Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:51 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mdcastle View Post
I thought the whites that felt rejected by society- their jobs been given to someone in China, their kid got rejected form college because of racist affirmative action programs, the liberals seem keen on vacuuming out their wallets and giving it to people that would rather be lazy and sit around watching TV than working an hones living, politicians have traditionally not even bothered campaigning to them as opposed to minorities and illegal aliens and coastal elites, are what got Trump elected and the rise of the paleoconservaive / populist / Trumpist wing of the conservatives.
Sure, these people have real problems. But how on Earth do they see conservatives as the solution? Who do they think moved their jobs to China? Who's trying to lower the minimum wage and break up unions? Who's trying to eliminate Social Security and public health care?
  #102  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:11 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I meant the exact opposite - you seemed to be opining that people the people who support Trump do so because they feel marginalized and they think he'll help them punch up, and that people who are already on top don't need that and thus will be liberal. I don't disagree with that, but I thought that left out the rather significant set of Trump supporters who support him simply because they're assholes and he'll let them punch someone.
I think it's a little more complicated than that. Sure, there are the Trump-followers who are marginalized white, usually rural working class folks who are financially insecure and who pine for a return of the good old days when they could work hard, save a few bucks and provide a good life for their families. They tend to see a lot of the more modern(?) changes in society and the government as responsible for the decline of that ideal.

It's not really a desire to kick people of other races, or twirl the ends of their mustaches while they contemplate keeping their privileged position. Furthermore, I'd bet any amount of money that if you said they were privileged, they'd be monstrously offended, as they're not perceiving much if any of the benefits of this privilege. It's not helping them get or keep jobs, and being white and rural means that a lot of the low income/poverty amelioration programs are not aimed toward them, being mostly big-city type things, at least in terms of where the facilities are. So they're just desperately trying to hang on to what they have, and position themselves for a little more- the exact same thing that minorities have been doing all along, but it's not mostly limited to them now. I personally can't fault a person in that situation for voting for the candidate who seems to have concern for them and their situation.

Then there are the suburban republicans. They're a lot harder to defend. In my experience, these people are usually middle to upper-middle class white people who for whatever reason seem to have a very harsh and/or us-vs-them conception of the political world. They're the ones who are oblivious to the ways that the system is geared specifically to help them, and as a result, feel that a lot of the problems that minorities and other non-mainstream groups (LGBT, poor, etc...) face are a result of being too dumb or lazy to work within the system to be successful. They're not aware of the institutional hurdles and barriers that are in those other groups' way. And it's not malice either; most of these people are actually very nice. They're just ignorant as hell of how the world actually works- things that are actually intended to level the playing field are seen as trying to give someone else a leg up vs. them.

To use a personal example from a quarter century ago, I was a scholarship student at one of the big Texas state schools. I was pretty hacked at the time the minority-only scholarships were, compared with the scholarships I was eligible for:
  • Something like 20-25% larger
  • Required lower scores/grades to get
  • Required lower grades to keep
  • Had a smaller pool of applicants

And there were more scholarships available to them to boot. I felt this to be a massive injustice, and somewhat patronizing to the minority students- why wouldn't the school want the best and brightest, regardless of race, and how must a minority student feel valued if they know that their scholarship requires less and gives them more?

As time has passed, I realize that a lot of it is trying to make up for other problems that the minority students face, more than it's trying to reward them with more for less just by virtue of their race. In other words, it's not a prize, but more of a way to try and help those students succeed- compared with me back then, they were probably coming from a somewhat less financially well-off home (that one is debatable), a lesser academic background and with lesser family and community support. So they might conceivably need more money and some leeway on grades to be successful vs. your average high-achieving white student.

But that's not how the suburban republicans view it- they see things like I did back then- everyone is/should be equally treated by the government and society, and they assume that everyone else is being treated that way. And a lot of the hostility that other races get is because they're being perceived as getting special treatment and/or privileges that 'everyone else' doesn't get.

It's basically massive sheltered ignorance, not malice.
  #103  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:27 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post

It's not helping them get or keep jobs, and being white and rural means that a lot of the low income/poverty amelioration programs are not aimed toward them, being mostly big-city type things, at least in terms of where the facilities are.
Is this true? My impression is that a lot of programs, benefits, and facilities are targeted specifically at rural people.
  #104  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:50 PM
you with the face you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 11,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
You're being myopic and only looking at it from your point of view.

They would claim that they are shifting the balance of power toward the middle class which is the 'real' exploited group in society.
If you want to appreciate the difference between liberals and conservatives, compare their view towards poor people and what they think government should do for them. Focusing on what they say about the middle class ain’t going to tell you anything, mainly because it’s the category everyone from Joe the Walmart greeter to Joe the investment banker lump themselves into. The reality is that Walmart greeters are poor if that’s their only real source of income, and investment bankers aren’t really middle class either.

Quote:
Conservative politicians certainly favor the wealthy, but their rhetoric does not.
Yes, it does favor the wealthy. Do conservative politicians talk about the need for people, regardless of socioeconomic status, to have things like food, shelter, and access to healthcare? Do they say stuff like “all children deserve good educations, not just those who can pay expensive tuitions”? Nope they don’t. What I see more frequently is them appealing to the importance of helping “job creators” and by extension, helping the middle class. That is not the same thing as espousing a government that protects those without power. Some within that “middle class” cohort has a lot of power and don’t want to part with it.

Quote:
If you look at conservative memes, they also paint the wealthy as the problem.
Which is why they voted for Trump.

Oh wait.

I don’t think I’m myopic here, sorry.

[quoteThey then leverage this largesse into voting power that they exploit in order to advance their social agenda which is largely predicated on the destruction of their traditional way of life. They're not completely wrong by the way, nor are they completely right.[/QUOTE]

What “traditional way of life” do they feel is under threat by their opposition? Gonna need you to expound.
  #105  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:04 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Is this true? My impression is that a lot of programs, benefits, and facilities are targeted specifically at rural people.
Rural aid has very specific challenges that urban aid doesn't have that makes those programs very difficult to access. So, let's say you want an after school program for kids in an urban area. You rent out a gym and you tell the kids to stay late. Done deal. Rural kids may have homes an hour or more away from their school. Staying late requires transportation to be provided since many don't have their own. The economies of scale mean that your putting a program in place for maybe 10 kids in a small school instead of a hundred at an urban school, so the programs don't get put into place at all. If you look at something like summer lunch programs. In urban areas, the challenge is simply getting the food together. In rural areas, how exactly do you get the food to these kids who live in the middle of nowhere? When you talk about facilities, let's say you plop a community center down in 'Anytown, West Virginia.' What happens is that it is used by the wealthier community members that have cars and can get to it. The truly poor may never see the inside of it because it's too far from their homes. Again, because of economies of scales, rural places have a tendency to be overlooked. Putting a community center in an urban neighborhood with thousands of people within walking distance is a much better use of resources than putting one in a town of 500 people.

Rural people also lack a lot of political power in comparison to towns and urban areas, so it's hard to divert resources to them. Poorer people in urban areas also tend to benefit from public works projects that are aimed at the wealthy, but raise all boats in ways that rural people do not. As an example, the town I grew up near of 1500 people has a dike to prevent flooding. It was put in with emergency funding following a flood in 1985. It has not been repaired since and is eroding quickly and nearing its lifespan. The town is quite aware that without that dike, they will be vulnerable to catastrophic floods. They completely lack the resources to fix it and have been petitioning various government agencies for aid for a decade with little response. If they lived in a larger city, it seems inconceivable for such a situation to go essentially unnoticed, but rural areas due to their small size are much more expendable. If we look at something like the Flint Water Crisis, it's a very major deal that we at least hear about, but rural water problems are just par for the course and normal. My last house, every year we got a letter that they tested high for carbon tetrachloride in the water and if the water smelled sweet, you shouldn't drink it. Boil water advisories were common. Line collapses occurred multiple times a year. The water systems in the area were all put in during the mining booms 100 years ago and haven't been touched since. There's no money to fix them or fix problems and when you only have a few thousand people on a water system and tens of miles of pipes, it's easy to ignore them.

Anyway, this is only to say that the dream of helping rural people and the reality do not always line up. Money in programs to serve the rural doesn't stretch nearly as far as money in urban areas and the programs reach fewer people.
  #106  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:24 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face View Post
Yes, it does favor the wealthy. Do conservative politicians talk about the need for people, regardless of socioeconomic status, to have things like food, shelter, and access to healthcare? Do they say stuff like “all children deserve good educations, not just those who can pay expensive tuitions”? Nope they don’t. What I see more frequently is them appealing to the importance of helping “job creators” and by extension, helping the middle class. That is not the same thing as espousing a government that protects those without power. Some within that “middle class” cohort has a lot of power and don’t want to part with it.
Of course it doesn't. You just think their programs don't work, so you ignore their rhetoric. If you look at Betsy DeVos as an example, she's not saying, "Schools should be for those that can afford them." She says, 'Parents of all classes are being denied access to high quality education, so the state needs to give vouchers to poor parents so they can afford privates.' Will that work? No, I don't believe it will, but the point is though that the rhetoric is not anti-poor. Look at Trump himself. He pitched his tax cuts for the wealthy specifically as a poverty alleviation program. One of his quotes from the values voter summit just prior to the election. "And all of us here today are determined to lift suffering Americans out of poverty. Going to do it, with a lot of other people going to help. As your president, I will pursue a complete reform of our economy to bring back millions of new jobs into our country. That includes, we will be doing massive tax cuts for working families and for businesses. It includes, very importantly, the elimination of all needless job-killing regulations." Donald Trump on the stump was very anti-wealthy. He said that Wall Street was getting away with murder and he was going to 'tax them hard' and his final campaign ad was that he was going to stop the wealthy and political elites from bleeding our country dry. His rhetoric was always that he was anti-elite and since he was one of them, he knew how to put a stop to them.

Quote:
What “traditional way of life” do they feel is under threat by their opposition? Gonna need you to expound.
Sure thing. Conservatives prize a way of life with an emphasis on shared values and communal thinking. Homogeneity and clear behavioral norms enforced primarily by social pressures are necessary to their social structure and I might even go so far as to say survival as a cohesive unit. Liberals aren't into that for obvious reasons and wish to destroy those modes of thinking.
  #107  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:34 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Rural people also lack a lot of political power in comparison to towns and urban areas, so it's hard to divert resources to them. Poorer people in urban areas also tend to benefit from public works projects that are aimed at the wealthy, but raise all boats in ways that rural people do not.
Except for the very means that let them live out there in the first place, highway monies and rural utility programs.

But the main thing I take issue with is the assertion that rural people lack political power. Looking at who has the per-capita votes to elect Senators, rather the opposite is true.

However, it's true that a lot of things are going to be less efficient in places with a low population density. Aren't conservatives in favor of pulling ones self up by one's bootstraps and moving to a place where the money invested will go farther, rather than whining for a disproportionate amount of the resources?

Last edited by Ludovic; 01-11-2019 at 02:34 PM.
  #108  
Old 01-11-2019, 03:10 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Except for the very means that let them live out there in the first place, highway monies and rural utility programs.

But the main thing I take issue with is the assertion that rural people lack political power. Looking at who has the per-capita votes to elect Senators, rather the opposite is true.
Rural people lack political power for the sheer reason that there just aren't that many of them. Something like 19% of the country is rural in terms of population. Due to the way that they divide up into states, they have disproportionate power in the Senate, but in the House, even punching above their weight due to the way seats are apportioned, they are still very much in the minority.

Case in point- South Dakota is on an equal footing in the Senate with Texas. But in the House my metro area has nine congressmen to SD's one. That kind of thing is the case across the country.

What this means is that if there's a bill for some kind of poverty related program, those 9 are going to be joined by other big cities and make sure that it pertains to their constituents' interests. Poor SD is going to be somewhat overruled in the final analysis.
  #109  
Old 01-11-2019, 03:17 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Except for the very means that let them live out there in the first place, highway monies and rural utility programs.

But the main thing I take issue with is the assertion that rural people lack political power. Looking at who has the per-capita votes to elect Senators, rather the opposite is true.

However, it's true that a lot of things are going to be less efficient in places with a low population density. Aren't conservatives in favor of pulling ones self up by one's bootstraps and moving to a place where the money invested will go farther, rather than whining for a disproportionate amount of the resources?
Well, what let them live there in the first place is generally one of three things, a dude with an axe and a few head of cattle who showed up 200 years ago and said this is where I'm going to live, a lumber company looking for cheap labor or a mining company that shipped people in like cattle and their descendants stuck around.

I object to the idea that rural people have too much political power. I'm a West Virginian. When was the last time you heard us moving the needle on anything? Sure, Trump has his 'coal jobs' rhetoric, but truthfully are you sitting in wherever you live and saying, "Man, those West Virginians sure are controlling the political strings of power. Their 5 electoral votes cause much injustice in this world. The boot of the West Virginian oppressor is upon me." Of course not. Yes, more rural states have out-sized representation, but their overall smaller numbers serves to mitigate the effect. If 99 Senators were chosen by a vote of 10 thousand people each and I alone got to choose the last one, my vote would be outsized, but my power would still be extremely limited. It's also important to note that only 4 states have more than half of their population that lives outside of metro areas - Maine, Vermont, West Virginia and Mississippi.

As for your last point, this conversation began with bump talking about rural people feeling that they aren't seeing programs for them that they see for the urban poor. It has nothing to do with bootstraps or the cowboy ethos or the ability to move. They see advantages for other people and they feel excluded from those advantages.

As my final word, why am I being forced to argue for conservatives? I don't even like them, I just happen to know lots of them. Aren't the rest of you capable of putting yourself in someone else's shoes? Maybe our country really is too divided.
  #110  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:03 PM
you with the face you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 11,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
If you look at Betsy DeVos as an example, she's not saying, "Schools should be for those that can afford them." She says, 'Parents of all classes are being denied access to high quality education, so the state needs to give vouchers to poor parents so they can afford privates.' Will that work? No, I don't believe it will, but the point is though that the rhetoric is not anti-poor.
Come on, dude. Conservative politicians use vouchers as another way to the debase the government, enrich business execs, and entice conservative voters who think their kids--but not those other people's kids from the bad side of town--deserve more than public school peasantry. No one--not even conservatives--believes the Betsy Devos' of the world are really concerned about giving the poor access to good educations.

Quote:
Look at Trump himself. He pitched his tax cuts for the wealthy specifically as a poverty alleviation program. One of his quotes from the values voter summit just prior to the election. "And all of us here today are determined to lift suffering Americans out of poverty. Going to do it, with a lot of other people going to help. As your president, I will pursue a complete reform of our economy to bring back millions of new jobs into our country. That includes, we will be doing massive tax cuts for working families and for businesses. It includes, very importantly, the elimination of all needless job-killing regulations."
Everything I bolded above only supports the point I made, which is that conservatives side with the power side of the equation, i.e. rich people who own businesses. Helping the middle class is supposed to occur through trickle down economics, not through government intervention. The fact that Trump even talked about slashing taxes for the wealthy underscores this. If it was true that conservatives, as you say, think the wealthy are the problem, they should have booed Trump off the stage when he talked like this. But they didn't because they've been programmed to equate helping the rich with helping themselves.

Quote:
Donald Trump on the stump was very anti-wealthy. He said that Wall Street was getting away with murder and he was going to 'tax them hard' and his final campaign ad was that he was going to stop the wealthy and political elites from bleeding our country dry. His rhetoric was always that he was anti-elite and since he was one of them, he knew how to put a stop to them.
And at the same time, he bragged about being a billionaire and called himself "smart" for evading taxes.
  #111  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:15 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Rural aid has very specific challenges that urban aid doesn't have that makes those programs very difficult to access.
I understand what the challenges are. What I'm skeptical about is whether the existence of these challenges result in a system that overall benefits the urban poor in comparison with the rural poor.

Logistical aid, such as child care centers, might be harder to implement, but I have a notion that this is more than made up for by direct cash transfers, which are far more generous to rural people than urban people. For example, I've heard about stories in which entire small towns are on disability payments, in circumstances that urban people don't get such benefits.

I'm not saying that this solves the problems of rural poor, but that I would need hard numbers to believe that the rural poor are significantly worse off than the urban poor. It sucks to be poor in all areas, and I understand that circumstances are different in rural and urban areas, but without something more concrete, I don't buy that the system overall results in worse treatment or outcome for rural poor compared to urban poor.

Quote:
Rural people also lack a lot of political power in comparison to towns and urban areas, so it's hard to divert resources to them.
See, this is something I absolutely don't buy at all. Rural people are significantly overrepresented in pretty much all state legislatures and in the national legislature.

As noted above, rural people have an absolute lock on the U.S. Senate, which one might argue is the most powerful legislative body on the planet. If that isn't giving them some advantage, then maybe it's because of how they choose to exercise their powerful votes.
  #112  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:28 PM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,904
Why are liberals and democrats so into censorship?

It was democrats who got the song "Baby It's Cold Outside" banned.

It was democrats who drove that christian baker out of business for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Liberals and democrats want women and minorities in position of power. PROVIDED they are not conservative.
  #113  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:38 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Why are liberals and democrats so into censorship?

It was democrats who got the song "Baby It's Cold Outside" banned.

Apparently, you have no idea what "censorship" or "free speech" or the "free market" means.

Quote:
It was democrats who drove that christian baker out of business for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.
That didn't happen.

Quote:
Liberals and democrats want women and minorities in position of power. PROVIDED they are not conservative.
Liberals and Democrats want liberals and Democrats in power, so that liberal and democratic policies may be pursued, which, they believe benefit and empower women and minorities.

Why should any liberal or Democrat support a candidate who is anti-liberal or anti-Democratic just because of some other identity status?

Either you truly don't understand what liberals believe about gender and race, or you're deliberately using deceptive arguments to try to trick people into believing that liberalism is hypocritical.
  #114  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:39 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Then why did most liberal people I know have liberal parents?
Your experience is different from mine. The parents of most liberal people I know are a mix of liberal, conservative, and apolitical. In cases where I know the parents have been strong liberals, the children are mildly liberal or apolitical. (Anecdotes, I know, but you brought yours).

Personally, my environment was conservative and I feel like the direct exposure made me run in the opposite direction. I tried on a number of political identities including libertarianism before I decided I was a plain old liberal or maybe a social democrat. Perhaps a liberal environment would have made me rebel toward conservatism. But I don't think so. I just don't have the meanness in my soul it takes to be a conservative.

Quote:
Look, I know we all want to think of ourselves as great independent thinkers, but in the end, we're all largely products of our environment. Ask any psychologist, sociologist or anthropologist - the vast majority of them will agree with me.
Eh... there's a raging battle over nature vs. nurture and I think the current consensus is that it's about half and half.

I'm not out to deny the effects of environment. Far from it. I am suggesting that conservative people are often raised by strongly opinionated conservative parents who actively push their ideology. Maybe there are liberal parents like that, but I think most liberals were raised in an apolitical or mildly liberal environment.

If you think conservatives households aren't indoctrination camps, here are 3 conservative childrens books titles, 2 of which I have seen displayed unironically on coffee tables:

Truax (a satire of The Lorax, and a defense of logging)
Help! Mom! There are liberals under my bed! (self-explanatory)
My Parents Open Carry

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 01-11-2019 at 04:42 PM.
  #115  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:40 PM
you with the face you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 11,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy
Conservatives prize a way of life with an emphasis on shared values and communal thinking. Homogeneity and clear behavioral norms enforced primarily by social pressures are necessary to their social structure and I might even go so far as to say survival as a cohesive unit. Liberals aren't into that for obvious reasons and wish to destroy those modes of thinking.
So my belief is that conservatives side with those who have historically had power in this country. This means rich white men.

What you describe as conservatives having a traditional way of life, I’m not seeing anything clear or specific to be honest. But your use of “social structure” jumps out at me. What does this social structure enable and what is it about liberal thinking that causes this structure to be threatened? And how does this challenge what I’m saying about power?

Let’s take your typical liberal. They are pro-choice, pro gun control, and want to see universal healthcare. They support SSM and want more to be done about climate change, even if that means higher taxes. What about this person and their beliefs should cause a conservative to feel under existential threat?

Last edited by you with the face; 01-11-2019 at 04:43 PM.
  #116  
Old 01-11-2019, 05:37 PM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
It's not really a desire to kick people of other races, or twirl the ends of their mustaches while they contemplate keeping their privileged position. Furthermore, I'd bet any amount of money that if you said they were privileged, they'd be monstrously offended, as they're not perceiving much if any of the benefits of this privilege. ....

In my experience, these people are usually middle to upper-middle class white people who for whatever reason seem to have a very harsh and/or us-vs-them conception of the political world. They're the ones who are oblivious to the ways that the system is geared specifically to help them,....
This is why it is so insanely frustrating trying to talk to these people. If you say they have 'white privilege' or benefit from 'white privilege,' they immediately say, "But I'm poor, I don't have any privilege!" Because they're so ignorant (often willfully so) that they refuse to acknowledge what that term actually means. I've even heard people on this exact message board say the same thing... People who definitely know better. And I'm completely sick of trying to explain it to them.

It all speaks to a bigger problem in which people can't communicate anymore, because we can't even agree on the meaning of words. I struggle to discern the difference between someone who genuinely doesn't know what these terms mean, and someone who is just a troll. Right now, my thought is that I'm just so fed up with it that I assume anyone who can't be bothered to educate themselves must be deliberately playing dumb.

Quote:
As time has passed, I realize that a lot of it is trying to make up for other problems that the minority students face, more than it's trying to reward them with more for less just by virtue of their race. ....
This is another point I'm sick of arguing about. The concept of 'affirmative action' has been around for literally decades before I was born (even if it wasn't called that). They need positive steps to help level the playing field against massive, institutional inequity. But try telling that to a conservative and they act like they've never heard of such a thing. If people in the sixties could grasp the concept, you have no excuse!
  #117  
Old 01-12-2019, 09:40 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Very roughly, those on the right and on the left tend to correspond respectively with
(a) those who are motivated by selfishness and greed;
(b) those who try follow the Imperative: "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."
It is easy to disobey the imperative in real life and, out of duty to one's family, work selfishly to improve their circumstances.
My own solution is this: I may violate the imperative sometimes, but I always follow the imperative when voting in national elections. Since my individual electoral power is too dilute to have effect, except as part of an aggregate, it is easy to vote unselfishly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
... So, anyway, that's as introspective as I can get without an even longer and more rambling post that no one will bother to read.
I did bother to read it and found it interesting and intelligent. (I wonder if "Christianity" is a good description for your religion and Kierkegaard's but that would be a different thread.)
  #118  
Old 01-12-2019, 09:56 AM
LAZombie LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 180
Does anyone else have explanations of how they as white heterosexual males turned liberal?

Perhaps, a Conservative parent mistreated you?

Conservatism sexually repressed you and now you've rebelled?

An employer treated you poorly and thus capitalism sucks?

I think a lot of you like one or two liberal songs but ended up buying the whole liberal album.

Just ideas to prime the pump. There's no point in arguing specific issues just explanations of how you got there.
  #119  
Old 01-12-2019, 10:04 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Why are liberals and democrats so into censorship?
Probably relates to why conservatives and Republicans hate not-white, non-heterosexual, non-Christian people. Why is that?

Quote:
It was democrats who got the song "Baby It's Cold Outside" banned.
I'm a Democrat. I think it's a great song, because I think it shows how a woman is perfectly fine rejecting the moralistic, right-wing societal pressures that make her look like a slut if she wants to hang out and smooch a guy she likes. You know, rejecting the Christian Taliban version of the United States.

Quote:
It was democrats who drove that christian baker out of business for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Why do Christians hate gay people? I can't figure that one out.

Looking forward to your answers.
  #120  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:49 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I did bother to read it and found it interesting and intelligent. (I wonder if "Christianity" is a good description for your religion and Kierkegaard's but that would be a different thread.)
That's an interesting claim. He explicitly believed in the man-God paradox as embodied in Christ. He spent most of the late 1840s and early 1850s expounding on Christian theology. He certainly was critical of the established church and embraced an understanding of individual rather than communal faith, but that's hardly unique in Christian thought. He was a universalist, but again not unique in that regard.
  #121  
Old 01-12-2019, 08:48 PM
snoe snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I'll hazard a guess that many more LGBT people would be conservative if other conservatives weren't so determined to reject them for being LGBT.
There seems to be strong social-scientific evidence that an analogue is true of African Americans.
Quote:
This suggests that most black voters view a Democratic vote as a heuristic for supporting strong federal civil rights protections and support for a Republican presidential candidate as a vote against group well-being. And this also helps explain why political diversity within the black community remains below the surface, while their monolithic voting behavior is widely noted in every election cycle.
  #122  
Old 01-12-2019, 09:00 PM
snoe snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I'll hazard a guess that many more LGBT people would be conservative if other conservatives weren't so determined to reject them for being LGBT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
There seems to be strong social-scientific evidence that an analogue is true of African Americans.
I did conflate "be conservative" with "vote Republican." I mean, one can argue that it's actions which count, so you can't really be conservative and vote for Democrats. But the point is that members of these two groups show higher-than-average loyalty to the Democratic party while also exhibiting ideological diversity. And that's because, back to the OP (ha!), of the actions (and words) of the other party.
  #123  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:27 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Why are liberals and democrats so into censorship?
Please define exactly what you mean by censorship. If it means suffering consequences for your speech or actions and/or being boycotted, that isn't 'censorship'.

Quote:
It was democrats who got the song "Baby It's Cold Outside" banned.
It was station managers responding to criticism of the song who banned it, and some of them are backing off due to listener polls.

Quote:
It was democrats who drove that christian baker out of business for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.
See: Public Accommodation.

Quote:
Liberals and democrats want women and minorities in position of power. PROVIDED they are not conservative.
Liberals and Democrats want people who are not in power to be able to vote without hindrance or harassment and to have equal representation in government. It isn't our fault that there are so few minority Republicans. Ever stop to think about how your politics and attitudes generally being harmful to them don't tend to be condusive to their support?

It's either disingenuous or a complete lack of self-awareness that leads to blaming Democrats for women and minorities supporting a party that includes them and wants them to share power over one that doesn't.
__________________
Tentatively and lightly dipping my toes back in the water.

Last edited by Chimera; 01-12-2019 at 11:28 PM.
  #124  
Old 01-13-2019, 09:49 AM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I think a lot of you like one or two liberal songs but ended up buying the whole liberal album.
More like we saw a cockroach run under a rug, lifted up the rug, and found a thousand more cockroaches. Time for an exterminator and a new rug.

Quote:
Just ideas to prime the pump. There's no point in arguing specific issues just explanations of how you got there.
Arguing through the issues is how we get there. We dig into conservative positions and find they lack any substantial relationship to facts, logic, or humanity.
  #125  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:40 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I understand what the challenges are. What I'm skeptical about is whether the existence of these challenges result in a system that overall benefits the urban poor in comparison with the rural poor.
To re-emphasize what I'm trying to dig up here in my conversation with Senoy:

I don't deny that live sucks for the rural poor. Rural poverty has been something that progressives and liberals have targeted at least as far back as the New Deal. Rural people should get the same benefits from the system that urban poor have.

What I'm trying to get at here is the resentment that rural people feel against urban people. I don't see hard evidence that this is justified based on rational reasons.

And this is to a large extent based on what I hear poor white people—both urban and rural—saying out of their own mouths. They are fixated on the fact that they perceive the urban poor to be undeserving. This is not a rational conclusion. This is based on tribalism and bigotry.

And this is also one of the central elements of the whole American conservative movement—that some people are inherently deserving and some people are inherently undeserving. And when you look to see how these groups shuffle out, it always turns out to be correlated to race, ethnicity, and other tribalistic groupings.
  #126  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:10 PM
TryingMyBest TryingMyBest is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1
Hi Wesley,

I'm sure you didn't mean it but you used erroneous math to reach your conclusion. When corrected, it renders your argument as, well... nonsense. You said:

"According to this study, the tea party is 89% white and 59% male. That works out to 52% of the tea party as white men, when in the US in general I think only 30% of the public are white men."

You are comparing the composition of adult members of a political party to the proportion of white men in the US population. That makes no sense because the former contains no children while the latter includes 74 million children. What you SHOULD have compared is the proportion of white men in the Tea Party to the proportion of white men in the Democratic party. Had you done that, you would see that white men made up 39% of the voters in the 2018 national election (a proxy for party membership). That 52% vs. 39% gap is fully explained by the fact that women, blacks, Jews, Latinos, Asians, immigrants, and the better educated all skew strongly to the Democrat (Progressive) party. That's the simple mathematical reason why white men make up a smaller proportion of Democrats. HOWEVER, there are **vastly** more white males who identify as Democrat than who identify as Tea Party -- on the order of 50 million more.
  #127  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:26 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
To re-emphasize what I'm trying to dig up here in my conversation with Senoy:

I don't deny that live sucks for the rural poor. Rural poverty has been something that progressives and liberals have targeted at least as far back as the New Deal. Rural people should get the same benefits from the system that urban poor have.

What I'm trying to get at here is the resentment that rural people feel against urban people. I don't see hard evidence that this is justified based on rational reasons. ...
First off, no, poor rural whites are not likely investigating and researching the exact amounts of Federal funds (or Federal plus state funds) going to benefit the poor in their communities, or even their regions overall, on a per capita basis and comparing it apples to apples to those to the poor in urban areas. But then I doubt you have. I'm not finding clearly understandable numbers all that easily myself. Do we count agribusiness subsidies as support in this analysis or not? The cost of military bases in the regions? Those are going to rural states but not to support of the poor or even for rural development. It's by including those payments that articles like this one conclude that red states benefit more from federal largesse than do Blue ones. I would argue that is a specious analysis.

Of course the sense of having their needs relatively ignored compared to urban needs isn't the result of a researched and well-reasoned rational analysis. It is based on their knowing they are dropping down the ladder, a perception that others are climbing past them, and hearing the messages from the D side that helping these others is important (to overcome white privilege) without good marketing to them from the D side while the R side is heavily messaging that they are not getting their share because others are getting it instead. Oh sure the Ds used to message that their needs matter well but really not since Nixon's Southern strategy flipped the political calculus.

DO you have a good source for that resources spent per head below the poverty line in rural vs urban regions?

A rural poor voter is not needing to believe that an urban poor resident is underserving to feel that they themselves are deserving but not getting theirs in comparison. Maybe a dive deep analysis would show that they are, I don't know, but more importantly they are getting their share of the rhetorical attention from the D side nationally and they are from the R one. The mainstream message that they are receiving is that relatively they are undeserving because of the inherent advantages they have of skin color, and they while such may be true on a population-wide demographic basis, that is not something that they personally experience.

They feel rejected by the mainstream. When the D side leaves that sense unaddressed they create the opportunity for that rejection and the resentment that comes with it to be exploited for gain by the other side.
  #128  
Old 01-13-2019, 03:31 PM
you with the face you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 11,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It is based on their knowing they are dropping down the ladder, a perception that others are climbing past them, and hearing the messages from the D side that helping these others is important (to overcome white privilege) without good marketing to them from the D side while the R side is heavily messaging that they are not getting their share because others are getting it instead.
The part in bold ain’t no small thing. Republicans don’t succeed in rural America because they canvass neighborhoods better and shake hands with more affection, and they don’t succeed because they sell a more inclusive messsge than Dems do. They succeed precisely because their message is exclusive. If rural whites are attracted to us vs them rhetoric, how are Dems supposed to counter this when the party has to cover under its umbrella a diverse coalition? Dems have to be inclusive in order to win, and all too often, their message of inclusiveness is spun by conservatives as being a threat to their “traditional way of life”, as senoy put it.

Quote:
A rural poor voter is not needing to believe that an urban poor resident is underserving to feel that they themselves are deserving but not getting theirs in comparison. Maybe a dive deep analysis would show that they are, I don't know, but more importantly they are getting their share of the rhetorical attention from the D side nationally and they are from the R one.
As you said up top, the Republicans have convinced a lot of rural voters that when they struggle, it’s because some other guy—urban blacks, urban “elite” whites, and job-stealing immigrants—are getting more than their fair share. I don’t see how you square that with the idea that they don’t believe “them” is less deserving.

I’ve seen you criticize Dems before about how they aren’t reaching rural whites because they focus too much on minorities, but it takes zero effort to say they need to do better but not really propose practical marketing solutions. If you were a Dem and you wanted to convince swaths of rural whites that they should vote for you rather than your Republican opponent (who has mastered the art of making them feel like the real Americans) what would you do? And does this differ from all the Dems that tried and failed?

Last edited by you with the face; 01-13-2019 at 03:32 PM.
  #129  
Old 01-13-2019, 04:02 PM
Some Call Me... Tim Some Call Me... Tim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
According to this study, the tea party is 89% white and 59% male. That works out to 52% of the tea party as white men, when in the US in general I think only 30% of the public are white men. Among solid liberals, the gender roles are reversed. 59% female to 41% male. But at 73% white, that still means 30% of solid liberals are white men, which is about equal to the ratio among the general public (America as a whole is about 60% white, and about 50% male).
(also sort of responding to points TryingMyBest made)

So... if the Tea party were 59% white men, 30% white women, and 11% non-white women the evidenced statistics would be true.
Also, if the Tea party were 48% white men, 41% white women, and 11% non-white men the evidenced statistics would be true.

Similarly but more dramatically,

41% white men + 32% white women + 27% non-white women would generate the cited statistics about 'solid liberals'.
14% white men + 59% white women + 27% non-white men would also generate the cited statistics.

So.. where exactly do the 52% and 30% numbers come from? Looks like some unstated assumptions to me...

Last edited by Some Call Me... Tim; 01-13-2019 at 04:05 PM.
  #130  
Old 01-13-2019, 07:45 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face View Post
... If rural whites are attracted to us vs them rhetoric, how are Dems supposed to counter this when the party has to cover under its umbrella a diverse coalition? Dems have to be inclusive in order to win ...
By offering an alternative message that explicitly includes them too. When the rhetoric of inclusion fails to explicitly mention them, when the messaging they hear from my side is dismissive of their very real problems and often condescending, if not outright insulting, that's when us vs them sales pitches by the GOP are the easiest sell.

It doubles back to the op. It is easy for me to have empathy for a variety of others for many reasons - I do not feel rejected from the mainstream even as I appreciate that I am also still "other" and of a demographic always at risk. To the degree I feel that risk I am not disrespected. I am economically secure. And my cultural rearing emphasized social justice.

Someone who feels that their concerns are disrespected, who is economically insecure, and who does not feel their concerns are being heard, is less likely to feel empathy for others.

Listen and offer a different approach that includes them is how.

Last edited by DSeid; 01-13-2019 at 07:48 PM.
  #131  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:04 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
To give a specific example - in her campaign Hillary Clinton had a nice rhetorical device of "let's rebuild ladders of opportunity" She would in that bit often go on to explicitly how those ladders target those who have been left out and left behind and explicitly name the specific groups of African Americans, immigrants, women, as groups that need those ladders extended to them. And no question they do. But to a poor rural voter who has just become poor or who is getting poorer the absence of their group as part of that list sent a message and not one that made them feel cared about. It was one that set the stage for us vs them to succeed.

The simple suggestion is that in a sales pitch like that one includes rural whites and that identifies the very real problems they have as well and identifies the projects and plans for them. To be sure the Obama administration had rural projects and HRC could have built upon them as well. But no mention that they need ladders TOO.

Last edited by DSeid; 01-13-2019 at 08:05 PM.
  #132  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:51 PM
you with the face you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 11,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
To give a specific example - in her campaign Hillary Clinton had a nice rhetorical device of "let's rebuild ladders of opportunity".
I read your posts, just so you know, and am disappointed that (once again...you did this in a previous thread) you use Hillary Clinton to support your stance. Not just because the extrinsic hurdles that she had to overcome far exceeded any other candidate you could think of, irrespective of her messaging, but because work has been done that shows reducing her electability to how much she talked about working class whites is an inaccurate conclusion.

Take a look at this paper. From the Conclusion:

Quote:
Why did working-class white men overwhelmingly support Trump over Clinton? First, I find that many men in the study had unfavorable views of both candidates, and about half of the likely voters in the study were conflicted about their election day choice. Yet most of these likely voters still chose Trump. Although many of these men described the choice as one between a brash outsider and an entrenched politician, I find that most found Clinton more objectionable, largely because these men did not find her trustworthy, or in some cases, likable. The overwhelming distaste for Clinton is consistent with polling showing that most Trump supporters were more against Clinton than in favor of Trump (Pew Research Center 2016). It also fits with a recent in-depth survey of Trump voters that found that the most unifying factor across all types of Trump voter was dislike of Clinton, a view held by 9 in 10 respondents (Ekins 2017).
Ya think that Russian disinformation campaign and a unrelenting flow of hate mongering courtesy of Fox News might’ve had something to do with this distrust and dislike? I do. If their reasons for rejecting her had to do with perceiving she wouldn’t go to bat for them economically, it is strangely absent from their survey responses.

That said, Dems do need to make sure they talk about the struggles of white rural Americans. Don’t disagree with you there, and yes that speech you linked to failed to show that kind of inclusiveness. I just don’t think that speech or any other one comes close to being critical to her loss.

Here is another article; see this bit:

Quote:
And economic hardship among white working-class Americans actually predicted more support for Hillary Clinton, not Trump: Although not highly statistically significant, the survey found that “[t]hose who reported being in fair or poor financial shape were 1.7 times more likely to support Clinton, compared to those who were in better financial shape.” This finding rebukes the common sentiment that poor white Americans came out in droves to put Trump over the top in 2016.
The truth is ugly but it bears repeating from the mountain tops: middle and upper middle class whites—not hard scrapple whites—largely are responsible for voting Trump in office. I don’t know why SDMB seems stuck on talking about poor rural white voters, as if some of their own urban and suburban neighbors, coworkers, and family members ain’t in the MAGA, but for the love of all that is Meuller, I hope the Dems aren’t so blinded to the real big picture.

Last edited by you with the face; 01-13-2019 at 08:52 PM.
  #133  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:16 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face View Post
I read your posts, just so you know, and am disappointed ...


You made a request:
Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face
... it takes zero effort to say they need to do better but not really propose practical marketing solutions. If you were a Dem and you wanted to convince swaths of rural whites that they should vote for you rather than your Republican opponent (who has mastered the art of making them feel like the real Americans) what would you do? And does this differ from all the Dems that tried and failed?
I responded to that request.

The most recent Dem to have failed at the national level was HRC. I accepted your challenge to offer a practical marketing solution to convince rural whites to vote for "me" as opposed to the GOP candidate who instead is offering an us versus them narrative and to demonstrate how it would be different than one that failed. It is not a big thing that change but it is a significant one.

No, I made no commentary on whether or not that was the critical reason her campaign failed as that is not the subject of this thread. FWIW I do not think it was there was a single critical factor. There was a confluence of factors including a campaign that was poorly run in many ways and lots more. It is however where she failed to provide a message that reached out to poor rural white voters (who are not equal to working class whites btw).

I readily admit that it can be tricky to find the right balance. Sanders, IMHO, was messaging inclusively to rural white voters with his emphasis on the structural features that amplify and harden wealth inequality across all groups, but did that at the cost of his demonstrating a cluelessness regarding the synergistic impacts of the structural features that contribute independently to racial disparities.

But I think the balance CAN be struck and as I was first listening to that HRC speech I was expecting her to hit it just right. It was a solid rhetorical device and a perfect chance. I expected her to include hard hit rural communities in her list of places that need to have those ladders of opportunity rebuilt as she went into the meet of that bit. I was hopeful that she would signal concern for them too with a VP choice who had some expertise on rural issues. (And there were several to choose between, including Sherrod Brown who also has progressive cred while not sharing Sanders cluelessness regarding the impacts of systemic racism above and beyond economic factors.) It just didn't happen. Maybe she was afraid that mentioning that white rural voters as worthy of ladders too would rub other needed members of her coalition the wrong way, that such would somehow mean less ladder for them? I dunno. But that is what I would have done differently to reach out to those voters if it was me, that is my practical marketing suggestion.

For his part Obama hit it fairly well in 2008. As an incumbent for 2012's election he did not adequately market the very real work his administration was doing in service of rural communities addressing the serious issues they faced. And the fact that the economic recovery was leaving many rural workers still behind with jobs that paid less than before and with them feeling less secure, for those who had jobs, made his sales pitch to them a bit tougher to make as successfully.

Last edited by DSeid; 01-13-2019 at 11:19 PM.
  #134  
Old 01-14-2019, 02:23 AM
you with the face you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 11,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post


You made a request: I responded to that request.
Yes, and you had the opportunity to put forth an evidenced-based proposal. But you failed at that, hence my disappointment.

The most recent Dem to have failed at the national level was HRC. I accepted your challenge to offer a practical marketing solution to convince rural whites to vote for "me" as opposed to the GOP candidate who instead is offering an us versus them narrative and to demonstrate how it would be different than one that failed. It is not a big thing that change but it is a significant one.

No, I made no commentary on whether or not that was the critical reason her campaign failed as that is not the subject of this thread. FWIW I do not think it was there was a single critical factor. There was a confluence of factors including a campaign that was poorly run in many ways and lots more. It is however where she failed to provide a message that reached out to poor rural white voters (who are not equal to working class whites btw).

I readily admit that it can be tricky to find the right balance. Sanders, IMHO, was messaging inclusively to rural white voters with his emphasis on the structural features that amplify and harden wealth inequality across all groups, but did that at the cost of his demonstrating a cluelessness regarding the synergistic impacts of the structural features that contribute independently to racial disparities.

But I think the balance CAN be struck and as I was first listening to that HRC speech I was expecting her to hit it just right. It was a solid rhetorical device and a perfect chance. I expected her to include hard hit rural communities in her list of places that need to have those ladders of opportunity rebuilt as she went into the meet of that bit. I was hopeful that she would signal concern for them too with a VP choice who had some expertise on rural issues. (And there were several to choose between, including Sherrod Brown who also has progressive cred while not sharing Sanders cluelessness regarding the impacts of systemic racism above and beyond economic factors.) It just didn't happen. Maybe she was afraid that mentioning that white rural voters as worthy of ladders too would rub other needed members of her coalition the wrong way, that such would somehow mean less ladder for them? I dunno. But that is what I would have done differently to reach out to those voters if it was me, that is my practical marketing suggestion.

For his part Obama hit it fairly well in 2008. As an incumbent for 2012's election he did not adequately market the very real work his administration was doing in service of rural communities addressing the serious issues they faced. And the fact that the economic recovery was leaving many rural workers still behind with jobs that paid less than before and with them feeling less secure, for those who had jobs, made his sales pitch to them a bit tougher to make as successfully.[/QUOTE]
  #135  
Old 01-14-2019, 02:31 AM
you with the face you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 11,967
Forget that botched attempt at a response. This is what I get for posting in the middle of the night with a newborn in my lap.
  #136  
Old 01-14-2019, 04:52 AM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
So from a psychological perspective, what motivates hetero white men who are liberals? Are they people who feel rejected from society for some other reason and identify with out-groups? Are they people who value fairness and justice more than the privileges of identity politics?
I suppose the short answer is "not being a racist, bigoted, uneducated, jerk, who believes everything he sees on Fox News."?

From the discussion in this thread, it's pretty obvious that there are a lot of poor conservatives for who the system does not benefit. Particularly in rural areas. Why do these people cling to conservative politics when it clearly doesn't work for them?

For that matter, why do any conservatives who are not in the top 0.1% feel Republican policies benefit them?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
For the purposes of this argument, I'm assuming many, if not most, people's politics are motivated by self interest at root. People who feel rejected from society want change and equality. People who benefit from inequality want to keep the unequal system. A hetero white male from an above average socioeconomic level benefits from the system as is.
Your assumption may be unfounded. Many people's politics are motivated by an inherent sense of justice and what's right. Or at the very least, they believe their self interest is served by policies that benefit everyone.

It's nice that at least you recognize that it is an "unequal system". Most conservatives sort of spout a lot of bullshit about how the system is equal and poor people just need to work harder.
  #137  
Old 01-14-2019, 06:19 AM
ekedolphin ekedolphin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 4,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin' View Post
The only time I, as a white heterosexual male liberal, feel rejected from society is when conservatives tell me that I'm somehow not a real American because I'm an evil liberal.
Lord, yes. My landlord, though I love him to death, is rather a die-hard Trumpist who knows I'm a liberal, and he hurt me one time when he postulated about a war between Democrats "and Americans", as if Democrats aren't real Americans.
  #138  
Old 01-14-2019, 07:46 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face View Post
Yes, and you had the opportunity to put forth an evidenced-based proposal. But you failed at that, hence my disappointment.
First congrats on the new baby!

Pretty high bar you are setting for me I must say. Best I've got is anecdotal and humble opinion.

As I noted above in 2008 Obama did that outreach very well, much much better than Clinton did. How did that work compared to other recent Dems?
Quote:
In 2008, Barack Obama won 43 percent of the vote in rural America. That was 3 points higher than the share of rural votes Democrat (and white) John Kerry won in 2004. And support for Democratic House candidates was higher in 2008 than in 2006.

If anything, rural voters were attracted to Obama’s candidacy in 2008.

All that changed in later elections. By 2016, Democrat Hillary Clinton took a tad over 30 percent of the rural vote.
Mind you I think the linked article, which goes on to disparage Obama's in office performance attending to rural concerns, is off the mark. His administration actually worked pretty hard on rural concerns. But again, they failed to market that and make it very visible. In 2012 not as well, and then Clinton did as above.

So not much solid evidence but it is the evidence we have.

The common sense piece: if the other side is selling an us versus them narrative and you do not even offer a different one, one that includes the them as part of us, an important part of us, then you cannot be shocked that the us versus them narrative sells well.
  #139  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:18 AM
TruCelt's Avatar
TruCelt TruCelt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 11,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Is it?

Women are more liberal than men, LGBT are more liberal than heterosexuals. Both groups are marginalized and see their civil and human rights threatened by conservatives in mainstream society.

non-whites are more leftist than whites, but I don't know if they are more liberal. blacks aren't necessarily more liberal than society at large, while LGBT are 2x as liberal as the public at large.
Right. Everybody who would be hurt by "conservatives" policy of "rights for white males" is declaring themselves to be liberal. There is also a very strong cohort of white males who would probably be helped by those policies and yet their consciences drive them to support liberal policies anyway. Then there is the minority of those who don't care who would be hurt by the Conservatives policies, but who don't want to live in a hellscape with sick people dying unnecessarily and children starving in the streets.

Your question is inherently dismissive of the very real harms the GOP policies create. It's not a matter of feeling rejected and banding together, it's a matter of wanting to live.
  #140  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:16 AM
you with the face you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 11,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
First congrats on the new baby!

Pretty high bar you are setting for me I must say. Best I've got is anecdotal and humble opinion.
Thanks for the congrats!

I don’t think it’s a high bar at all. I mean, it took all of 5 min for me to find those articles. You may disagree, but available scientific evidence doesn’t support your opinion about HRC’s messaging mattering a whole lot to her appeal (or lack thereof) to rural whites. So yeah, it’s frustrating to see you put so much weight on such an unsupported opinion.

Quote:
The common sense piece: if the other side is selling an us versus them narrative and you do not even offer a different one, one that includes the them as part of us, an important part of us, then you cannot be shocked that the us versus them narrative sells well.
Common sense tells me that if Republicans have convinced conservative-leaning whites (not just poor rural ones but those in the middle and upper echelons too) to fear, resent, and hate minorities, feminists, LGBTQ, and anyone who calls themselves a liberal, the smartest tack (based on what I’ve read) is to do more to dispel the belief that these groups are the real enemy. History shows time and time again that those with power win by pitting groups against each other; it gets the heat off them and puts it on a convenient scapegoat. Case in point, illegal immigrants. Notice that the employers (like Trump) who hire them rarely get called out or condemned; rather all the spittle is hurtled at hardworking people who are simply desperate for opportunities and a better life for their children. It is easier for conservatives to vilify Mexicans than the companies exploiting their labor. This incongruity needs to be hammered over and over again. We need to help people see how they are being manipulated.

Successfully eroding these layers of racial and cultural anxiety will take a lot more strategic thoughtfulness than affecting a southern accent and paying lip service to coal. Because it’s so hard to do, it’s why we’re even having this conversation. This is a problem that is old as civilization, seriously.

Last edited by you with the face; 01-14-2019 at 11:19 AM.
  #141  
Old 01-14-2019, 05:15 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Does anyone else have explanations of how they as white heterosexual males turned liberal?

Perhaps, a Conservative parent mistreated you?

Conservatism sexually repressed you and now you've rebelled?

An employer treated you poorly and thus capitalism sucks?

I think a lot of you like one or two liberal songs but ended up buying the whole liberal album.

Just ideas to prime the pump. There's no point in arguing specific issues just explanations of how you got there.
Your question makes the rather odd assumption that we were all conservative to start with. As though being conservative is the default state.

If so, then I "turned liberal" when I taught myself morality. This was admittedly pretty late - my parents were religious conservatives, so they didn't know how to teach morality. ('Obey this dude/book' isn't morality.) It had happened by the time I turned twenty, though, and again it wasn't so much a rejection of conservativism as me developing from a selfish unthinking child into a proper adult human.
  #142  
Old 01-15-2019, 08:45 AM
LAZombie LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I turned twenty, though, and again it wasn't so much a rejection of conservativism as me developing from a selfish unthinking child into a proper adult human.
What do you think this means?

Mathew 22 Verse 39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

As a child, it's difficult to appreciate what our parents do for us. Every generation rejects the previous one. The great hubris of the young is the belief that they are wiser than the people that preceded them. Your morality is the result of thousands of years of development. I like to cite Lord of the Flies. It's the story of a few dozen children of the elites, you know...Ivy League, Berkley, and SDMB super posters, who are stranded on an island and slowly devolve into savages when they don't have the guidance of civilized adults.
  #143  
Old 01-15-2019, 10:47 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekedolphin View Post
Lord, yes. My landlord, though I love him to death, is rather a die-hard Trumpist who knows I'm a liberal, and he hurt me one time when he postulated about a war between Democrats "and Americans", as if Democrats aren't real Americans.
I see this over and over and over. The Republican rhetoric is so consistently that Democrats, liberals, city-dwellers, and minorities aren't 'Real Americans.' That small towns are "Real America" and California is... What? Not America at all? It all circles back to the fundamental idea that there are people who 'count' and people who don't.

And then they post things like this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie
What do you think this means?

Mathew 22 Verse 39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
And act amazed that we think they are insincere.

Last edited by JB99; 01-15-2019 at 10:48 AM.
  #144  
Old 01-15-2019, 11:09 AM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Does anyone else have explanations of how they as white heterosexual males turned liberal?

Perhaps, a Conservative parent mistreated you?

Conservatism sexually repressed you and now you've rebelled?

An employer treated you poorly and thus capitalism sucks?

I think a lot of you like one or two liberal songs but ended up buying the whole liberal album.

Just ideas to prime the pump. There's no point in arguing specific issues just explanations of how you got there.
I guess I'm missing the subtext of your question. Why wouldn't a white heterosexual male be liberal? There's nothing incompatible with being a white straight male and being a liberal.

To address your questions:

I didn't have conservative parents. Just white, upper middle class straight liberal parents.

I don't recall ever feeling sexually repressed (although there were times during my second marriage I was sexually frustrated--I don't blame conservatives)

My employers have been pretty decent, by and large. Now I'm an employer and get to turn the tables.

General labels are usually unhelpful, but in the U.S. currently, the "liberal" positions on must issues seem more thoughtful, just, workable, and in the best interest of our society and economy. It used to be that there were two sides to most controversies and we could learn from honest debates about policy. I'd be overjoyed if American conservatives would come back to the adult table and we could resume that grand tradition.
  #145  
Old 01-15-2019, 01:57 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
What do you think this means?

Mathew 22 Verse 39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

As a child, it's difficult to appreciate what our parents do for us. Every generation rejects the previous one. The great hubris of the young is the belief that they are wiser than the people that preceded them. Your morality is the result of thousands of years of development. I like to cite Lord of the Flies. It's the story of a few dozen children of the elites, you know...Ivy League, Berkley, and SDMB super posters, who are stranded on an island and slowly devolve into savages when they don't have the guidance of civilized adults.
What do I think "developing from a selfish unthinking child into a proper adult human" means? I think it means that children are both cognitively undeveloped and centrally focused, with biological and mental difficulties with recognizing that there's a world outside themselves that they are not the center of. Adults, as they age, become mentally capable of better assessing the situation and recognizing that they exist in a world of diverse individuals and that the lives and existence outside themselves both matter to those other people and also impact themself. People also are capable of learning empathy (even as children) which allows them not only to become adults aware of the world around them, but proper adults who recognize that other people's feelings matter for the whole collective's well-being, and thus become capable of acting to improve the well-being of the entire community.

And Lord of the Flies is shit. It may be the worst book I've ever read. The characterization is terrible and unrealistic. The dialogue is terrible and unrealistic. And this was intentional - William Golding wrote the book as a counterpoint/parody of R.M. Ballantyne's 1858 novel 'The Coral Island' in which boys land on an island and things don't go to shit. This bothered Golding so he wrote a book where the characters were all idiots and douches who go insane, even though them doing so made no sense in context. There is no part of this which is a representation of reality. ('The Coral Island' also isn't a representation of reality, but at least it wasn't written out of spite.)
  #146  
Old 01-15-2019, 02:50 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
As a child, it's difficult to appreciate what our parents do for us. [...] I like to cite Lord of the Flies. It's the story of a few dozen children of the elites, you know...Ivy League, Berkley, and SDMB super posters, who are stranded on an island and slowly devolve into savages when they don't have the guidance of civilized adults.
But the point is that as a person grows up, their parents are no longer the only "civilized adults" that they can look to for guidance. Other relatives, teachers, friends, authors, etc., provide other models and insights that we use in the process of becoming "proper adult humans".

And yes, without in any way dissing parents as a group or what their children gain from them, it sometimes happens that a child finds the guidance of those other adults more useful in learning morality than the guidance of their own parents.
  #147  
Old 01-15-2019, 06:25 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post

And Lord of the Flies is shit. It may be the worst book I've ever read. The characterization is terrible and unrealistic. The dialogue is terrible and unrealistic. And this was intentional - William Golding wrote the book as a counterpoint/parody of R.M. Ballantyne's 1858 novel 'The Coral Island' in which boys land on an island and things don't go to shit. This bothered Golding so he wrote a book where the characters were all idiots and douches who go insane, even though them doing so made no sense in context. There is no part of this which is a representation of reality. ('The Coral Island' also isn't a representation of reality, but at least it wasn't written out of spite.)
"Yes, completely unrealistic," agree the crew of the Batavia.
  #148  
Old 01-15-2019, 06:57 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
"Yes, completely unrealistic," agree the crew of the Batavia.
Haven't read the book, I take it. No child ever uses the vocabulary those kids do.

The fact that mutinies and murders have, infrequently, occurred is not proof that without the guiding hand of our conservative and possibly senile elders we will lose our 'thousand year developed' morality that they supposedly are handing down to us and, due to the lack of salty unelite farmer larnin', devolve into savages.

Especially since conservatives tend not to teach morality at all - instead they focus on conformity and obedience and sometimes call it morality.
  #149  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:27 PM
LAZombie LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I guess I'm missing the subtext of your question. Why wouldn't a white heterosexual male be liberal? There's nothing incompatible with being a white straight male and being a liberal.

To address your questions:

I didn't have conservative parents. Just white, upper middle class straight liberal parents.

I don't recall ever feeling sexually repressed (although there were times during my second marriage I was sexually frustrated--I don't blame conservatives)

My employers have been pretty decent, by and large. Now I'm an employer and get to turn the tables.

General labels are usually unhelpful, but in the U.S. currently, the "liberal" positions on must issues seem more thoughtful, just, workable, and in the best interest of our society and economy. It used to be that there were two sides to most controversies and we could learn from honest debates about policy. I'd be overjoyed if American conservatives would come back to the adult table and we could resume that grand tradition.
I never stated that being a straight white is incompatible with being a liberal.

The question is why would a straight white male be liberal when ostensibly according to Liberals, conservative ideology would provide so many advantages?

It sounds like you've lived a charmed life. All humans face adversity so you've probably had set backs. You are likely intelligent, hard working, possess social skills, and are considered good looking. However, it sounds like you have a bit of a sense of superiority when you write, "I'd be overjoyed if American conservatives would come back to the adult table..."

One reason straight white males stay liberal is they can be overly generous and reap the accolades of playing Santa Claus/ Great White Savior believing they will always be on top no matter what the situation. I heard a liberal commentator taunting conservatives, "What are you afraid of? Little brown women and children. You are really tough." I interpret this as, “This little brown woman and her children are completely incapable of challenging your status unless you’re a total loser.” I guess that Joe Crowley the guy Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated probably thought the same thing. Or Joe Lieberman who was publicly insulted by AOC. She literally bit the hand that FREED her.

In other words, you can’t be the elite if you’re the majority. White nationalists are so stupid. They need people of color or else who will they have to subjugate?
  #150  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:40 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I never stated that being a straight white is incompatible with being a liberal.

The question is why would a straight white male be liberal when ostensibly according to Liberals, conservative ideology would provide so many advantages?

I don't know what advantages conservative ideology would bring me, except perhaps lower taxes.

Even that, when viewed as part of a bigger picture, would be worse for me as a certain level of taxation is necessary (according to liberal ideology) for a healthy economy and society.

Maybe an end to affirmative action? I'm sure being a white male was part of the reason I didn't get into Yale, Harvard or Standford law schools On the other hand, having a diverse student body at the law school I did get into certainly contributed to a better education.

I would benefit personally from loser environmental regulations, which are making it difficult to build a pier at my nice waterfront home. On the other hand, those same regulations are part of the reason living on the water is so desirable.

Conservative judges don't help me in any discernible way. Restricting access to abortion doesn't help me. I don't own a gun, but may buy one some day. I don't think reasonable gun regulations would interfere with that.

I admit I'm not an expert on the conservative agenda, but I'm hard pressed to see any reason I'd want to be part of that movement. I'll keep an open mind.

Last edited by Procrustus; 01-16-2019 at 12:40 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017