Which, in your opinion, is worse:
A two-party system divided along racial boundaries, or a two-party system divided along boundaries of affluence?
As an example, would you prefer the Democrats be the party of the disenfranchised minorities and the Republicans the party of whites, or the Democrats the party of the poor and the Republicans the party of the rich?
Obviously, in 2015, the distinction is tenuous, but I’m curious which is worse: racial strife or economic strife.
Racial strife is significantly worse, because affluence is more plastic. I’m poor today, but I might be rich tomorrow, but my skin color isn’t going to change. (Much. You should see my tan lines…)
Ideally, no political party would be so foolish as to alienate a large bloc of voters. But we don’t live in that ideal world.
Racial strife is worse.
An economic position is based upon having less respect for one idea about how money moves than another idea about how money moves.
A racial position is based upon having less respect for one person than another person.
No contest.
From a partisan standpoint, racial strife is worse, because poverty crosses all racial boundaries. Democrats capture more voters by exploiting the wealth divide, than the racial divide.
Not going to comment which is better or worse, but I think the key difference is that people can go from poverty to affluence (or vice versa.)
People can’t really change their race.
affluence is worse, because at least if they are divided among racial lines both sides would have voters with similar economic interests.
Yeah, but generationally race is more fluid. If a poor person moves to Beverly Hills his grandchildren will likely still be poor, but if a white person moves to Harlem his grandchildren will more likely be multiracial.
vThat was always my response to people concerned about black folks moving in. Just because a black person moves next door doesn’t mean you’ll turn black, but your grandchildren might. That always pissed folks off, so I figured it was probably true.
Not to diminish racism at all, but if members of each “race” were all able to become affluent, then racism becomes a “who gives a shit about your ignorant racist opinions? I’ve got money and therefore power” thing.
Racism is a serious problem because it also serves to disenfranchise people, politically, socially, and economically.
Once people have the ability to move up socially and economically, they wield political power regardless, and then racism becomes a problem dumbasses have, not a problem racial minorities have to deal with.
Alas, there is still anti-Semitism, even if Jews have (on the average, very slightly) more wealth, education, and power than gentiles.
Which is worse, being in a position of wealth, education, and power, and dealing with bigots, or not being in a position of wealth, education, and power, and dealing with bigots?
For the longest time, just as an example, black Americans had to deal with more obstacles in the way of their getting ahead than, just as an example, jewish Americans.
Jewish folks suffered harder during WWII, obviously, and it’s not really a contest over who suffered the most, but here’s the deal- dealing with racists is easier if you’re not an underclass being crushed by them.
By 2044 some website I read states whites will be a minority by that time. Another website shows Asians making more than whites in average income levels.
Also to choose which one situation you would have to know the particulars of the US population. Does the US population in this scenario know for a fact one side is for the rich and one is for the poor? If so they could easily rally all the poor people to out-vote the rich and get the majority of congressional seats and presidency because they have the power of numbers. However, if this is not an established fact then the rich would have the upper hand because they would have the money to advertise for votes.
In the racial situation, whites will not always be a majority so that’s kind of a moot point. Also, many “whites” would gladly fight for rights for those of other races, so the idea that having a “white vs. others” would be a bad situation is only if the majority of white people were racists, which I don’t believe they are. That is probably a slim slim minority of whites. So ultimately a white vs. others situation would have to assume most whites are racist to even be a bad situation to start with. Seeing as how that’s just not true, the situation poses no serious risk. Not only that but, as stated, they won’t be a ‘majority’ for long. Times are changing. Besides that how white would someone have to be before they get to be republican? What if you are 50% African American 50% Irish? Does that mean you get to play both sides? This is simply an unrealistic situation to evaluate.
Racial divide is worse, since a class/income divide is actually relevant to one’s political and socioeconomic interests. Also a class divide is far more likely to encourage progressive socioeconomic policy since the working-class and the lower middle-class are in the majority.