A Socially Conservative Economically Populist Party?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Qadgop_the_Mercotan

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?

Probably pro-union, protectionist, pro-social services (at least for citizens), pro-UHC, and anti-illegal immigrant.

[Wesley_Clark]

I know people here in the midwest who fit that bill. Usually they are high school educated and work in manufacturing or the service sector, but are socially conservative. So they do exist (Reagan democrats I guess you’d call them, despite Reagan being elected over 30 years ago and many of them barely being able to vote at the time).

The new deal coalition was a coalition that had socially conservative and economically liberal aspects to it. Without it we wouldn’t have had the new deal or great society reforms. But once civil rights were pushed southern whites left the new deal coaltion, and economic populism pretty much fell apart w/o the voting bloc to support it. Paul Krugman summed up the death of economic liberalism in the United states by saying ‘southern whites started voting republican’.

However now that our standards of living are in decline I think it could be reinvented. Supposedly one of the most effective tactics on Reagan Democrats (or whatever you want to call them) is to point out that conservative politicians only economically care about wealthy individuals and large businesses. That drives a wedge and maybe (but I seriously doubt) it could break the conservative coalition the same way civil rights broke the new deal coalition. If economic populism drives a wedge in less educated, socially conservative but fiscially liberal whites between them and conservative politicians, maybe. But I doubt that’ll happen.

Another problem is that many of the social conservatives who fit that bill believe social programs benefit people who are considered outsiders (foreign aid, welfare for blacks and latinos) and not to people like themselves. So you’d have to address that belief.

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Who says?

I don’t say black and white working-class Americans will work together to fight the power of the Man, I know that’s a long shot; I say they won’t get together over anything else. Lots of African-Americans are socially conservative but it’s not something they’ll get zealous about. Economic populism, maybe, but it would have to be a form with a lot more meat on it than the OP describes. Not necessarily the “S” word, but damn near by American standards.

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

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) . . .

Wait, we’re all familiar with the arguments WRT immigrants, but how are the economic interests of white and black workers “utterly opposed”?

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

. . . this but this never has happened-see the Hard Hat riots for instance where union blue-collar workers taught a lesson to antiwar fanatics.

How was that an intra-working-class fight?

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

FDR wasn’t really a social liberal, neither was Robert F Kennedy (who would have been a social conservative).

What?! Of course they were, for their day, just by being moderately and cautiously pro-civil-rights!

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

[QUOTE]

@BrainGlutton

Wait, we’re all familiar with the arguments WRT immigrants, but how are the economic interests of white and black workers “utterly opposed”?

Sorry I meant white/black workers are utterly opposed to new immigrant labour.

How was that an intra-working-class fight?

It wasn’t. But it shows the type of leftism that burns flags and causes riots will not get working-class support and be confined to spoiled rich naive college students.

What?! Of course they were, for their day, just by being moderately and cautiously pro-civil-rights!

FDR, BTW, didn’t do much for civil rights. And by the end of RFK’s life issues like abortion were already controversial. If RFK had not died the Democrats might avoided the quadruple disaster of McGovern-Carter-Mondale-Dukakis before finally nominating a moderate like Bill Clinton.

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

FDR, BTW, didn’t do much for civil rights. And by the end of RFK’s life issues like abortion were already controversial. If RFK had not died the Democrats might avoided the quadruple disaster of McGovern-Carter-Mondale-Dukakis before finally nominating a moderate like Bill Clinton.

Wait, now. Whatever went wrong with the Carter Admin, it had nothing to do with social liberalism. Nor have I ever heard of Mondale or Dukakis being associated with it particularly. For that matter, not even McGovern was nearly as liberal/radical as his 1972 base.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@BrainGlutton

Wait, now. Whatever went wrong with the Carter Admin, it had nothing to do with social liberalism. Nor have I ever heard of Mondale or Dukakis being associated with it particularly. For that matter, not even McGovern was nearly as liberal/radical as his 1972 base.

No, Carter’s main mistake was weakness in foreign policy. However Dukakis certainly was an ultra-liberal-remember Willie Horton?

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

No, Carter’s main mistake was weakness in foreign policy. However Dukakis certainly was an ultra-liberal-remember Willie Horton?

:dubious: “Bad example” is putting it mildly.

[RaleighRally]

@BrainGlutton

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.”

But you already knew that.

“White-skin-privilege” is nonsense. It is based on “Critical race theory” (subset of cultural Marxism) that is strongly criticized here: Critical race theory - Wikipedia

Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry have argued that critical race theory, along with critical feminism and critical legal studies, has anti-Semitic and anti-Asian implications, has worked to undermine notions of democratic community and has impeded dialogue.[8] Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has “label[ed] critical race theorists and postmodernists the ‘lunatic core’ of ‘radical legal egalitarianism.’”[9] He writes,

What is most arresting about critical race theory is that…it turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative. Rather than marshal logical arguments and empirical data, critical race theorists tell stories — fictional, science-fictional, quasi-fictional, autobiographical, anecdotal — designed to expose the pervasive and debilitating racism of America today. By repudiating reasoned argumentation, the storytellers reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites.[10]

Maybe BrainGlutton should be awarded a warning for reinforcing stereotypes…

[elucidator]

So, we see then that its the liberals who are the real racists!

[BrainGlutton]

@RaleighRally

“White-skin-privilege” is nonsense. It is based on “Critical race theory” (subset of cultural Marxism) that is strongly criticized here:

:dubious: You don’t need any Marxist theory to see the reality of white skin privilege in the world from the Age of Exploration to the present day. Just ask anybody who isn’t white.