to survive in the current tech economy. You could couple a basic income guarantee proposal with a plan to eliminate "welfare" since you won't need it anyway. Everyone getting an income would be preceived as fair whereas welfare is preceived as unfair.

[JHan]

33. Your post reminds me..

I saw a panel discussion with Thomas Friedman and he recalled a chat he had with a Pastor, living in the rural midwest- The Pastor told Friedman "when I was growing up, you had to have a plan to fail. Now you need a plan to succeed" . Says everything doesn't it?

[JCanete]

46. That's right. We're in that range where politics are all about playing on the limbic response.

Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Insecurity sucks for making people receptive to abandoning their boogie men and assumptions. That's why the one cynical component that appeals to me about waging a class war is that it taps into this perpetual state of fear, but finds a more suitable target for it. In the process, hopefully, we can erode the absurd and baseless fears that people have accumulated over their lifetimes, that keep being reinforced by people with their own agendas.

I am so on board with basic income guarantee for everything it might do to mitigate future suffering, and to make society a better place. It makes art and civic mindedness viable. It takes away that ever-present insecurity about food and shelter that impacts cognitive function. It undermines the most exploitive work environments.

[NRQ891]

22. very simple - it wants to stop being thrown under the bus nt

[Madam45for2923]

23. Am sure Trump will give to them all they want!!!!

[Garrett78]

25. Anyone notice that it's always "white working class" instead of just "working class?"

First of all, great article by Krugman. He gets it. Toni Morrison gets it. Many of us get it.

As I've pointed out before, one of the many fatal flaws in the "working class whites/economic messaging" narrative is the implication that working class POC must not care about economic issues, because the latter voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. Overall, Clinton won among individuals making $50,000 per year or less. She won among those most hurt by the recession.

In another thread, the reaction to a piece by Alex Roarty suggests some may be conflating 2 completely different arguments. I don't really find anything objectionable with Roarty's article, aside from the silly Nancy Larson quote at the end (as if urbanites and suburbanites aren't "ordinary people&quot . After this year's election, Obama made the point that he had visited a lot of rural towns so as to not lose those towns as badly as he would have if he hadn't visited them (minimizing losses and maximizing gains are both important). The Roarty piece is essentially saying the same thing, along with pointing out 2 common sense ideas:

1) Rural Dems (not all of whom are white) are more likely to vote if the Dems do outreach in their communities (do some advertising and, if not sending the candidate there, at least send some surrogates who have rural experience--Bill Clinton, for instance). Just as Dems do GOTV in blue areas, they need to do GOTV in red areas.

2) Campaign in part on bringing broadband Internet to rural communities. That's a specific, sensible proposal.

That's totally different than the somewhat popular DU narrative about "working class whites" and blue collar workers. That narrative suggests Dems aren't already fighting for *both* economic and social justice. That narrative suggests that Clinton didn't speak enough about economic issues, such as addressing jobs or the rising costs of health insurance. Some even claim she spent more time on "transgender bathrooms." And that's all bullshit. That whole narrative is ridiculous. Clinton's website, her speeches and her debate performances all addressed those economic issues at length and with great substance (to a *much* greater extent than Trump did). Plus, that narrative implies that working class POC don't care about economic issues, which is absurd. And there really is no excuse for supporting Trump.

For tens of millions of Americans, racism, sexism, xenophobia, heterosexism, Christian supremacy and single issues (like abortion) take precedence over everything else. Throughout US history, there's been a white backlash to racial progress (such as the election of Obama and his executive action that produced DACA). There isn't a whole lot Dems can do about that--a sizable portion of the electorate (35+ percent) is simply not reachable, and that's always been the case. Also, that major proponents of the TPP won (with ease) and that the re-election rate of incumbents was even higher than normal suggests a major flaw in the anti-trade/anti-establishment narrative. And let's not lose sight of the fact that tens of millions subscribe to patently false beliefs.

I wrote about all of those things (and more) in my long, link-filled post-election essay.

As for the idea that Obama voters can't be racist, you have much to learn if you engage in such simplistic thinking as that (it's on par with the classic "I have a black friend" defense). You may want to start with this article: "Why Did Some White Obama Voters Go for Trump?"

Let's face it, Clinton was victimized by decades of hate (much of it totally irrational and rooted in sexism and misogyny). The exact same message could win in 2020 so long as the messenger isn't Clinton.

And we can't overlook voter suppression (Shelby County v. Holder decision was devastating). Or the FBI's unprecedented interference. Or the deadful media. And when it comes to House races, we can't overlook gerrymandering as a huge factor.

But, yes, Dems should do more outreach to rural communities, particularly where there are POC. The crux of the message doesn't have to change much. Dems just need to show up in more places.

[JHan]

35. thanks, great observations ( i concur)

[LonePirate]

26. Evidently the WWC wants to ignore reality and burn down America while being as bigoted as possible

[Kilgore]

27. My father passed away a bit over a year ago

I had the job of dealing with the contents of his home. As i did so, came to realize something about him. I already knew he was a rather frugal guy, but when I actually looked at his stuff it was apparent he made a purchase last. Looking at things like his shaver, it was a Gillete adjustable circa 1970's as were his scissors, nail clippers, and most of his tools, and small kitchen appliances.

In comparison, almost all that same stuff in my home is made in China, Taiwan Korea or Mexico

When you look past the obvious fact he had a lot of old stuff, its apparent it was all made in America. That manufacturing represented jobs and by extension, paychecks.

[Adrahil]

59. That ignores the very real issue of automation.

A locomotive plant opening my city a few years ago. All the displaced auto workers cheered. The old plant the new facility was to be in used to employ 2900 people. The new plant? 400. The fact is that the vast majority of work is a done by an automated assembly line. We simply do not need humans for most assembly line work these days. That trend will just continue.

[Kilgore]

61. 400 is better than zero.

[Adrahil]

62. While that's true.....

This situation will only continue. We cannot fix the problem of lousy blue collar middle class jobs by trying to preserve an outdated model. We NEW industries and NEW jobs. Because in 10 years, that 400 jobs is gonna be 40.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. a sandwich that doesn't fall apart even when slathered with condiments?

a summer blockbuster that isn't some endlessly rehashed comic book shit screenwritten by an algorithm?

LA and NY fashion fascists to leave their fucking cargo shorts the fuck alone, already?

A good set of snow tires?


I don't know, I'm just freeballin', here.

[JHan]

36. lol lol lol .....

[JCanete]

47. Holy shit, if Trump had said he would deliver on that second one I might have voted for him.

Except instead we get White House Apprentice, so maybe still a no go. My guess is that is the audience that really appreciates the comfort-level that movies written by algorithms offers.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. I predict that, over the next 4 years, movies are only going to get worse.

But TV will get better.

[beachbum bob]

55. Too many want to be lied to....they want to hear we can return to an

America of yesterday....a yesterday that saw minorities in the shadows....women who knew their place....and a high school degree enough education to raise a family....they want to be lied to...and have all their problems blamed on others....

They want a fantasyland....and a liar like trump is a perfect messenger for many of these folks

[forjusticethunders]

60. For too many of them, it's this, for people who they don't like.

[link:

|

[gejohnston]

63. the same thing the black and brown working class wants

the same with rural whites and rural PoC. Their concerns and issues are not that much different. When you divide whites by class and throw PoC regardless of geography and class, it leads to absurd generalizations. A black CEO has more in common with his white counterparts that live next door to him in the gated community than he does with the black oil field worker in Wyoming or farmer in the Missippi Delta.

[LisiFFXV]

68. The answer is the free market

And this is an answer that the right wing can (in theory) understand. This will be my response to them from now on. Your job is gone because the free market decided that it wasn't profitable/competitive/needed anymore. It's on you to obtain an education/skills/abilities that are marketable in the economy. Clinton (and especially Bernie) offered you a path to obtain those skills as a matter of their policy plans. You rejected that and chose to bring to power a billionaire who promised he gave a damn about you and somehow would transport the economy back in time to when your skillset was valuable.... in much the same way someone could promise to "bring back" all the jobs from the Bronze Age. The economy changes. You need to adapt. You chose a fascist. You got what you wanted. You won't have your job making X back. On the bright side, your new leader may get you a job in the military for the inevitable war(s) he will start. Good luck with that.

[jfern]

69. Not being told to go screw themselves?

“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” - Chuck Schumer

[Orsino]

70. Someone to look down on, same as Trump. n/t

[PassingFair]

71. Living wages and the ability to put their children through college.

Upward mobility.