Posted by Tina
A New York Times blogger, Thomas B. Edsall, is reporting a real corker of a strategy offered to the Democrat Party in the coming election:
All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
I hate to break it to them but many of those that “have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment” aren’t educators, designers, editors, social workers, lawyers…etc. A great many of the folks, white, black, red, yellow, and brown, that attended college and earned higher degrees actually work in the private business sector and create a lot of jobs for other folks…white, black, red, yellow, and brown!
The truth about the strategy is that it reflects the old leftist tendency to divide Americans by class and race as they work to make sure that a large segment of society, particularly the needy poor, remains dependent on government for survival. It reflects the fact that the Obama administration has lost significant support among working class voters. And it reflects the desperate problem that confronts the democrats as they look at their dismal record.
Many voters, both those with higher degrees and those without, will be turned off by a plan that dismisses working whites. They believe that all citizens of these United States:
1) Should consider themselves as part of the group called “human”; the “American” group; the group that judges others by the content of their character rather than by class or race.
2) Should be dedicated to the idea that dignity and confidence derives from developing into a self reliant, contributing member of society and that government should encourage, rather than discourage these ideals.
3) Should know that politics is a contest of ideas, not class or race.
I notice that the Wall Street/Big Bankers group has been left out of the mix…no doubt because they are already in bed with the biggest of this group even as they cheer the silly OWS crowd on.
Tina: “The truth about the strategy is that it reflects the old leftist tendency to divide Americans by class and race”
Yes, because the right never, ever does this when determining campaign strategy.
Republicans acknowledge different segments or groups that are unlikely to vote for them. they do not dismiss them and they do not develope a strategy that divides the country along racial and class lines “to make sure that a large segment of society, particularly the needy poor, remains dependent on government for survival.”
Republicans want all members of society to succeed and do well…and they welcome votes from all!
“Republicans acknowledge different segments or groups that are unlikely to vote for them. they do not dismiss them and they do not develope a strategy that divides the country along racial and class lines”
Are you really arguing that the Southern Strategy doesn’t exist? That Karl Rove hasn’t spent his entire career doing exactly this?
Because the level of denial it takes to do that is astounding.
Chris if you are going to respond to me at least respond to what I actually said…they (republicans) don’t do it (in order “to make sure that a large segment of society, particularly the needy poor, remains dependent on government for survival.”
Democrats were the racist in 1965. After they realized they could no longer prevent blacks from voting they decided to put them on the government plantation and in the democrat pocket…they used them by offering government hand outs. The pattern repeats to this day. The law in 1965 was written in such a way that marriages and the family were destroyed making dependency for future generations even more likely. Next they set about accusing republicans of being the racists (division solidified). The antique media played along.
This divisive (BS) political posturing for the black (minority) vote is SOP for democrats.
The only thing new here is that they have made it so clear.
Tina: “Chris if you are going to respond to me at least respond to what I actually said…they (republicans) don’t do it (in order “to make sure that a large segment of society, particularly the needy poor, remains dependent on government for survival.”
So they do divide Americans by class and race lines, they just do it for a different reason.
“Democrats were the racist in 1965.”
I don’t think it was that simple. Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, you know.
“After they realized they could no longer prevent blacks from voting they decided to put them on the government plantation and in the democrat pocket…they used them by offering government hand outs.”
That’s one theory, and if you start with the assumption that the Democrats are supervillains, I could see why you’d think it might be true. Another, more likely theory is that they support government aid to the poor because it actually helps them. As a person living under the poverty line and receiving government aid in the form of FAFSA and, as of last week, food stamps, I can tell you that it is helping me. Because I receive government aid to go to college–which you and many other Republicans oppose–I will be much less likely to be dependent on government in the future.
Chris let me start by saying I am sorry you are having a tough time. I am going to tell you why I oppose government assistance for higher education. It is a huge money sucking black hole. I have no say in what kind of crap they higher to “teach” at these schools. I have no say in what the administration choose to pay themselves. I have no say in who gets the money I am forced to pay so they can attend these schools. I have no say when our President decides these people do not have to pay their “loans” back. I do not speak for others on the Right on this issue, those are my reasons. You can also apply them to K-12, pretty much the same. Anyway like I said, sorry you are having a tough time, welcome to the club.
Yes, I see it! LOL
Toby, thanks for the rare showing of sympathy. However, I have to say you are wrong in your characterization of government aid to low-income college students as being a “huge money sucking black hole.”
It is simply a fact that college graduates are far less likely than the general population to rely on government assistance later on in life. It is much cheaper to subsidize a low-income student’s education than it is to subsidize them and their families for the rest of their lives. College graduates are also less likely to commit crimes and be sent to prison. It is much cheaper to educate someone than it is to incarcerate them.
Maybe you think government should just get out of the business of assisting poor people entirely. But that is not a realistic policy for our country, and it would do nothing to help the economy; those people would still be poor, and still would not be able to contribute much. But if those same people are able to obtain a college education, they are much more likely to get good jobs and become productive citizens who contribute positively to the larger economy.
Supporting taxpayer funding for low-income college students is common sense. It is one form of social welfare which pays off big time, not just for the student being helped, but for everyone.
Chris: “So they do divide Americans by class and race lines, they just do it for a different reason.”
NO!
As you rightly observed all campaignes look to see what segments of society are likely to vote for them and which definitely will not as a means of targeting precious campaign dollars. Only democrats have a philosophy that divides Americans along class and racial lines and targets legislation along those lines. To deny this is true is to not know what the Democrat Party is.
The nonesense about higher education is indicative of the arrogance of Democrat Party…as if they had all the educated (smart) people. It’s rediculous on so many levels.
But you just keep trying to fit what I have said into the little box where you keep your bigoted and biased perceptions of all republicans…it can be quite amusing to watch.
“Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, you know.”
Have you any idea at all why or are you just convinced that means he was a racist?
“I could see why you’d think it might be true. Another, more likely theory is that they support government aid to the poor because it actually helps them.”
After all these years you would think they could see that “helping” them amounts to keeping most of them locked into the lower class and likely to drop out of high school, end up dead from drug use, in prison, or a single mother with the “option” of having more kids as a means to getting more money. The proof that they don’t bother to evaluate is that they continue to offer the same kind of solutions year after year…the housing loans the latest big disaster that ultimately caused the numbers of poor and needy to grow as the financial institutions (worldwide) melted down.
Chris the Democrats either have to be incredibly stupid or ideologically committed to the Marxist model to continue to address the problem in this way.
What the poor need is better education and training options, incentives to clean up neighborhoods and start businesses, incentives to get married and stay married, incentives to save and invest for their futures. What some people can do most people can do given the right incentives and siupport. Every attempt to move in this direction by Republicans have been bitterly fought, including telling these people that republicans want to harm them. Its disgraceful!
” Because I receive government aid to go to college–which you and many other Republicans oppose–I will be much less likely to be dependent on government in the future.”
First of all you are the exception rather than the rule. Secondly, you believe this is the only option, it certainly is the easiest option, but I believe you have other options and the drive and character to take other steps if those things weren’t available to you. Third, Republican plans have NEVER suggested yanking the rug out from under folks that are currently taking advantage of government programs. THAT WOULD BE CRUEL!
They are wiling to look and see that generally these plans aren’t working as they were expected to work or for the majority of poor. We are saying it might be smart and better for poor Americans to devise a better plan. Hence we suggest choice in school through a voucher system. It worked for families in DC. As a model it should have been applaudsed and duplicated around the country!
The only reason these ideas aren’t discussed and debated honestly is because the party you support refuses to think about what might work better. Demonizing Republicans and keeping the minority vote needy and in their pockets is more important.
Chris, your idea for higher education is like putting a $3000 paint job on a rusted out broken down old car. If it were your car and your money, I would be fine with it but it isn’t and I have no say in the situation, that was my point or one of them.`
Tina: “As you rightly observed all campaignes look to see what segments of society are likely to vote for them and which definitely will not as a means of targeting precious campaign dollars. Only democrats have a philosophy that divides Americans along class and racial lines and targets legislation along those lines.”
So you are denying the existence of the Southern strategy.
“But you just keep trying to fit what I have said into the little box where you keep your bigoted and biased perceptions of all republicans…it can be quite amusing to watch.”
I’m sorry, can you point to where I have expressed bigotry toward ALL republicans? If you can find an example I will apologize, because I hate making generalizations about any group of people. But I don’t believe I have done this.
“Have you any idea at all why or are you just convinced that means he was a racist?”
Right after I wrote that I did some research on the man. I regret writing what I did. I assumed that racism was a motivating factor, but Goldwater cited constitutional concerns. He had actually previously supported many civil rights initiatives.
I don’t agree with his interpretation of the constitution, and I am very skeptical of people who argue against civil rights legislation, even if they use non-racist arguments. Still, I shouldn’t have implied that Goldwater was motivated by racism when there isn’t enough evidence for me to say that he was.
That said, I stand by my main argument that racism in the sixties was much more complicated than “the Democrats were the racists.”
“After all these years you would think they could see that “helping” them amounts to keeping most of them locked into the lower class and likely to drop out of high school, end up dead from drug use, in prison, or a single mother with the “option” of having more kids as a means to getting more money.”
Even if you think these issues stem from social welfare programs, there is no evidence that subsidizing college education for low-income students leads to such problems. If anything, the opposite is true; subsidizing the education of low-income students makes it far less likely that they will end up in such undesirable situations.
I should also point out that countries such as Sweden and Denmark have much stronger social welfare programs than the U.S., and their poverty rate, incarceration rate, dropout rate, and percentage of single mothers are all much smaller than in the U.S. These facts indicate that social welfare programs, in and of themselves, are not the problem.
“The proof that they don’t bother to evaluate is that they continue to offer the same kind of solutions year after year…the housing loans the latest big disaster that ultimately caused the numbers of poor and needy to grow as the financial institutions (worldwide) melted down.”
The vast majority of the subprime loans were made by the private sector, not Freddie and Fannie. Those private institutions were not subject to the same regulations as Freddie and Fannie.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
“What the poor need is better education”
I agree, but the poor can’t always afford a higher education. If you think they need it, then you shouldn’t oppose taxpayer funding for low-income college students.
“incentives to get married and stay married,”
And yet, in 2008 you voted to annul hundreds of marriages in California simply because you did not like the gender make-up of those marriages. You did not let these couples decide for themselves whether to stay married to one another, nor did you let thousands of other gay couples decide whether or not to get married. You felt that you knew better than them, and that you had the right to make such a personal choice for them and their families. As far as I’m aware, you still stand by that vote.
That was a vote against incentivizing marriage for an especially vulnerable community, a community which has higher levels of depression, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, and sexually transmitted disease. This may not be politically correct, but if anyone needs incentives for marriage, it’s the gays! Yet you voted to take away not only the incentive for them to get married, but the entire choice. You voted for the government to meddle in the lives of its citizens, to poke its nose where it didn’t belong out of concern for some allegedly higher purpose. That’s exactly the kind of attitude you so often rail against on this blog.
“First of all you are the exception rather than the rule.”
Thanks, but I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this. Do you believe that most low-income students who are attending college due to federal aid are not as dedicated or motivated as I am, or won’t be as successful, or are less intelligent? I hope that’s not what you are implying, because if so that’s a judgment I am really not comfortable with.
“Secondly, you believe this is the only option, it certainly is the easiest option, but I believe you have other options”
You can believe that, but it doesn’t make it true. This is my life; I have considered all my available options. I applied for every scholarship I could get. I am working every day I’m not in school, and that’s not enough to pay the bills. FAFSA was my best option.
“and the drive and character to take other steps if those things weren’t available to you.”
Again, thanks, but the fact is that many people DON’T have other options. It has nothing to do with drive or character. Sometimes it just has to do with circumstance.
“Third, Republican plans have NEVER suggested yanking the rug out from under folks that are currently taking advantage of government programs. THAT WOULD BE CRUEL!”
Maybe not, but you have suggested scaling them back and eventually eliminating them. You don’t want these programs to be there for the next generation.
Chris: “So you are denying the existence of the Southern strategy.”
Still chock full of that progressive education I see. The so-called “Southern Strategy” story is part history, part liberal progressive myth. Here are a few links that better describe the history:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/bobby_jindal_and_the_southern.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/23/172905.shtml
http://mark-adams.suite101.com/the-southern-strategy-and-richard-nixon-a269466
http://blackquillandink.com/?p=6082
http://blog.nixonfoundation.org/2009/09/debunking-the-myth-of-the-nixon-southern-strategy/
http://blog.nixonfoundation.org/2011/10/again-with-the-southern-strategy/
http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/Richard-M-Nixon-Domestic-policies.html
Republicans have had different ideas about how to solve race issues. In hind sight some of them might have worked out a lot better. Conditions, especially in the South, were just wrong and unacceptable under our laws and constituion. Disagreement on policy does not automatically mean racism but disagreement on policy always triggers the race card with democrats. A label does not reveal truth. Democrats have been able to erase the incredibly blatant racist reality of their southern democrat cohorts by pandering to blacks and telling falsehoods about republicans. That strategy does not reveal truth.
My generation is nothing like the generations before ours. As young adults and teens we embraced the civil rights movement; we were the test generation and we stepped up to the plate in full support of equal rights. That’s what makes the democrat strategy to divide us since the sixties along racial and class lines so unacceptable and deplorable.
I don’t have time right now to do any more but will return to this in the morning.
Once again I have limited time (cat apparently has worms-vet trip) but I will attempt to hit a few more points before it’s time to split.
I’m sorry, can you point to where I have expressed bigotry toward ALL republicans?
I don’t have time to go look but after thinking about it a better statement would have left out the “ALL”. You were pretty quick to call the Tea Party racist and a lot of us are republicans.
Thank you for the acknowledgement of the Goldwater record.
“I stand by my main argument that racism in the sixties was much more complicated than “the Democrats were the racists.”
Of course it was complex, however, expressions of bigotry and racism was at it’s worst in the South and the racists there, and the KKK were democrats.
“there is no evidence that subsidizing college education for low-income students leads to such problems.”
I never said it did. There is some evidence that racial profiling for college entrance has harmed some blacks who are accepted to ivy league colleges even though they are unprepared to attend and then become discouraged because the competition is so fierce. they end up dropping out and giving up. Attendance at a junior college to improve skills and then attendance a less demanding college would serve them better and is the route that other kids, of all races must do.
“…and their poverty rate, incarceration rate, dropout rate, and percentage of single mothers are all much smaller than in the U.S.”
I don’t think I ever made the claim that social programs are the opnly cause of our problems. they are related or entertwined in many of our problems. A high instance of families without fathers has been sited for the poor condition of young males, particularly young black males in this country. Welfare rules helped create that situation.
The Swedes and Danes live in much smaller countries and they are living off the portion of the population that provides the means (wealth creators) for handing out the goodies and those folks often resent it. The population has also become less productive and innovative. We have been through this before, the positive news also comes on the heels of reforms in the direction of less government and more encouragement of the private sector.
Gotta run!
Tina: “I don’t have time to go look but after thinking about it a better statement would have left out the “ALL”. You were pretty quick to call the Tea Party racist and a lot of us are republicans.”
Tina, I don’t think I ever called the Tea Party racist. I did bring up instances of racist rhetoric from Tea Party members and leaders, and I asked that other Tea Party members condemn such nonsense. Most of the time, the response I got from you and others was a denial that the specific statements were racist at all.
I have also called on Occupy Wall Street protesters to call out and eliminate the extremist rhetoric that has taken place at their events.
“Of course it was complex, however, expressions of bigotry and racism was at it’s worst in the South and the racists there, and the KKK were democrats.”
I can’t deny this, but since the realignment in the mid-60s, the South is now mostly Republican.
“I never said it did. There is some evidence that racial profiling for college entrance has harmed some blacks who are accepted to ivy league colleges even though they are unprepared to attend and then become discouraged because the competition is so fierce. they end up dropping out and giving up. Attendance at a junior college to improve skills and then attendance a less demanding college would serve them better and is the route that other kids, of all races must do.”
You make good points here. I am still on the fence about affirmative action policies.
“The population has also become less productive and innovative.”
Do you have evidence for this, Tina? I’m not saying it isn’t true; it might be. What would be a good measure of this? Gross Domestic Product? I don’t have time to look their GDP up right now, but perhaps later I will, unless you want to find and post it first.
“Chris if you are going to respond to me at least respond to what I actually said…they (republicans) don’t do it (in order “to make sure that a large segment of society, particularly the needy poor, remains dependent on government for survival.”
No, just to keep in power. Because Republicans are perfectly happy, having inflamed their racism and consequently suckered them out of their vote, to let the white trash meth themselves to death.
Seriously, Tina, some of us have been paying attention, lo, these hundred years.
Geez.
Chris: “Most of the time, the response I got from you and others was a denial that the specific statements were racist at all.”
I can’t speak for anyone else but I know my main gripe was that the entire tea party was being condemned as racist because of a few signs and a misunderstanding over a word and some spittle. (Actually, in my opinion, the latter was an attempted set up by Pelosi and members of the Congressional Black Caucus).
I have to admit to being deeply offended (for many years) over the specious accusations of racism in the Republican Party…which is one of the many reasons I fight back with unbridles, at times, determination.
“Do you have evidence for this, Tina?”
I think it was only a few weeks ago we had this discussion and I did show you an article or articles. The basic assertion was that big government programs had made the population less productive and innovative and the Swedes rebelled…their taxes were horrible too. Then in 2006 they fired the socilists.
Re: September 2006 Election (economy/welfare state)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17163
This one is from 2009
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00814-swedens-taxes-the-hidden-costs-the-welfare-state
Moving toward a free(er) market/small(er) government model is the cause of improvement for Sweden.
Libby tells the truth: “No, just to keep in power.”
And then this: “Because Republicans are perfectly happy, having inflamed their racism and consequently suckered them out of their vote, to let the white trash meth themselves to death.”
Have you been sucking on the vine again?
“some of us have been paying attention, lo, these hundred years.”
But…has it done any good?
Tina, I agree that it was wrong for people to condemn the entire Tea Party as racist.
However, many of the intellectual leaders of the Tea Party engage in race-baiting on a routine basis. For instance, Rush Limbaugh recently called Michelle Obama “uppity.” You are aware of the racist history of using that word in connection with black people, as you’ve demonstrated by quoting Clarence Thomas’ description of his treatment by liberals as being punishment for being an “uppity” black. I have no doubt that if a liberal commentator accused Herman Cain or Clarence Thomas of being “uppity,” you would rightfully accuse them of racism. And you can’t tell me that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t know the ugly history of that word as well.
This is but one of many examples. I am not saying every member of the Tea Party is racist, or that it is a racist movement. But the intellectual leaders are people who use racist terminology far too much. Birtherism flourished in the Tea Party. So did the notion that Obama was a secret Muslim. I don’t see how anyone can still deny that these false and malicious narratives were at least partially motivated by racism, religious bigotry, and xenophobia.
Tina: “The basic assertion was that big government programs had made the population less productive and innovative and the Swedes rebelled…their taxes were horrible too. Then in 2006 they fired the socilists.”
But they remain far more socialist and economically prosperous than the U.S. All that this proves is that there is such a thing as too much socialism, too much government control, and too high taxes, which neither myself nor any liberal I know would deny.
Chris: “But the intellectual leaders are people who use racist terminology far too much.”
I’m not aware of a single “intellectual leader” of the Tea Party. In fact the Tea Party is grass roots. The individual groups in cities across the nation are not connected by anything except a desire for smaller, less expensive government and low taxes. INDIVIDUALS that participate have all kinds of opinions as individuals but those opinions are not part of the Tea party platform as far as I know.
“But they remain far more socialist and economically prosperous than the U.S.”
I doubt if that picture of superiority would hold up if we had leaders that were willing to do what the Swedes have done.
This article is from 2007. I found it interesting because the blogger is neither Dem nor Rep and his perspective shows the flawed ways that people use to make comparisons:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/eu-vs-us-who-is-economically-better-off.html
The following Cato article is from 2009:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10462
and this Cato article from 2009 tells us that Sweden is successful because they are adopting many of the reforms that republicans have been trying to implement for decades. Their efforts were always met with adamant refusal by the progressive left leadership:
Obama and the Democrats want to take America in the exact opposite direction. They want to go to where Sweden was when they realized they had to do something else and that something else is what Republicans say will work!
Chris the Swedes learned from history. Your party refuses to do that even when presented with unrefutable evidence that what they want doesn’t work.
You have made a number of comments recently about how dumb and unqualified to be president certain people in our party are…all of them get this!
Tina: “As young adults and teens we embraced the civil rights movement; we were the test generation and we stepped up to the plate in full support of equal rights.”
Tina, I completely believe you when you say this.
However, it does make me wonder: why, in your comments regarding the incident of police brutality at UC Davis, did you claim that you were “disgusted” by the tactic of civil disobedience during the sixties?
As you must know, civil disobedience was at the very core of the Civil Rights movement. This tactic was advocated and employed by heroes such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi. You can’t have lived through the sixties and be unaware of the peaceful sit-ins at segregated lunch counters and movie theaters. Do you really mean to say that you were “disgusted” by these peaceful acts of legitimate protest?
Your comments regarding civil disobedience were disrespectful toward the brave men and women who used this tactic to help put a stop to legalized segregation and to ensure a more equal and free America. They implied that you were “disgusted” when Rosa Parks chose not to move to the back of the bus when asked by police. Other comments you made on that article implied that you think it would have been acceptable if officers had responded to her refusal by pepper spraying her in the face.
I know that this can’t be what you meant. But unfortunately, it’s what you said.
Given this discrepancy, I hope that you will re-evaluate your position on civil disobedience, and correct the record.
I will try to get around to your articles about the Southern strategy as soon as I can; right now, I have a paper to write.