If Barack Obama was Bernie Sanders, you might be on to something. But Obama is not now and never has been a liberal. He is a conservative Democrat, and if I had to pick a modern president on the left-right scale that matches him, I’d go with either Nixon or Clinton. Deep down he might prefer a single payer system, but is pragmatic enough to realize the votes aren’t there. The other items may be on my agenda, but there is no sign that Obama was in favor of any of these other than perhaps the climate change.
“Fuck the coal miners” is bad politics and bad policy. “Let’s have a conversation about the future of energy usage in America, which should include emphasis on shifting away from fossil fuel usage, along with retraining and focus on workers negatively impacted by such shifts” is good policy and could be good politics with the right framing. There’s a difference (hint hint, Bob).
Pretty much George W. Bush’s third term, except for the ( bungled ) health insurance.
Obama followed the Bush-Iraq timetable for withdrawal to the letter.
That would be no. Bungled health insurance? Tell that to the millions that now have it that couldn’t get it before. Perhaps the stock market would have risen anyway, such things happen. But would Bush have been as accepting of gay marriage? Would he have insisted on more tax cuts for the wealthy, blowing up the deficit and sabotaging the economy? Would he have thrown good blood after bad and gone back into Iraq?
Sure, but then his campaign slogan in 2008 about “Change we can believe in” was hardly change. Following up a George W. Bush presidency with a conservative Democrat was hardly “change.”
That’s part of the problem, they insert protections for labor and the environment in trade deals but these are often unenforced, and we know immigration law is poorly enforced, by design. This dishonesty is what inflames people. If the democratic process simply resulted in a more liberal immigration policy, or in free trade, that would be one thing. People would be angry but they’d know they are in the minority. But when politicians pursue one agenda, while inserting clauses into trade deals and immigration reform bills that they have no intention of ever carrying out, as a means of fooling the rubes, that pisses people off. And further, it proves to anti-immigration and anti-free trade activists that they actually represent the majority. Otherwise, why would politicians be scared to openly legislate on those issues? Why the trickery?
This kind of thing exists on pretty much every single issue, from every side. Conservative congressfolks might pretend that a tax cut isn’t inordinately targeted towards the rich, or that an abortion restriction is about the well being of women and not about restricting abortion, or similar. Sure, it’s worth criticizing, but it’s ubiquitous.
The disconnect between immigration rhetoric and action is a huge gulf though. As well as the gulf between the law as written and what is actually done. All Trump has to do to crack down hard on illegal immigration is simply take the leash off ICE. Which it appears he’s done. The law is super tough on immigration, but Presidents have tended to do a lot less than the law allows, even a lot less than the resources they are given. Voters know they have been lied to, and the most recent immigration reform effort would have been no different. Amnesty would be extended to the greatest extent the new law allowed, and enforcement wouldn’t have been improved at all.
Really, there are a few separate questions here:
[ol]
[li]Is support for strict enforcement of immigration laws inherently racist?[/li]I’d say no. Perhaps unrealistic, perhaps not very compassionate, but not inherently racist.
[li]In practice, are many of the strongest supporters of these policies motivated by racism?[/li]I’d say yes. There’s a difference between believing, in principle, that people should follow immigration law, vs. seeing this as one of the most pressing issues facing our country. I think many people have legitimate grievances about declining economic opportunity for them, which leads to a feeling that they aren’t getting their fair share. But racism comes into play when this turns into blaming this on other (non-white) people getting more than their fair share – instead of looking at the real causes like increasing automation.
[li]If so, would it nevertheless be smarter politically for the Democrats to not call them out on that racism?[/li]Maybe, but I’m not sure it would do much good. If the Democrats aren’t going to actually support harsh measures on immigration, then they aren’t going to win over the immigration hardliners just by softening their rhetoric. If the roots of that racism are the loss of economic opportunity, they should focus on attacking that problem, not pretending there’s any legitimacy to blaming it on Mexican immigrants. Plus, there’s something to be said for being honest, especially on issues like racism where too often people are willing to pretend it doesn’t exist rather than risk making white people uncomfortable.
[li]If they didn’t, would that have made any difference in the election?[/li]People on the right, apparently not wanting the blame for Trump, seem to love repeating this. But I think it’s absurd. The reason people voted for Trump wasn’t that the Democrats hurt their feelings. Trump channeled an anger that a portion of the populace was feeling, much of it legitimate, and a fair bit of it racial resentment that was magnified by their legitimate grievances. And he combined this with the support of ideological conservatives, who were willing to vote for someone they found distasteful in the general election if that was what it took to get the policies they support enacted. None of that changes if the Democrats just scrupulously avoid the “r-word”.
[li]If these folks are racist, does that justify ignoring their legitimate (non-racist) concerns?[/li]No. Everyone in America deserves the chance to work and make a decent life for themselves, regardless of their prejudices. The concerns about lost economic opportunity deserve to be taken seriously. That doesn’t mean we should be more concerned about them than other disadvantaged groups. But it’s not an either-or choice. Doing something for the coal miners doesn’t mean we have to stop worrying about racist policing, or the lack of availability of low-income housing, or discrimination against transgender people, or any other issue. It’s also fair to note that white privilege, while real and pervasive, isn’t the only privilege. My parents were lawyers, and my grandfather was a doctor. If my dad and my granddad had been coal miners or assembly-line workers, and that was the life I’d grown up expecting and preparing for, I’d be in bad shape right now. That’s not fair, and we shouldn’t pretend it is.[/ol]
Racism as a political force gains strength when people are suffering economically, and looking for someone to blame. So that’s an argument for working hard to make sure people aren’t left behind by the changing economy. But the way to fight racism is not, and has never been, to avoid talking about racism.
But now that the leash is off all we are going to get is an increase in the low hanging fruit catches. Instead of hunting down criminal illegal immigrants, ICE can just raid the Home Depot parking lot. As they say, there’s only so many seats on the bus. Every illegal carpenter on the bus means one less spot for those illegal immigrant rapists Trump was so worried about. Maybe I’m wrong but I’ll believe Trump is cracking down harder when I see some numbers.
This is basically the far left view. These people will find answers to their problems somewhere. If liberals aren’t interested in talking to them then they’ll happily get it from insane radio shows spinning conspiracy theories and blaming immigrants.
This would be the spun to be the same thing. This is America, not some academic lecture hall.
Is this factual? Googling shows me that coal mining jobs plummeted dramatically during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Employment rose since 2000, with productivity falling.
So, all those poor Republican voters are too damn stupid to understand reality? Appeal to their racism & toss in a few unfounded claims about making jobs magically appear & they’ll keep voting for the party of the rich guys.
How insulting. How elitist.