Angry GOP pundit spews venom all over the GOP working class & the invective is just breath taking

Want to know what the GOP nattering class really thinks of the Trump backers? Want to gauge the depth of their contempt for the GOP working class?

I can’t recall an actual article in recent memory that went to town like this one on a given group of people. A panicked, angry conservative writer for the National Review takes the GOP Trump loving working class to task and just scorches the earth.

It’s weird to see what passes see the GOP intellectual class being willing to burn alive the conservative working class whose backs they have ridden on for decades to get electoral wins, the instant they start questioning GOP orthodoxy.

Other comments here

National Review Writer: Working-Class Communities ‘Deserve To Die’
Read more:

I wouldn’t call it panicked. What he says makes a lot of sense.

My nature leads me to pick a sympathetic figure on the right wing, but all efforts fail.

Seems like the US might be getting its own right-wing labor party… trying to recall historical precedents, but I can think of only one…

For a few seconds there I felt a sudden urge to vote for Trump. The white working class literally had the rug pulled out from under them when all their jobs moved overseas. Any group of people would behave the same way, drugs, alcohol etc…

In Washington, trees blossom so pink & clean,
Couples still say yes on a gem…!
But somewhere a “glory” awaits unseen.
Tomorrow belongs to them…


Yet somehow it’s white people punching black people and not the other way around. Wonder how that works.

Interesting. At first he seems to be taking a “personal responsibility” line – but by the end he seems to be saying the same thing about rural WWWs as many liberals say about inner-city AAs – that their individual dysfunctional behavior is the direct product of a collectively dysfunctional environment, from which it might be the best thing simply to remove them.

You want to know why Trump has struck a chord? It’s because of shit like this. The white working class is finally wising up to the fact that the GOP has taken them for a ride.
They know Trump is a joke. They’re fully aware he’s probably not going to accomplish half the shit he says he’s going to do. They know this New York billionaire has little, if anything at all, in common with them. What matters most is Trump’s willingness to bury the establishment and piss on its grave.

Not a lot of facts or statistics in that article. I’ve seen more informative pit threads.

Krugman’s take:
[INDENT]It’s surely worth noting that other advanced countries, with much more generous welfare states, aren’t showing anything like the kind of social collapse we’re seeing in the U.S. heartland. Here’s Case and Deaton: [/INDENT]

…Krugman shows this chart, which shows plummeting mortality for the rest of the world, when compared to US non-Hispanic whites. Compare USW with the others:

Krugman: “Why, it’s almost as if having a strong safety net leads to better, not worse, social health. Culture still matters: US Hispanics do a lot better than one might have expected. But the idea that somehow food stamps are why we’re breaking bad is utterly at odds with the evidence.”

One can hardly argue with that analysis.

Well, he might be willing to, but not necessarily able. The Establishment has a lot of money and power and connections and tradition behind it, and some attenuated form of it will still be a very important player in 2020.

It is what people like Thomas Frank used to say about W Bush.

I’d hope a wising up to this plays a role. Trump is the only GOP candidate who actually has some liberal views on economics. He is in favor of progressive taxes, the social safety net, government negotiation of medical prices (at least regarding pharmaceuticals, etc), opposed to the lobbyist system of corruption. He actually speaks to the fears and insecurity that are eating away at people while the other candidates just offer more of the same system that screwed them over in the first place.

I come from working class white Upstate New York. I was inner-city, wrong-side-of-the-tracks poor but brought up less than an hour away from the “hardscrabble” rural and small town poverty that Williamson refers to. That’s literally part of Appalachia. (Geographically, economically, and socially as well as legally under the Appalachian Regional Commission.)

What’s interesting about Appalachia is how little its changed in the past hundred years. Then it was a region of isolated population, with poor education, a heavy concentration of manual laboring jobs, and a reluctance to interfere with the power structure that gave them whatever jobs were available. All of that remains true today. The mining interests that ran West Virginia still do, even though the mines are played out and their pollution kills their own workers.

It’s this reluctance to move, change, or grow that Williamson appears to be referring to. Union workers elsewhere forced changes (yes, sometimes with violence, though responding to violence from the other side) that fulfilled most of the demands of the Progressive movement and the New Deal and completely altered working class mobility. That’s the better life for their kids that’s so much talked about now. The working class had hope because they fought for the conditions that allowed hope to foster. (Just as African-Americans did a generation later.)

This happened just about everywhere in the country outside of Appalachia. I don’t know why. It’s not simply poverty or bad schools or conniving politicians. Cities had an overabundance of those. It may be that the low population density didn’t make for cohesive movement building. Rural populations historically never rebelled well; city densities always sheltered uprisings.

The old power structure of Appalachia is almost gone. Nothing is left to acquiesce to but nothing is left to build on. It’s leave or die, but most people don’t want to leave and see no place to fit in if they do. Some, like the Trump supporters, are loud and angry about it but they aren’t fighting for the future, like the old working class; they’re demanding the return of an imaginary better past. That’s doomed to failure. Worse, that’s doomed to leave them in worse shape than they are now because they’re kicking every hand that could possibly want to reach out to them and surrounding themselves with an aura of hate that will make few want to help.

Williamson is right in general - if the snippets given properly reflect the whole unavailable article. The huge hole in his argument is that he refuses to accept any responsibility by the GOP, which has fought to destroy the union movement, fought to limit federal assistance, fought to demonize minorities, fought to uphold religious closed-mindedness, fought to apotheosize businesses, fought science and education and technology. All at the same time they courted the Appalachians all across the country to support them while they destroyed all chance they had of change. We’ll put up a fence against The Future, the GOP cried, and it won’t get to you. They did and it didn’t. Both sides wanted this. Neither likes it and neither will take responsibility. A pox on both their houses.

And they eat their own.

I guess it’s good to know the privileged don’t save all their contempt, and venom, for people of color, though. Maybe we are approaching the post-racial society; everyone is openly dismissed as worthless.

Lots of mules are going to get killed, though.

Well, that oughta fix things up between the GOP and its base.

I wonder if he mentions anywhere in the rest of the article how the GOP had a hand in keeping them down by denigrating education and labor laws, for example, for the benefit of the wealthy. I’m guessing…no.

I wouldn’t call it panicked, either. It’s beyond panic. It’s knowing that all hope is lost, and raging against the universe is all that’s left. I can picture Lieutenant Bligh expressing the same sentiments as he was cast adrift by his crew on the Bounty.

But Trump isn’t the answer. The current Republican divide is essentially two shepherds arguing over who owns a flock of sheep. Sure, both shepherds are passionately interested in the outcome but neither of them gives a damn about the best interests of the sheep.

Not me.

You’d have to have a name that emphasizes how you’d make America great again, so it should be a name that emphasizes love for country. But considering the economic dislocation the working class is feeling, you’d also have to have a name that, even though you’re right-wing, rejects a %100 completely orthodox adherence to capitalism.

I can’t think of any other precedents either, frankly.

I certainly wouldn’t vote for him, but I do hope one of his minions picks up on this, gets The Donald’s attention with a one-sentence [noparse]TL:DR[/noparse] talking-point version, and in his next speech he tells all the little Trumpkins how the Republican Establishment thinks they deserve to die. The fallout (particularly the part where explanations of what the author actually meant inflame rather than soothe the rift between the GOP and the rubes whose votes it depends on) should be most entertaining.

Another bitter screed from the National Review that tries to burn already scorched ground. Leaving no sector of its traitorous base unscathed, this one takes a shot at evangelicals who have jumped the GOP ship:

And it bravely, courageously–and patriotically, no less–tries to rally the dejected troops:

(Exapno Mapcase, excellent post.)