Add “testosterone poisoned” and possibly “red necked” to “whites” and you nailed it.
And if the problems don’t have simple, catchy solutions, what then? Start to lie and bullshit as much as the opposition does?
If I had the energy, I would build (yet another) parody of that classic Life of Brian scene - “Well okay, apart from the social safety net, job training, UHC, better education, public transit, access to phone and internet lines, and stable economic policy, what have the democrats ever done for us?!” But I can’t be fucked, so I’m just going to call this post a massive shit sandwich and call it good.
I’ve come to the conclusion that, every time a Republican attacks Dems for something, it’s either because the Reps do it too, but worse, or because it works. I think this is why they like to attack us on “identity politics” (aka “giving a shit about disenfranchised communities”). I offer as supporting evidence the changing demographics of the US, the results of the 2008 elections, and all the work the Reps put into voter suppression of people of color. When poc vote, they vote Dem. When they come out to vote, Dems win big.
We should worry more about how to get poc out to vote. Some of this is going to be messaging and optics,but I’m guessing a lot of it will have to do with helping them overcome the obstacles Reps have put in place for voting. Maybe we can set up more car pools, for voting day and for registering and getting id. Maybe we can have free babysitting on election day. Getting election day set aside as a holiday would also be good, but a lot of lower income jobs don’t get those days off anyway. The establishment needs to talk to these communities more to help them get out there.
It is the public position of the Democratic Party that they will not raise taxes on working class voters. The history of the Democratic Party combined with the basic arithmetic of the budget and their ambitions, says that steep hikes on working class voters are inevitable.
If innovation and the market were killing off fossil fuels then wouldn’t it be smart of Democrats not to kick the industry while it’s down? It was that that got them in trouble in coal and oil country.
the white working class has health care. They have reasonable access to higher education. They don’t want food stamps.
Or, you could just find a Bill Clinton who knows how to talk to these people and who will stand by his pledges to not screw with their way of life.
I’d also note that recent Democratic attacks on religious freedom aren’t doing them any good with this demographic either. A recent SCOTUS decision saying that the government couldn’t refuse to give money to churches participating in social programs set off howls of outrage among some sets of the left, who don’t want equality of religions, but want the state to actively discriminate against religion in the name of “seperation”.
Care to unpack that? What did the dems do to “kick the industry while it’s down”? And is it in any way distinguishable from simply demanding that the industry cover externalities it is responsible for?
We must be thinking of different things when we say “working class”. I’m thinking of the working poor.
I believe the standard definition is white households with income under $60K, which encompasses poor workers and most middle class workers.
My point with coal and oil is that Democrats have a long record of hostility to these industries, which naturally leads to the industries being hostile to them. Not sure what’s complicated about that. If the industries were indeed dying due to market forces, then smart politics would dictate just letting that happen, rather than making damn sure they die. Energy markets can turn on a dime.
What actual policies are there?
Put that in the Democratic Party Platform and you absolutely won’t have to worry about still being disappointed when the Democrats win.
I’m not sure Ascenray realizes that he’s calling for an end to the Constitutional order.
You’re a century and a half late on that.
I thing the Democratic aim should be an effort to find people pushed out of work by the decline of fossil fuels training for other employment.
If you’re referring to the Civil War, that did not turn states into mere administrative districts of the federal government. As the lack of Medicaid expansion proves.
Sigh. Supremacy Clause. Commerce Clause. Been over this with ya many times, without effect.
Yes, there are many people still waving the modern flag of slavery and Jim Crow, now called States’ Rights, and Roberts’ use of the concept as a sop to keep some righty cred in his Obamacare decision is an example of it. To claim it as a fundamental principle is not as factual as a party-firster like you would like, however.
It’s difficult, but not impossible. Our country voted for women’s suffrage, even though that means men’s relative power was cut in half!
Article V of the Constitution reads:
What if we passed an amendment declaring that the Senate is a ceremonial advisory body with no real legislative power? That way, every state still has equal representation in the Senate. Problem solved!
I note that article V doesn’t protect itself - if the government was hell-bent on eradicating the Senate, they could simply amend away the part of the constitution that says they can’t do so.
It’s a mistake to think that women couldn’t vote in the US before the 19th amendment was passed. Voting is largely controlled by the states, so states didn’t need permission from the feds in order to allow women to vote. Women could vote in many states before passage, but also a good deal of the men expected women to vote as they did, thus adding to their power.
Supremacy Clause applies to valid federal laws. It does not apply to say, forcing states to expand Medicaid.
Well, if you guys want to jump on board the “states are just federal administrative districts” bandwagon, that’s fine by me. Let’s have TWO out of the mainstream parties.
Slaves did not get 3/5 of a vote in those days. They just didn’t vote at all. They did give their states more representatives in the House, but those representatives weren’t theirs, but representatives of the ruling class in those states.
adaher, who are these states you speak of?
The Supreme Court would interpret that part of the Constitution as unchangeable without abrogating the entire document. However, there is one path. It says “without its consent”, so presumably you could alter or abolish the Senate with unanimous, 50-state ratification. You could perhaps rule that 37 states can ratify it, but any states that don’t would have to have the option of leaving the Union. The Senate is the most critical part of the contract between the states and the federal government. If you get rid of it, you’ve essentially ripped up the contract. Unless of course we unanimously agree that we don’t need the Senate anymore.