No, that’s why it makes sense, and the marriage of capitalism and bible thumping doesn’t.
You get your Big Government types all under one tent. The government will keep Jesus in the classrooms, gays in the closet, bombers over Iran, workers filling potholes by day while other workers dig potholes by night, imports out, immigrants out, unions for everyone, with subsidized housing and daycare and healthcare to support good working families.
Of course this populist party might seem superficially attractive to blacks and latinos. But since the party’s base will be working class whites, and will serve their interests. And the white working class might have some solidarity with each other, but they see blacks and immigrants as competition from the bottom. So, they like the idea of welfare and social services for poor whites, but not for poor blacks.
On the other hand, Ayn Rand and Jesus don’t mix very well. Rand loved cities and hated the country, she loved industrialists and hated unionized workers, she loved self-interest and despised religion, she loved the new and hated the old, she loved factories and laboratories and hated farms and small towns. Which is why the Tea Party which claims to love both Rand and Jesus is a doomed schizophrenic monstrosity.
You exaggerate. It’s all about ordinary blue collar workers who have nothing to gain from wage dumping and benefit scroungers. You demonize them because you want the NWO to rule the waves just like the Brits ones did.
No, for example the Minutemen has some Hispanic members and I don’t think they care whether the illegal happens to be of blue-blooded Castillian descent or a Zapotec Indian. Not to mention the Minutemen has helped rescue many illegal immigrants lost in the desert.
Because according to the right-wing populists, real Americans live on farms and in small towns as Jesus intended, not big cities with negroes and homosexuals and foreigners.
These are what I call “union Democrats,” and they’re quite common in the Midwest, union affiliation or no. They believe in big government programs that benefit the poor and middle class, they support unions, they want higher taxes on the rich, they don’t trust big business. They support universal healthcare. They don’t want their Social Security or Medicare touched. But they also support gun rights, don’t give a crap about gay rights, lean pro-life, although they don’t typically think or talk much about abortion until they actually need one; they tell racist jokes, quietly bitch about the blacks and Mexicans moving into their neighborhoods. They support immigration reform, as long as the immigrants don’t take their jobs or move onto their block. Privately they have no problem with porn, although publically they wink and nod while saying it’s obscene. They support welfare and food stamps, as they or a family member have probably at one point used them. But they do support tougher restrictions on welfare to stop abuses done by “system gamers.” They consider themselves Christian, and attend church between 4 times a year and once a week. They’re pro military, consider themselves patriotic Americans. They’re pretty solidly blue collar. They hate Republicans, they mock bleeding heart progressives and liberals. They almost always vote Democratic, when they bother to vote.
Growing up in southeast Michigan, I know dozens of people like this. I’d say they’re pretty socially conservative and solidly fiscally liberal.
You need to answer these questions so we know what you mean by ‘Socially’ conservative. It would really help us all understand what you’re referring to when you use this phrase.
As you know, Hispanics can be pro-Hispanic without being intolerant. Blacks can be pro-Blacks without being intolerant. But with Whites, it’s different. White people cannot be pro-White without being intolerant to everybody else. Please explain why.
Yes. On the nolan chart this person would score in the authoritarian/statist category. Its the opposite of Libertarians who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Aahh! You just never tried a Chicago dog with all the fixin’s – tomato wedges sport peppers, everything – waved under your nose after you’ve been chained up with no food for three days!
Because, unlike with the others, and for fairly obvious historical and sociological reasons, it is impossible to be “pro-white” without being “pro-preservation-of-white-skin-privilege.”
Listen, the only political party that is going to fire up working-class American blacks and whites together is going to be one that is not about social conservatism, but is about fighting the power of the Man – the Man being an upper-class Old American, not an illegal immigrant.
Most of them except interracial marriage (which isn’t mainstream social conservative), and antiunion (in which case they wouldn’t be ecnomically populist), although most social conservatives disagree on the details.
Who says? Zinn and Chomsky and people of that type babble on about how whites and black workers and new Hispanic immigrants will work together to overthrow the Establishment or something (ignoring the fact that their economic interests are utterly opposed) this but this never has happened-see the Hard Hat riots for instance where union blue-collar workers taught a lesson to antiwar fanatics.
FDR wasn’t really a social liberal, neither was Robert F Kennedy (who would have been a social conservative).
So, this party of yours is anti abortion, anti immigration, anti gay marriage, anti no fault divorce, anti birth control education, pro christian based morality which should be reflected in the law, pro prayer in schools? That’s pretty mainstream republican at present.
Where does the populist economic side come in again?
