Yeah, you want some full-throated support from "the base"? You want us out there campaigning and working our asses off? Stop throwing the base under the bus whenever convenient, motherfuckers. Get your fucking caucus together in the House and Senate and get them to stop being the GOPs bitch on every damn issue. Grow a pair and act like you want to win and enact the platform that you keep putting forward. And you sure as FUCK don't tell me to be satisfied with half steps when you assholes could be pushing harder.
And you sure as FUCK don't tell me to be satisfied with half steps when you assholes could be pushing harder.
Or Christ, even if I am willing to be satisfied with a fairly decent half-step (my wife has a history of blood clots and hadn't been able to get even catastrophic coverage; an improved patient's bill of rights was a blessing for us), don't expect us to give you full credit just because Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are lying about the size of the step you actually took.
Incidentally, wouldn't this be an awesome time for some testimonial ads and press releases about people who didn't have health care before who were able to, like, hop back onto their parents plans after they couldn't find a job after college that provided coverage? Just as an example?
And you sure as FUCK don't tell me to be satisfied with half steps when you assholes could be pushing harder.
Or Christ, even if I am willing to be satisfied with a fairly decent half-step (my wife has a history of blood clots and hadn't been able to get even catastrophic coverage; an improved patient's bill of rights was a blessing for us), don't expect us to give you full credit just because Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are lying about the size of the step you actually took.
Incidentally, wouldn't this be an awesome time for some testimonial ads and press releases about people who didn't have health care before who were able to, like, hop back onto their parents plans after they couldn't find a job after college that provided coverage? Just as an example?
Hard to find those examples when they just kicked in last week. I'm like 90% sure Max Baucus wrote that bill to get the least amount of electoral success out of it.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Wealth redistribution rhetoric would certainly work better if we could kill off the idea that social and economic mobility is actually a reality for the majority of Americans. People clinging to the belief that they'll somehow become rich someday influences the wealth redistribution discussion way too much.
That's a tough sell to the average American.
"We want to redistribute wealth because we believe it's clear that you don't have a hope of improving your financial lot on your own"
Not a rousing campaign slogan.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Wealth redistribution rhetoric would certainly work better if we could kill off the idea that social and economic mobility is actually a reality for the majority of Americans. People clinging to the belief that they'll somehow become rich someday influences the wealth redistribution discussion way too much.
That's a tough sell to the average American.
"We want to redistribute wealth because we believe it's clear that you don't have a hope of improving your financial lot on your own"
Not a rousing campaign slogan.
To be sure, which is why we would like to package it as: "The poor and middle class are getting fucked by the rich, vote for us and we'll stop it".
Wealth redistribution rhetoric would certainly work better if we could kill off the idea that social and economic mobility is actually a reality for the majority of Americans. People clinging to the belief that they'll somehow become rich someday influences the wealth redistribution discussion way too much.
That's a tough sell to the average American.
"We want to redistribute wealth because we believe it's clear that you don't have a hope of improving your financial lot on your own"
Not a rousing campaign slogan.
Well, the slogan is more: "We want to put limits on corporate greed so that you have a chance at the American Dream"
EDIT: That is, if the Democrats had vaguely competent messaging types.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Wealth redistribution rhetoric would certainly work better if we could kill off the idea that social and economic mobility is actually a reality for the majority of Americans. People clinging to the belief that they'll somehow become rich someday influences the wealth redistribution discussion way too much.
That's a tough sell to the average American.
"We want to redistribute wealth because we believe it's clear that you don't have a hope of improving your financial lot on your own"
Not a rousing campaign slogan.
Damn, what happened to the blue collar worker, proud of the sweat of his brow?
I didn't know Randolph and Mortimer were what people worked hard to become.
Wealth redistribution rhetoric would certainly work better if we could kill off the idea that social and economic mobility is actually a reality for the majority of Americans. People clinging to the belief that they'll somehow become rich someday influences the wealth redistribution discussion way too much.
That's a tough sell to the average American.
"We want to redistribute wealth because we believe it's clear that you don't have a hope of improving your financial lot on your own"
Not a rousing campaign slogan.
Damn, what happened to the blue collar worker, proud of the sweat of his brow?
I didn't know Randolph and Mortimer were what people worked hard to become.
Wealth redistribution rhetoric would certainly work better if we could kill off the idea that social and economic mobility is actually a reality for the majority of Americans. People clinging to the belief that they'll somehow become rich someday influences the wealth redistribution discussion way too much.
That's a tough sell to the average American.
"We want to redistribute wealth because we believe it's clear that you don't have a hope of improving your financial lot on your own"
Not a rousing campaign slogan.
With as many people bitching about not being able to retire and losing out on the American Dream, I don't see how anyone with a lick of sense doesn't realize that true social and economic mobility has been slipping out of reach for decades. It's not exactly a hard sell to point to the rich and corporations, whose incomes are rising as everyone else's are falling, and say that they're the one's that are causing it.
Wealth redistribution rhetoric would certainly work better if we could kill off the idea that social and economic mobility is actually a reality for the majority of Americans. People clinging to the belief that they'll somehow become rich someday influences the wealth redistribution discussion way too much.
That's a tough sell to the average American.
"We want to redistribute wealth because we believe it's clear that you don't have a hope of improving your financial lot on your own"
Not a rousing campaign slogan.
With as many people bitching about not being able to retire and losing out on the American Dream, I don't see how anyone with a lick of sense doesn't realize that true social and economic mobility has been slipping out of reach for decades. It's not exactly a hard sell to point to the rich and corporations, whose incomes are rising as everyone else's are falling, and say that they're the one's that are causing it.
THe problem is, while that is the logical process, it leaves you having to fight against decades and decades of the Horatio Alger myth, which is really at the heart of American culture in many areas. Republicans can address the concerns of the middle class while not popping their Alger bubble by blaming government and "liberal elites" or distracting them with the boogey man of the day.
Yeah, you want some full-throated support from "the base"? You want us out there campaigning and working our asses off? Stop throwing the base under the bus whenever convenient, motherfuckers. Get your fucking caucus together in the House and Senate and get them to stop being the GOPs bitch on every damn issue. Grow a pair and act like you want to win and enact the platform that you keep putting forward. And you sure as FUCK don't tell me to be satisfied with half steps when you assholes could be pushing harder.
Not only do I think we could have achieved better legislation (because the public would be in favor of it, putting political pressure on electeds) with a competent, fluent, and aggressive articulation of progressive values, but I also think that the base would be more enthused about anything that we did ultimately get just if it were more effectively framed.
Wealth redistribution rhetoric would certainly work better if we could kill off the idea that social and economic mobility is actually a reality for the majority of Americans. People clinging to the belief that they'll somehow become rich someday influences the wealth redistribution discussion way too much.
That's a tough sell to the average American.
"We want to redistribute wealth because we believe it's clear that you don't have a hope of improving your financial lot on your own"
Not a rousing campaign slogan.
Damn, what happened to the blue collar worker, proud of the sweat of his brow?
I didn't know Randolph and Mortimer were what people worked hard to become.
You mean the people that see small towns and suburban/rural lifestyles get mocked? The same people that realize their kids won't get targeted funds for education and give their companies bonus points when they get promoted? The same people that have watched their jobs get farmed out overseas due to globalization? The same people that have been bashed for clinging to guns and god? The same people who are constantly getting ripped off because funding inner city schools is more trendy than funding ones in their areas? The same people who's entire industries have been shuttered? The same people who see their way of life and values shat on continually? The same people who see tons of aid money get sent off to other countries where helping out puts you in the cool kids category while their own community is a shit hole?
Yeah, those people really don't want to hear anything from the Democrats. They've lost that base. And any sort of "trust us" is going to have all sorts of negative baggage associated with it when they've spent the past several decades taking a giant shit on them at every chance and then mocking them after the fact.
Those people have long since migrated over to the Republicans who also screwed them, but at least kiss their ass instead of mocking them. It's going to take a lot of effort and sustained reversing of all those trends before the Democrats can really expect those people to take them seriously. Because right now government isn't any more of a friend to them than Walt and Mortimer.
And it's that core issue why "trust us we know best" sounds a shit ton worse than "keep your cash business will sort it out". The Republicans know that and are going to bank on it.
The same people who see their way of life and values shat on continually?
What in the fuck are you talking about? "Middle America" is constantly being fellated. By the way, what way of life and values do rural/suburban people have that city folk don't?
The same people who see their way of life and values shat on continually?
What in the fuck are you talking about? "Middle America" is constantly being fellated. By the way, what way of life and values do rural/suburban people have that city folk don't?
The same people who see their way of life and values shat on continually?
What in the fuck are you talking about? "Middle America" is constantly being fellated. By the way, what way of life and values do rural/suburban people have that city folk don't?
Rural people very much have an "I'll do it myself" attitude that city people don't.
They have their own wells, and filter their own water. They have a very different mentality. Suburbs doesn't seem all that different from the city to me, but the suburbs are boringer.
The same people who are constantly getting ripped off because funding inner city schools is more trendy than funding ones in their areas? The same people who see tons of aid money get sent off to other countries where helping out puts you in the cool kids category while their own community is a shit hole?
1: More kids are in inner cities than the sticks. So yeah they might be a bigger focus. But most school funding comes from local taxes, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
2: These are largely people, at least in the context you're talking about, who view social programs as evil.
The same people who see their way of life and values shat on continually?
What in the fuck are you talking about? "Middle America" is constantly being fellated. By the way, what way of life and values do rural/suburban people have that city folk don't?
Rural people very much have an "I'll do it myself" attitude that city people don't.
I really don't think this is as true as you think it is.
The same people who see their way of life and values shat on continually?
What in the fuck are you talking about? "Middle America" is constantly being fellated. By the way, what way of life and values do rural/suburban people have that city folk don't?
Rural people very much have an "I'll do it myself" attitude that city people don't.
They have their own wells, and filter their own water. They have a very different mentality. Suburbs doesn't seem all that different from the city to me, but the suburbs are boringer.
I'm currently living in a rural area, and we do have our own well, fortunately, because that's the only way we can get water. There is no pipeline running out here. I much prefer the city myself, but I never claim that it's objectively superior, unlike plenty of politicians idolizing the country life.
The same people who see their way of life and values shat on continually?
What in the fuck are you talking about? "Middle America" is constantly being fellated. By the way, what way of life and values do rural/suburban people have that city folk don't?
Rural people very much have an "I'll do it myself" attitude that city people don't.
I really don't think this is as true as you think it is.
It isn't.
At least it isn't once you get past their idealized self image.
You guys can say what you will about Republican PR people at Fox framing debates in their favor, but Republicans still lack a real leader. Obama, Hillary too if she had won the primary, are easily seen as leaders. Hillary does seem to have a good amount of charisma actually. You know who the Republicans have? Palin has charisma, but she's completely incomprehensible. Romney looks the part, but he's John Kerryesque in terms of personality. The interpretative dance group showing Romney's emotions would be the robot. Giuliani exudes extremely little gravitas as a result of appealing to the base of Republicans that are most likely to be alienated by everything but his stance on security. Bobby Jindal comes off as Mr. Rodgers.
It's just bad to worse. As long as there's no political leader in the GOP to harness the PR blitz effectively, I don't see how the GOP will be a threat to retaking majority. When the GOP wins, they have somebody leading the charge.
Regan, Newt, and George W. all pretty much delivered on that front though George W. began to implode as the wars dragged and shit started hitting the fan. 9/11 bailed him out something fierce as well.
I don't think most republicans even know the names Boehner, Cantor, or McConnell compared to names like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck.
Webb has a good article on these people. And in the instance of this thread it's why they aren't voting Democratic and why the Democrats arguments are failing to reach them.
Webb has a good article on these people. And in the instance of this thread it's why they aren't voting Democratic and why the Democrats arguments are failing to reach them.
Democrats have kind of gotten smarter about this in recent years. The "three G's" (guns, gays and God) were killing them in rural parts of the country, as well as many suburbs.
You'll notice that expanded gun control is nowhere on the Democratic agenda, support for pushing foward gay rights only gets lukewarm support, and the Dems give lip service to the whole "Christian nation" thing.
That's how Democrats are finding themselves being able to win elections in places like Virginia.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I think the dems have gone into "don't do or say anything that might be the least bit controversial with anyone because it is close to elections time" mode.
We suck at politicking.
Edit: You win elections by getting people fired up about the awesome things you can do not by sitting on your hands and hoping you don't piss people off.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Webb has a good article on these people. And in the instance of this thread it's why they aren't voting Democratic and why the Democrats arguments are failing to reach them.
No actually, this is a terrible article from 1995 hand-wringing over affirmative action and the perceived plight of the poor white man without providing any sources for most of its claims, except this one:
Family income among white cultures in the NORC study varied by almost $5,000 dollars, from the Jewish high of $13,340 to the Baptist low of $8,693. By comparison, in the 1970 census the variance in family income between whites taken as a whole and blacks was only $3,600. In addition, white Baptists averaged only 10.7 years of education, which was almost four years less than American Jews and at the same level of black Americans in 1970.
which shows that in 1970 blacks were making roughly $1000 less than whites with the same education, if you assume that the average white income was in the middle of the $13,340 high to the $8,693 low, and thus that author really shouldn't be bitching about how whites have it SO BAD.
Oh, and this:
He sees cultural rites buttressed by centuries of tradition - particularly the right to use firearms and pass that skill to future generations - attacked because many who make the laws do not understand the difference between his way of life and that of criminals who are blowing people away on the streets of urban America.
You guys can say what you will about Republican PR people at Fox framing debates in their favor, but Republicans still lack a real leader. Obama, Hillary too if she had won the primary, are easily seen as leaders. Hillary does seem to have a good amount of charisma actually. You know who the Republicans have? Palin has charisma, but she's completely incomprehensible. Romney looks the part, but he's John Kerryesque in terms of personality. The interpretative dance group showing Romney's emotions would be the robot. Giuliani exudes extremely little gravitas as a result of appealing to the base of Republicans that are most likely to be alienated by everything but his stance on security. Bobby Jindal comes off as Mr. Rodgers.
It's just bad to worse. As long as there's no political leader in the GOP to harness the PR blitz effectively, I don't see how the GOP will be a threat to retaking majority. When the GOP wins, they have somebody leading the charge.
Regan, Newt, and George W. all pretty much delivered on that front though George W. began to implode as the wars dragged and shit started hitting the fan. 9/11 bailed him out something fierce as well.
I don't think most republicans even know the names Boehner, Cantor, or McConnell compared to names like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck.
There is a certain general who could quickly retire and then go on the attack against Obama about costing us the war in Afghanistan who is popular. He also isn't bat shit insane. It's not 2012 yet.
The same people who see their way of life and values shat on continually?
What in the fuck are you talking about? "Middle America" is constantly being fellated. By the way, what way of life and values do rural/suburban people have that city folk don't?
Rural people very much have an "I'll do it myself" attitude that city people don't.
They have their own wells, and filter their own water.
They also have agricultural subsidies, electricity, and a whole heap of infrastructure thanks to the tax payers who don't live in Bumfuck, Nowhere.
The same people who see their way of life and values shat on continually?
What in the fuck are you talking about? "Middle America" is constantly being fellated. By the way, what way of life and values do rural/suburban people have that city folk don't?
Rural people very much have an "I'll do it myself" attitude that city people don't.
They have their own wells, and filter their own water.
They also have agricultural subsidies, electricity, and a whole heap of infrastructure thanks to the tax payers who don't live in Bumfuck, Nowhere.
Urban areas basically subsidize the cost of hideously inefficient modern living in rural areas.
You mean the people that see small towns and suburban/rural lifestyles get mocked?
Small towns and suburbs don't have a monopoly on blue-collar life. In fact, suburbs generally include a good deal of white-collar folks -- depending on where you live many are even almost entirely white-collar. I guess it depends on what you call a suburb and a small town, but whatever. Oh, and don't close to 80% of Americans live in cities at this point?
The same people that realize their kids won't get targeted funds for education and give their companies bonus points when they get promoted?
It's important here to separate out small city and suburban from rural here, because the first two categories tend to do just fine as far as public education goes. And as for rural schools, they actually do often get targeted funds, especially if those funds are set up for underachieving schools in general (i.e. based on outcome metrics, which most funding bills that have been supported by Dems for years are). And they don't tend to be quite as bad as inner city schools anyway.
Realistically, if you remove black and hispanic students from national and statewide education statistics, our "education problem" mostly disappears. The reality is that, more than anyone else, those inner city kids are getting screwed. But, yes, you're right -- rural poverty, like all poverty, is also bad and should be addressed. However I don't really understand what sort of America you're envisioning that has this huge swath of rural Americans that make up the bulk of the blue-collar workforce or the GOP. And I also think you're subtly lumping in suburban and city-dwelling (but not large, coastal city-dwelling) people in here and that's disingenuous.
The same people that have watched their jobs get farmed out overseas due to globalization?
How is that a Democratic thing? Last time I checked, we were the pro-union party, and the Republicans were the ones eager to push free-trade reforms and deregulation.
The same people that have been bashed for clinging to guns and god? The same people who are constantly getting ripped off because funding inner city schools is more trendy than funding ones in their areas?
Again, most statewide and national funds are targeted at low-performing schools. Those tend to be inner-city schools, because poor minority students have worse outcomes than any other group, including rural students (who tend to do alright on tests, though have trouble matriculating to college, and obtaining degrees). "Ripped-off" is pretty loaded, too. I mean what you're basically saying is dog-whistle stuff for (and this is what they believe themselves, so you're not wrong in characterizing them this way) "fuck the n*****s, I want my share of the pie."
I think this forum has already gone over many times how red states receive substantially more federal funds relative to their federal income contributions than blue states anyway, so your statement is also hyperbolic.
The same people who's entire industries have been shuttered?
Actually this isn't a rural issue, this is a city-issue, mainly in the industrial Midwest. Oh, and those people vote for Democrats still. Active and retired union members are still reliably Democratic, to the point where union voters over 65 went for Obama in 2008 (the over 65 demographic overall was his worst group). Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Republicans fight for trade reforms and union busting policies that accelerated that decline of those industries?
The same people who see their way of life and values shat on continually?
By whom? I have a feeling more often they spend their time being told by conservative pundits that their values and way of life are being shat on than it actually happens. And meanwhile Republicans pass legislation that hurts all poor people, including the rural poor and the white poor (which is really what this whole post is about right? That poor whites don't like Democrats because they give the darkies too much money? I should remind you that poor whites outside of the South still vote Democrat. Being poor is more important than race, apparently)
The same people who see tons of aid money get sent off to other countries where helping out puts you in the cool kids category while their own community is a shit hole?
Haha, foreign aid makes up a miniscule portion of the budget -- way less than poor and rural whites get from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP...hmmm, those are all Democratic bills, right?
Yeah, those people really don't want to hear anything from the Democrats. They've lost that base.
Not according to the way they actually vote (see above)! Also, again, this is really only true of rural whites, who are solidly Republican. Suburban whites are swing voters, and urban whites tend to skew to the Ds.
And any sort of "trust us" is going to have all sorts of negative baggage associated with it when they've spent the past several decades taking a giant shit on them at every chance and then mocking them after the fact.
Again, given that Democratic policies have mostly been beneficial to all working people and poor people, and whereas Republican policies have been mostly shitty to all poor people and working people, I'm not sure how this makes sense. I mean, if you play up culture war bullshit, I guess. This is certainly the sort of stuff O'Reilley and Beck say all the time, but it's not really true from a standpoint of receiving actual funds and helpful legislation.
Those people have long since migrated over to the Republicans who also screwed them, but at least kiss their ass instead of mocking them.
Screwed them much harder, really. And I think you've got your timeline on all of this backwards -- this whole post is pretty much race dog-whistling, which is accurate in the sense that that's how the GOP got poor and rural whites in the first place (who indeed used to be hardcore Democrats). We already saw the classic Lee Atwater quote earlier in the thread.
I think a more accurate assessment would be that Democrats were pursuing legislation that was beneficial to all poor and working people, but did pay special attention to the urban poor because their conditions were noticeably worse and there's something to be said for trying to prevent our major cities from becoming post-apocalyptic despairing ghettos.
But that was OK until the CRA, when rural and Southern poor whites said "fuck the n***** lovers" and started voting for the policies that ultimately screwed them economically. They destroyed their own way of life out of a bullshit us-vs-them mentality that said they'd rather have no government at all than one that gave money to black people. And you know what? If it only affected them, I would say they fuckin' deserved it.
It's going to take a lot of effort and sustained reversing of all those trends before the Democrats can really expect those people to take them seriously. Because right now government isn't any more of a friend to them than Walt and Mortimer.
Actually it is. See above social programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc), stimulus spending on rural broadband penetration, etc. Oh, and again the issue of the fact that Republican policies hurt all the poor, regardless of race (but hurt poor minorities slightly worse).
And it's that core issue why "trust us we know best" sounds a shit ton worse than "keep your cash business will sort it out". The Republicans know that and are going to bank on it.
But "trust us we know best" is the Republican way of framing the issue, and has no inherent objective basis. "Here let me help you stick it to the rich CEO who isn't paying you enough" is an equally valid framework.
edit: oh yeah I forgot massive agricultural subsidies
The same people who see tons of aid money get sent off to other countries where helping out puts you in the cool kids category while their own community is a shit hole?
I didn't notice this until fartacular quoted it, but nstf I feel like this comes up at some point in every political thread you're in. You rage against people who volunteer/try to change the world/etc and how you think society considers them cooler than you.
Why are you so mad that trying to help other people is considered a good thing by society? It's not like when people give a shit about something they only have so much shit-to-give and can't care about anything else.
One of the healthy things about the Democratic Party is that it is diverse and opinionated. We have big arguments within the party because we got a big tent, and that tent grew during my election and in the midterm election previously. So making everybody happy within the Democratic Party is always going to be tough.
Some of it, also, has to do with — and I joke about it — that there's a turn of mind among Democrats and progressives where a lot of times we see the glass as half-empty. It's like, "Well, gosh, we've got this historic health care legislation that we've been trying to get for 100 years, but it didn't have every bell and whistle that we wanted right now, so let's focus on what we didn't get instead of what we got." That self-critical element of the progressive mind is probably a healthy thing, but it can also be debilitating.
When I talk to Democrats around the country, I tell them, "Guys, wake up here. We have accomplished an incredible amount in the most adverse circumstances imaginable." I came in and had to prevent a Great Depression, restore the financial system so that it functions, and manage two wars. In the midst of all that, I ended one of those wars, at least in terms of combat operations. We passed historic health care legislation, historic financial regulatory reform and a huge number of legislative victories that people don't even notice. We wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks and middlemen through the student-loan program, and now we have tens of billions of dollars that are going directly to students to help them pay for college. We expanded national service more than we ever have before.
The Recovery Act alone represented the largest investment in research and development in our history, the largest investment in infrastructure since Dwight Eisenhower, the largest investment in education — and that was combined, by the way, with the kind of education reform that we hadn't seen in this country in 30 years — and the largest investment in clean energy in our history.
You look at all this, and you say, "Folks, that's what you elected me to do." I keep in my pocket a checklist of the promises I made during the campaign, and here I am, halfway through my first term, and we've probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we said we were going to do — and by the way, I've got two years left to finish the rest of the list, at minimum. So I think that it is very important for Democrats to take pride in what we've accomplished.
All that has taken place against a backdrop in which, because of the financial crisis, we've seen an increase in poverty, and an increase in unemployment, and people's wages and incomes have stagnated. So it's not surprising that a lot of folks out there don't feel like these victories have had an impact. What is also true is our two biggest pieces of legislation, health care and financial regulatory reform, won't take effect right away, so ordinary folks won't see the impact of a lot of these things for another couple of years. It is very important for progressives to understand that just on the domestic side, we've accomplished a huge amount.
When you look at what we've been able to do internationally — resetting our relations with Russia and potentially having a new START treaty by the end of the year, reinvigorating the Middle East peace talks, ending the combat mission in Iraq, promoting a G-20 structure that has drained away a lot of the sense of north versus south, east versus west, so that now the whole world looks to America for leadership, and changing world opinion in terms of how we operate on issues like human rights and torture around the world — all those things have had an impact as well.
What is true, and this is part of what can frustrate folks, is that over the past 20 months, we made a series of decisions that were focused on governance, and sometimes there was a conflict between governance and politics. So there were some areas where we could have picked a fight with Republicans that might have gotten our base feeling good, but would have resulted in us not getting legislation done.
I could have had a knock-down, drag-out fight on the public option that might have energized you and The Huffington Post, and we would not have health care legislation now. I could have taken certain positions on aspects of the financial regulatory bill, where we got 90 percent of what we set out to get, and I could have held out for that last 10 percent, and we wouldn't have a bill. You've got to make a set of decisions in terms of "What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to just keep everybody ginned up for the next election, or at some point do you try to win elections because you're actually trying to govern?" I made a decision early on in my presidency that if I had an opportunity to do things that would make a difference for years to come, I'm going to go ahead and take it.
I just made the announcement about Elizabeth Warren setting up our Consumer Finance Protection Bureau out in the Rose Garden, right before you came in. Here's an agency that has the potential to save consumers billions of dollars over the next 20 to 30 years — simple stuff like making sure that folks don't jack up your credit cards without you knowing about it, making sure that mortgage companies don't steer you to higher-rate mortgages because they're getting a kickback, making sure that payday loans aren't preying on poor people in ways that these folks don't understand. And you know what? That's what we say we stand for as progressives. If we can't take pleasure and satisfaction in concretely helping middle-class families and working-class families save money, get a college education, get health care — if that's not what we're about, then we shouldn't be in the business of politics. Then we're no better than the other side, because all we're thinking about is whether or not we're in power.
shryke on
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Christ, they still don't seem to understand that the problem with the Health Care legislative process wasn't that they compromised, but that they compromised before they ever started negotiations and then compromised down from the original compromise position. What kind of shitty negotiator starts off the negotiations by conceding their position without requiring a similar concession from the other side? Democratic negotiators.
Posts
Or Christ, even if I am willing to be satisfied with a fairly decent half-step (my wife has a history of blood clots and hadn't been able to get even catastrophic coverage; an improved patient's bill of rights was a blessing for us), don't expect us to give you full credit just because Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are lying about the size of the step you actually took.
Incidentally, wouldn't this be an awesome time for some testimonial ads and press releases about people who didn't have health care before who were able to, like, hop back onto their parents plans after they couldn't find a job after college that provided coverage? Just as an example?
Hard to find those examples when they just kicked in last week. I'm like 90% sure Max Baucus wrote that bill to get the least amount of electoral success out of it.
"We want to redistribute wealth because we believe it's clear that you don't have a hope of improving your financial lot on your own"
Not a rousing campaign slogan.
Rigorous Scholarship
To be sure, which is why we would like to package it as: "The poor and middle class are getting fucked by the rich, vote for us and we'll stop it".
Well, the slogan is more: "We want to put limits on corporate greed so that you have a chance at the American Dream"
EDIT: That is, if the Democrats had vaguely competent messaging types.
Damn, what happened to the blue collar worker, proud of the sweat of his brow?
I didn't know Randolph and Mortimer were what people worked hard to become.
Not sure what you're saying.
With as many people bitching about not being able to retire and losing out on the American Dream, I don't see how anyone with a lick of sense doesn't realize that true social and economic mobility has been slipping out of reach for decades. It's not exactly a hard sell to point to the rich and corporations, whose incomes are rising as everyone else's are falling, and say that they're the one's that are causing it.
THe problem is, while that is the logical process, it leaves you having to fight against decades and decades of the Horatio Alger myth, which is really at the heart of American culture in many areas. Republicans can address the concerns of the middle class while not popping their Alger bubble by blaming government and "liberal elites" or distracting them with the boogey man of the day.
Not only do I think we could have achieved better legislation (because the public would be in favor of it, putting political pressure on electeds) with a competent, fluent, and aggressive articulation of progressive values, but I also think that the base would be more enthused about anything that we did ultimately get just if it were more effectively framed.
You mean the people that see small towns and suburban/rural lifestyles get mocked? The same people that realize their kids won't get targeted funds for education and give their companies bonus points when they get promoted? The same people that have watched their jobs get farmed out overseas due to globalization? The same people that have been bashed for clinging to guns and god? The same people who are constantly getting ripped off because funding inner city schools is more trendy than funding ones in their areas? The same people who's entire industries have been shuttered? The same people who see their way of life and values shat on continually? The same people who see tons of aid money get sent off to other countries where helping out puts you in the cool kids category while their own community is a shit hole?
Yeah, those people really don't want to hear anything from the Democrats. They've lost that base. And any sort of "trust us" is going to have all sorts of negative baggage associated with it when they've spent the past several decades taking a giant shit on them at every chance and then mocking them after the fact.
Those people have long since migrated over to the Republicans who also screwed them, but at least kiss their ass instead of mocking them. It's going to take a lot of effort and sustained reversing of all those trends before the Democrats can really expect those people to take them seriously. Because right now government isn't any more of a friend to them than Walt and Mortimer.
And it's that core issue why "trust us we know best" sounds a shit ton worse than "keep your cash business will sort it out". The Republicans know that and are going to bank on it.
And why is it inherently a good thing?
On topic, STOP BEING SUCH FUCKING MORONS.
Rural people very much have an "I'll do it myself" attitude that city people don't.
They have their own wells, and filter their own water. They have a very different mentality. Suburbs doesn't seem all that different from the city to me, but the suburbs are boringer.
1: More kids are in inner cities than the sticks. So yeah they might be a bigger focus. But most school funding comes from local taxes, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
2: These are largely people, at least in the context you're talking about, who view social programs as evil.
I really don't think this is as true as you think it is.
I'm currently living in a rural area, and we do have our own well, fortunately, because that's the only way we can get water. There is no pipeline running out here. I much prefer the city myself, but I never claim that it's objectively superior, unlike plenty of politicians idolizing the country life.
It isn't.
At least it isn't once you get past their idealized self image.
It's just bad to worse. As long as there's no political leader in the GOP to harness the PR blitz effectively, I don't see how the GOP will be a threat to retaking majority. When the GOP wins, they have somebody leading the charge.
Regan, Newt, and George W. all pretty much delivered on that front though George W. began to implode as the wars dragged and shit started hitting the fan. 9/11 bailed him out something fierce as well.
I don't think most republicans even know the names Boehner, Cantor, or McConnell compared to names like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
Webb has a good article on these people. And in the instance of this thread it's why they aren't voting Democratic and why the Democrats arguments are failing to reach them.
I think you mean:
You'll notice that expanded gun control is nowhere on the Democratic agenda, support for pushing foward gay rights only gets lukewarm support, and the Dems give lip service to the whole "Christian nation" thing.
That's how Democrats are finding themselves being able to win elections in places like Virginia.
Rigorous Scholarship
I think the dems have gone into "don't do or say anything that might be the least bit controversial with anyone because it is close to elections time" mode.
We suck at politicking.
Edit: You win elections by getting people fired up about the awesome things you can do not by sitting on your hands and hoping you don't piss people off.
No actually, this is a terrible article from 1995 hand-wringing over affirmative action and the perceived plight of the poor white man without providing any sources for most of its claims, except this one:
which shows that in 1970 blacks were making roughly $1000 less than whites with the same education, if you assume that the average white income was in the middle of the $13,340 high to the $8,693 low, and thus that author really shouldn't be bitching about how whites have it SO BAD.
Oh, and this:
is a laughably racist dogwhistle.
There is a certain general who could quickly retire and then go on the attack against Obama about costing us the war in Afghanistan who is popular. He also isn't bat shit insane. It's not 2012 yet.
They also have agricultural subsidies, electricity, and a whole heap of infrastructure thanks to the tax payers who don't live in Bumfuck, Nowhere.
Urban areas basically subsidize the cost of hideously inefficient modern living in rural areas.
Small towns and suburbs don't have a monopoly on blue-collar life. In fact, suburbs generally include a good deal of white-collar folks -- depending on where you live many are even almost entirely white-collar. I guess it depends on what you call a suburb and a small town, but whatever. Oh, and don't close to 80% of Americans live in cities at this point?
It's important here to separate out small city and suburban from rural here, because the first two categories tend to do just fine as far as public education goes. And as for rural schools, they actually do often get targeted funds, especially if those funds are set up for underachieving schools in general (i.e. based on outcome metrics, which most funding bills that have been supported by Dems for years are). And they don't tend to be quite as bad as inner city schools anyway.
Realistically, if you remove black and hispanic students from national and statewide education statistics, our "education problem" mostly disappears. The reality is that, more than anyone else, those inner city kids are getting screwed. But, yes, you're right -- rural poverty, like all poverty, is also bad and should be addressed. However I don't really understand what sort of America you're envisioning that has this huge swath of rural Americans that make up the bulk of the blue-collar workforce or the GOP. And I also think you're subtly lumping in suburban and city-dwelling (but not large, coastal city-dwelling) people in here and that's disingenuous.
How is that a Democratic thing? Last time I checked, we were the pro-union party, and the Republicans were the ones eager to push free-trade reforms and deregulation.
Again, most statewide and national funds are targeted at low-performing schools. Those tend to be inner-city schools, because poor minority students have worse outcomes than any other group, including rural students (who tend to do alright on tests, though have trouble matriculating to college, and obtaining degrees). "Ripped-off" is pretty loaded, too. I mean what you're basically saying is dog-whistle stuff for (and this is what they believe themselves, so you're not wrong in characterizing them this way) "fuck the n*****s, I want my share of the pie."
I think this forum has already gone over many times how red states receive substantially more federal funds relative to their federal income contributions than blue states anyway, so your statement is also hyperbolic.
Actually this isn't a rural issue, this is a city-issue, mainly in the industrial Midwest. Oh, and those people vote for Democrats still. Active and retired union members are still reliably Democratic, to the point where union voters over 65 went for Obama in 2008 (the over 65 demographic overall was his worst group). Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Republicans fight for trade reforms and union busting policies that accelerated that decline of those industries?
By whom? I have a feeling more often they spend their time being told by conservative pundits that their values and way of life are being shat on than it actually happens. And meanwhile Republicans pass legislation that hurts all poor people, including the rural poor and the white poor (which is really what this whole post is about right? That poor whites don't like Democrats because they give the darkies too much money? I should remind you that poor whites outside of the South still vote Democrat. Being poor is more important than race, apparently)
Haha, foreign aid makes up a miniscule portion of the budget -- way less than poor and rural whites get from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP...hmmm, those are all Democratic bills, right?
Not according to the way they actually vote (see above)! Also, again, this is really only true of rural whites, who are solidly Republican. Suburban whites are swing voters, and urban whites tend to skew to the Ds.
Again, given that Democratic policies have mostly been beneficial to all working people and poor people, and whereas Republican policies have been mostly shitty to all poor people and working people, I'm not sure how this makes sense. I mean, if you play up culture war bullshit, I guess. This is certainly the sort of stuff O'Reilley and Beck say all the time, but it's not really true from a standpoint of receiving actual funds and helpful legislation.
Screwed them much harder, really. And I think you've got your timeline on all of this backwards -- this whole post is pretty much race dog-whistling, which is accurate in the sense that that's how the GOP got poor and rural whites in the first place (who indeed used to be hardcore Democrats). We already saw the classic Lee Atwater quote earlier in the thread.
I think a more accurate assessment would be that Democrats were pursuing legislation that was beneficial to all poor and working people, but did pay special attention to the urban poor because their conditions were noticeably worse and there's something to be said for trying to prevent our major cities from becoming post-apocalyptic despairing ghettos.
But that was OK until the CRA, when rural and Southern poor whites said "fuck the n***** lovers" and started voting for the policies that ultimately screwed them economically. They destroyed their own way of life out of a bullshit us-vs-them mentality that said they'd rather have no government at all than one that gave money to black people. And you know what? If it only affected them, I would say they fuckin' deserved it.
Actually it is. See above social programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc), stimulus spending on rural broadband penetration, etc. Oh, and again the issue of the fact that Republican policies hurt all the poor, regardless of race (but hurt poor minorities slightly worse).
But "trust us we know best" is the Republican way of framing the issue, and has no inherent objective basis. "Here let me help you stick it to the rich CEO who isn't paying you enough" is an equally valid framework.
edit: oh yeah I forgot massive agricultural subsidies
I didn't notice this until fartacular quoted it, but nstf I feel like this comes up at some point in every political thread you're in. You rage against people who volunteer/try to change the world/etc and how you think society considers them cooler than you.
Why are you so mad that trying to help other people is considered a good thing by society? It's not like when people give a shit about something they only have so much shit-to-give and can't care about anything else.
I find it slightly hilarious that the "do it yourself" blue collar states like Alaska are almost always on the positive side of pork barrel spending.
Whereas my state gets like 70 cents to the dollar of it's federal tax money back.
Maybe if the GOP was serious about porkbarrel spending they'd start at home first.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395?RS_show_page=0%3E,
This and we have the least per rider subsidy of our public transportation.
oh, isn't that just so cute
that last line especially
since caring about their jobs above all else is pretty much the one near-universal element of the democrats from where i stand