Not true, actually. That’s what’s been sold for the last Og-knows-how-many years, but in reality, people have always changed jobs. Not one of my grandparents, great-uncles, parents or uncles worked at a single job or even at a single place (if you go one generation higher, you get one person who didn’t change place of employment but did change positions: from scion to lord). And people don’t change jobs due to disloyalty, they change jobs either because they’ve gotten fired, because the time-limited job is over or because they’ve gotten a better offer - same reasons people have been changing jobs since time immemorial, for anybody who wasn’t a serf or a slave.
“Loyalty to employers,” in early to mid-20th century Texas, can usually be translated as “they murdered all the union organizers a long time ago.” The article you cite, a bizarre attempt to drag the ignorant, violence-prone, bigoted ignoramus Jackson to some higher plateau of respectability through nonsensical megasyllabic casuistry, is a good example of anhistorical false equivalence, of which we’ve all had too much, but nothing else.
The historical parallels are kind of obvious. “Reaching out” to ignorant bigots doesn’t do much except to allow them just enough light in their damp basement to regrow the malignancy they wanted all along.
Protestant white males have often been the most malleable and easily-led shock troops for the worst racist and undemocratic movements in almost any place where they’ve been recorded.
Ah, the era of strong unions, and employers who were loyal to their employees.
Unfortunately, that all changed based on the conservative principles of union busting and maximizing shareholder profit.
Alright, that’s really long, and I did a quick quick skim skim to see if there were any latch points that I could get a TL;DR on it, but it is really just a big wall of text. I may try banging my head against it later tonight, but for now…
Any excerpts that you feel are indicative of what you are saying here? Any TL;DR you would like to offer?
I don’t think that democrats dismiss them as ignorant or close minded. In these conversations about politics and policy, I do say that the problem with them is that they are ignorant, but the reason for that is because I am searching for ways to break through, and end that ignorance. Unfortunately, their close mindedness makes that hard.
To take rhetoric that we use in these discussion on this board, and complain that it would not be well received by the population that we are discussing does not raise any concerns with me. I am not talking to them now. I am not trying to reach out to them. We are in the pit, even, and we are complaining about them.
But, that is exactly the sot of thing that they do. Someone will say, “Hey that guy on that message board thinks that you are ignorant and close minded.” and they will take offense to that, and will vow to never support a democrat. Or Hillary will say that racists are deplorable, and suddenly, everyone starts saying that Hillary said that all republicans are deplorable, and that is the message that gets more resonance.
Hillary said that she wanted to provide job training and education to the coal miners who were being put out of work, and the message that they took from that was that she was going to put them out of work.
There really is no way to reach someone who doesn’t want to be reached.
Nope. Nothing thete to show that stance is not deplorable. There is no excuse today to be ill-informed. On top of that, there is Trump for all he obviously is.
Deplorable is as deplorable does.
As long as we hold that line, we hold a line that there is no forgiveness or possibility of redemption for someone who was fooled into voting for trump. As long as there is no possibility of forgiveness, there is no motive for repentance, and they have no reason to ever change their minds.
It is hard enough to reach them, even harder to convince them, but if we tell them that no matter how they change, we will never accept them, then no outreach will be effective.
We need to be willing to forgive, and forgive graciously, anyone who is willing to acknowledge their error, so long as they, as their penance, promise to vote against Trump in the future. As a bonus, they could vote “D”, but that’s not likely to go over well, as they still, for some reason, think that the party of union busting and maximizing shareholder profit is looking out for the guy who wants a lifelong job that will support his family.
I mean, seriously, if you read bump’s post, and if you managed to read any of his link, then you will see that these people are gullible, and are easily fooled by populist rhetoric. They seem to have a problem with the democratic party that it didn’t do enough to protect them from the republican policies that they support. That sort of cognitive dissonance cannot be solved easily, but you also cannot hold someone accountable for things that are beyond their capability of comprehending.
Baby steps.
WTF are you talking about? Texas isn’t known as a strong labor union kind of place, but it’s not entirely devoid of them either. My grandfather for example, was a dues-paying union member for his entire career, which after his military service in WWII was with one company in one town for something like 35 years. Unions aren’t uncommon at all in heavy industry- oil, manufacturing, etc… Where they aren’t super common is in more everyday jobs- it’s unlikely to find unionized construction workers or service workers, for example.
The article doesn’t glamorize Andrew Jackson at all- it barely even mentions him, except in pointing out that the sort of political/social strain of his in American society is alive and well, and then going on to define it, and its effects on American foreign policy.
Put broadly, it roughly describes American foreign policy of the 20th century and how it’s a little perplexing from the outside. It then goes on to describe the Jacksonian tradition in the context of the other “currents” of American political life which he names after famous politicians- Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian and Wilsonian.
Probably the most telling point in the article is the notion of the “folk community” and the stark distinction drawn by Jacksonians as to whether you’re inside or outside. Basically the contention is that if you’re within this community, you get the benefits, and outside the community is a howling wilderness. This community sort of grows or shrinks with respect to the topic at hand- in terms of foreign policy, the community is defined at a national level, but in internal politics, it’s defined more in terms of background, income and yes, race. The article describes very clearly where the “Us-vs-Them” mentality comes from. In particular, a lot of this derives from ancient Scots-Irish traditions evolved in the Scottish borders where there was constant low level warfare and this sort of attitude meant survival. These people’s descendants immigrated to America, and found that the attitudes held true on the frontier vs. hostile Native Americans and others. So they’ve carried forward to the present day.
Another point is the fiercely individualistic streak within the community- everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and collectivist/socialist leanings are severely discouraged.
If you read the article and comprehend it, and think about all sorts of stuff like say the BLM stuff and the opposition to it, the support of Trump & the GOP, and even anti-vaccination nuts, it ALL ties back to this Jacksonian folk tradition.
I’m not so sure it’s gullibility on their part; it’s more of a feeling that they’re right, and that the ways of the past are still valid, and to hell with anyone who would tell them what to think or that they’re wrong.
nm
It is perplexing from the outside because it is wrong, and we are perplexed as to why people would follow a political philosophy that is so wrong.
May have been more appropriate when we had to struggle just to survive, and thinking about your neighbor meant sacrificing yourself, thinking about tomorrow meant not getting through today.
But that is not the world we live in, and using the political philosophies of that world are a mismatch to the one we live in.
I can see how they would be useful when you are trying to conquer and hold land against a hostile native population, but those attitudes should not have carried forward to the present day when we are no longer at war with the natives.
:dubious: So, entitled to their opinion, as long as it is the correct opinion?
Anyway, I suppose that means that if it is winter, and your neighbor’s house burns down, then you should not offer them shelter, as that is a collectivist/socialist idea.
Right, people trying to hold onto a world that has not existed in over a century.
You are right, it’s not just gullibility, it is stubbornness as well. They are holding onto a negative sum game mindset. In a negative sum game, you resent someone getting more than they deserve, because that means that someone (maybe you) gets less than they deserve. In fact, by definition, in a negative sum game, the aggregate is that there is less than is deserved, so no matter how you slice it, someone is getting less than they deserve, and you need to be damned sure that’s not you.
But we don’t live in that world anymore. We live in a positive sum game environment. The cool thing about positive sum game, is that if someone gets more than they deserve, so do you!
Look around you, do you really think that we get what we deserve? Hell no, we are getting far, far, far more than we deserve. We deserve to be scratching out bare survival from the dirt as thousands of generations of our ancestors did. We deserve to be naked, exposed to the elements, and perpetually hungry.
Why do we get more than we deserve? Because other people got more than they deserved. The only way this fails is if it turns into a negative sum game, and the primary way for that to happen is if enough people treat it as a zero sum game.
I’d love to forgive, and forgive graciously these people…except they do not, and at this point it seems will never, acknowledge their error. They have far too much invested in sticking to their guns to ever, ever admit they were wrong and should have voted for Hillary. They would rather see their own children starve to death first. :mad:
Look, I’m not trying to defend them. But I think it’s instructive and worthwhile to understand them, and also worth trying to figure out a way to reach out to them that doesn’t involve telling them they’re wrong, ignorant, benighted or behind the times. All that’ll do is increase our already ridiculous polarization.
And folk norms, mores and attitudes are HARD to get out from under. They’re like religion, except that I suspect that they’re even more pervasive than that- it’s like your instruments are calibrated a certain way and you can’t even see how you’re off from normal.
Great. How do you intend to do the underlined…carefully worded Hallmark cards? English may be the most flexible and innovative language in the history of the world (or maybe not, I dunno) but there’s only so many ways to say something. Eventually, you have call a spade a spade, and there’s only so far you can go without hurting somebody’s feelings.
If these people can’t re-calibrate their instruments to get on the same planet as the rest of us, I can’t generate that much sympathy for them. Sorry.
Once they stop watching Fox news, or reading right wing blogs and memes, then the Democrats have a chance to reach out, but until then they are being constantly programmed that Democrats and liberals are evil and enemies of America that want their families to be killed by illegally immigrating MS-13 members, and they want to abort all of their babies too.
How can you reach out to people that are willingly letting themselves be programmed to hate your existence?
Some have, and for those, I say, we should not scorn them for their earlier mistakes. To do so is to prevent others from joining in on their repentance. They don’t even have to “admit” their mistake, just commit to not repeating it.
If they see that we have welcomed the repentant, and showered them with affection, they will be much more inclined to own up to their mistake than if we continue to punish them and refuse to forgive, that’ll make the dig even deeper.
Not saying we are going to get all, or most, or even a decent plurality. But if we get enough, we can prevent Trump from being re-elected, and that is enough.
Can we buy fox news? Would it work if we did, or would they just retreat to further right wind outlets?
When I find these “some” who have, I’ll make a note to keep my interactions scorn-free. Haven’t had the opportunity, so far.
Ooh, maybe that’s what Bezo’s could do with his cash. And then slowly swing it over to rational but still conservative reporting (to forestall someone trying to start up a new version).
Fucking DITTO.
They did articulate something along the lines of “Trump is hurting the wrong people”. Tossed in some “blood and soil” crap too.
Blame Ayn Rand.
Everyone with a college education eventually is exposed to the philosophies of The Bitch. If you have Liberal DNA you are horrified.
If you have Conservative DNA you embrace it enthusiastically and name your son after her. You also use it to justify your greed and your contempt for others who never had the same privileged chances in life that you had.
If you’ve ever tried to “gently educate” a trump voter you wouldn’t be talking like this.