Perhaps even more consequential than the photograph’s mise en scène is its location. Stone Mountain, is Georgia’s “most renowned historical marker,” as Somini Sengupta points out, and “one that many people would rather not remember.” The modern Ku Klux Klan was born in 1915 at a Stone Mountain rally celebrating President Woodrow Wilson’s White House screening of D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation. Griffith’s movie, often credited as the first feature-length film, is a white supremacist hagiography narrating the Klan’s Reconstruction-era “protection” of white women from the uncontrolled sexual aggressions of free black men. For the next fifty years, Stone Mountain was the site of an annual Labor Day cross-burning ceremony. It is also home to the Confederate Memorial Carving (begun in 1923 but only completed in 1972), a Mt. Rushmore–style grotesquerie that depicts three leaders of the Confederacy: Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis.
It is hard to imagine the DLC would not have been aware of Stone Mountain’s significance as a theater of white supremacy when it staged Clinton’s campaign event at the prison there. In fact, the choice of that particular place as a campaign stop—arranging white political leaders in business suits in front of subjugated black male prisoners in jumpsuits—is illegible except in light of this history. One would be hard-pressed to find a photograph that more forcefully exposes the deep racial paradox of the DLC and the modern Democratic Party. Perhaps this helps to explain why Alexander holds “little hope that a political revolution will occur within the Democratic Party without a sustained outside movement forcing truly transformational change.”
To my knowledge, the party has yet to ever actually grapple with even this only just now thirty-year-old history, let alone repudiate it.
Like this happened when a good deal of us here were in elementary school, it is that recent. The pivotal Democratic President of a generation sought to begin his campaign by literally hosting a reassurance to White America, at the foot of the birthplace of the KKK, that he would keep black folks in line.
Yeah and Clinton happened after the unions mostly bailed. Because racism.
The DLC was determined to make the party more palatable to the white men—especially the Southern white men—the Democratic Party had lost to the GOP after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other political victories won by people of color
Spoilers: A lot of those people were labor. Clinton was the attempt to win them back or find an alternative.
Reagan made headway with unions in his election, but it was a landslide election. It didnt last. Instead we see those numbers start to rebound immediately and then whither as the Democeats embrace a type of class and economic policy that leaves them largely struggling to spesk to the working class.
Another reason the Dems suck: their gerontocratic death grip on power and obsession with seniority as the driving force of their power hierarchy has resulted int utterly, utterly neglecting to actually prep subsequent generations of candidates for executive office
I don’t disagree, but what does it look like to “prep subsequent generations of candidacy for executive office”? What does the capital P Party do to support grass roots new blood?
I guess the Republicans do it well because we have young monsters like Matt Gaetz.
Its cradle to grave. While Dems have some of these programs, thry tend to be smaller where they exist. Republicans have entire pipeline to identify and shepard promising republicans in college, move them into internships, congressional offices etc. Then when they run for office the party makes sure they get air time, it makes sure they get committee seats etc.
I'll bet if we looked back about a decade for any prominent outspoken Young Republican types in junior high or even high school, the kind who got air time on media for being the "face of the younger generation" on the conservative side, we could then look at current date and see a decent number of the same names in Republican political offices if not in actual office. If someone of their ilk looks like an outstanding candidate for the future, even despite their actual age, Republicans find ways to involve them in learning the machine so they can either help support it in years to come or take charge of a portion of it someday if they're especially driven.
That's what truly terrifies me about Republicans vs Democrats. Where Republicans love their younger generations and work to bring them into power with careful education, timing, and experience, Democrats actively ignore and shun the younger generations, forcing them to claim territory through tooth and claw to the point the only way they gain seats of power is by metaphorical force. Even then they're considered usurpers and treated as such with the elders loudly saying the young people are the future of the party while at the same time trying to smother them under a pillow.
That is a supremely disingenuous graph…. But it does imply that Clinton won back the unions… and it was t until trump that we lost them again? so how did he abandon them again?
Yeah and Clinton happened after the unions mostly bailed. Because racism.
The DLC was determined to make the party more palatable to the white men—especially the Southern white men—the Democratic Party had lost to the GOP after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other political victories won by people of color
*This is not to say there is not a history of racism within the history of the union movement. This is to say that the idea being brokered, that the Unions were wholly racist and thus abandoned good, not-racist democrats, serves as (even unintentionally) cover to ignore the racism that the Democratic Party has happily embraced in its efforts to rebuild power
Also that link you posted? not exactly a ringing endorsement.
The endorsement came after the results of a mail survey in which 25,841 of the union's 1.7 million members responded, the union said in a statement. Results of the survey showed 53.6 percent favored Mr. Reagan and 43.6 percent backed his Democratic opponent, Walter F. Mondale, said the teamsters' general president, Jackie Presser. Mr. Presser said the teamsters' 21- member board had voted unanmiously to endorse Mr. Reagan
So… a mail in survey of *two percent* of the union, where just over half supported Reagan, and just under half supported Mondale. You might have an argument in the board’s unanimous vote, but by my memory the relationship between rank and file membership and the board is not always the most amicable one, and that one cannot simply or automatically take the board’s endorsements as the popular will of the rank and file.
And, again you have the issue that this argument construction seeks to create the idea that the unions abandoned the democrats because the unions were racist, thereby inferring the Democrats are, themselves, an anti-racist political entity. Which history proves is absolutely untrue, particularly given that the modern center of power of the party rejected the paradigms of the party that gave us the CRA and VRA, particularly in the throws of its birth.
That is a supremely disingenuous graph…. But it does imply that Clinton won back the unions… and it was t until trump that we lost them again? so how did he abandon them again?
Goum that Downward trend starts in 1996, 20 years before Trump ran for president.*
Below we display exit poll results from every presidential race dating back to Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980.[1] The figure shows the Democratic candidate advantage over the Republican candidate in the union household vote. In Reagan’s first victory, there was hardly any Democratic advantage: In 1980, Reagan managed 45% of the union household vote, compared to 48% for Jimmy Carter (the rest went largely to the 3rd party candidate in that race, John Anderson).
Per the second graph, it doesn't look like deteriorating Democratic strength with union voters necessarily translates into improved votes for the GOP, presumably they just dont vote.
The commonly held belief that the problem in the last like 40 years is that unions just got too racist to vote Dem doesnt seem to have much support in the data.
Per the second graph, it doesn't look like deteriorating Democratic strength with union voters necessarily translates into improved votes for the GOP, presumably they just dont vote.
The commonly held belief that the problem in the last like 40 years is that unions just got too racist to vote Dem doesnt seem to have much support in the data.
On the other hand, pairs well with a lot of reporting I’ve read over the years of people just giving right the fuck up when it comes to electoral participation because they don’t think either party will do anything to improve their lives.
Another reason the Dems suck: their gerontocratic death grip on power and obsession with seniority as the driving force of their power hierarchy has resulted int utterly, utterly neglecting to actually prep subsequent generations of candidates for executive office
I don’t disagree, but what does it look like to “prep subsequent generations of candidacy for executive office”? What does the capital P Party do to support grass roots new blood?
I guess the Republicans do it well because we have young monsters like Matt Gaetz.
Its cradle to grave. While Dems have some of these programs, thry tend to be smaller where they exist. Republicans have entire pipeline to identify and shepard promising republicans in college, move them into internships, congressional offices etc. Then when they run for office the party makes sure they get air time, it makes sure they get committee seats etc.
I'll bet if we looked back about a decade for any prominent outspoken Young Republican types in junior high or even high school, the kind who got air time on media for being the "face of the younger generation" on the conservative side, we could then look at current date and see a decent number of the same names in Republican political offices if not in actual office. If someone of their ilk looks like an outstanding candidate for the future, even despite their actual age, Republicans find ways to involve them in learning the machine so they can either help support it in years to come or take charge of a portion of it someday if they're especially driven.
That's what truly terrifies me about Republicans vs Democrats. Where Republicans love their younger generations and work to bring them into power with careful education, timing, and experience, Democrats actively ignore and shun the younger generations, forcing them to claim territory through tooth and claw to the point the only way they gain seats of power is by metaphorical force. Even then they're considered usurpers and treated as such with the elders loudly saying the young people are the future of the party while at the same time trying to smother them under a pillow.
I don't think this is accurate. There's no McConnell 2.0 waiting in the wings, or anybody he's been raising to carry on his personal fight that has fucked up the judiciary. Paul Ryan's entire EVERYTHING has been chased out. There's nothing left in the Republican party but being loud, hateful, spiteful assholes, and whoever manages to be the loudest, most hateful, most spiteful is not a case of being honed to be that way, but they're in the spotlight BECAUSE they're crazy lunatics. That is all that matters to being a Republican anymore. Whoever gets the most eyes on them and pisses off the most people.
Another reason the Dems suck: their gerontocratic death grip on power and obsession with seniority as the driving force of their power hierarchy has resulted int utterly, utterly neglecting to actually prep subsequent generations of candidates for executive office
I don’t disagree, but what does it look like to “prep subsequent generations of candidacy for executive office”? What does the capital P Party do to support grass roots new blood?
I guess the Republicans do it well because we have young monsters like Matt Gaetz.
Its cradle to grave. While Dems have some of these programs, thry tend to be smaller where they exist. Republicans have entire pipeline to identify and shepard promising republicans in college, move them into internships, congressional offices etc. Then when they run for office the party makes sure they get air time, it makes sure they get committee seats etc.
I'll bet if we looked back about a decade for any prominent outspoken Young Republican types in junior high or even high school, the kind who got air time on media for being the "face of the younger generation" on the conservative side, we could then look at current date and see a decent number of the same names in Republican political offices if not in actual office. If someone of their ilk looks like an outstanding candidate for the future, even despite their actual age, Republicans find ways to involve them in learning the machine so they can either help support it in years to come or take charge of a portion of it someday if they're especially driven.
That's what truly terrifies me about Republicans vs Democrats. Where Republicans love their younger generations and work to bring them into power with careful education, timing, and experience, Democrats actively ignore and shun the younger generations, forcing them to claim territory through tooth and claw to the point the only way they gain seats of power is by metaphorical force. Even then they're considered usurpers and treated as such with the elders loudly saying the young people are the future of the party while at the same time trying to smother them under a pillow.
I don't think this is accurate. There's no McConnell 2.0 waiting in the wings, or anybody he's been raising to carry on his personal fight that has fucked up the judiciary. Paul Ryan's entire EVERYTHING has been chased out. There's nothing left in the Republican party but being loud, hateful, spiteful assholes, and whoever manages to be the loudest, most hateful, most spiteful is not a case of being honed to be that way, but they're in the spotlight BECAUSE they're crazy lunatics. That is all that matters to being a Republican anymore. Whoever gets the most eyes on them and pisses off the most people.
Paul Ryan’s entire everything got chased out because he was an ineffective dipshit when it came to entrenching the NeoConfederate project that is the ultimate goal of post-realignment Republicans.
McCarthy keeps his head down comparatively, and hasn’t yet had the opportunity to wield power in the same way as Ryan, and now they’re cycling in even harder right folks who are like you fucking figured out how to distill years worth of Limbaugh, beck, Hannity and Jones, then figured out how to concentrate that down even further into a perfectly unctuous concoction that drives the Id of the Party forward. A little tincture of a drug made of pure bile, paranoia and undue sense of moral superiority via theocratic madness
Meanwhile, what is it that drives the Id of the Democratic Party? What even is the Id of the Democratic Party?
Lanz on
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Per the second graph, it doesn't look like deteriorating Democratic strength with union voters necessarily translates into improved votes for the GOP, presumably they just dont vote.
The commonly held belief that the problem in the last like 40 years is that unions just got too racist to vote Dem doesnt seem to have much support in the data.
That graph is showing more and more union households are voting Republican, but Reagan was popular. I think the trend is increasing, with a popular president being the anomaly.
Also keep in mind the FOP is part of that. And they would rather be racist than strengthen their union.
Per the second graph, it doesn't look like deteriorating Democratic strength with union voters necessarily translates into improved votes for the GOP, presumably they just dont vote.
The commonly held belief that the problem in the last like 40 years is that unions just got too racist to vote Dem doesnt seem to have much support in the data.
That graph is showing more and more union households are voting Republican, but Reagan was popular. I think the trend is increasing, with a popular president being the anomaly.
Also keep in mind the FOP is part of that. And they would rather be racist than strengthen their union.
Their share is growing, but slowly compared to the rapidly closing gap in the share dems have over the GOP.
My point isnt that uniom voters havent been voting more Republican, they have, but that the common wisdom that Union voters abandoned Dems and not that Dems damaged their power with unions is not what we see in these numbers.
Another reason the Dems suck: their gerontocratic death grip on power and obsession with seniority as the driving force of their power hierarchy has resulted int utterly, utterly neglecting to actually prep subsequent generations of candidates for executive office
I don’t disagree, but what does it look like to “prep subsequent generations of candidacy for executive office”? What does the capital P Party do to support grass roots new blood?
I guess the Republicans do it well because we have young monsters like Matt Gaetz.
Its cradle to grave. While Dems have some of these programs, thry tend to be smaller where they exist. Republicans have entire pipeline to identify and shepard promising republicans in college, move them into internships, congressional offices etc. Then when they run for office the party makes sure they get air time, it makes sure they get committee seats etc.
I'll bet if we looked back about a decade for any prominent outspoken Young Republican types in junior high or even high school, the kind who got air time on media for being the "face of the younger generation" on the conservative side, we could then look at current date and see a decent number of the same names in Republican political offices if not in actual office. If someone of their ilk looks like an outstanding candidate for the future, even despite their actual age, Republicans find ways to involve them in learning the machine so they can either help support it in years to come or take charge of a portion of it someday if they're especially driven.
That's what truly terrifies me about Republicans vs Democrats. Where Republicans love their younger generations and work to bring them into power with careful education, timing, and experience, Democrats actively ignore and shun the younger generations, forcing them to claim territory through tooth and claw to the point the only way they gain seats of power is by metaphorical force. Even then they're considered usurpers and treated as such with the elders loudly saying the young people are the future of the party while at the same time trying to smother them under a pillow.
I don't think this is accurate. There's no McConnell 2.0 waiting in the wings, or anybody he's been raising to carry on his personal fight that has fucked up the judiciary. Paul Ryan's entire EVERYTHING has been chased out. There's nothing left in the Republican party but being loud, hateful, spiteful assholes, and whoever manages to be the loudest, most hateful, most spiteful is not a case of being honed to be that way, but they're in the spotlight BECAUSE they're crazy lunatics. That is all that matters to being a Republican anymore. Whoever gets the most eyes on them and pisses off the most people.
Paul Ryan’s entire everything got chased out because he was an ineffective dipshit when it came to entrenching the NeoConfederate project that is the ultimate goal of post-realignment Republicans.
McCarthy keeps his head down comparatively, and hasn’t yet had the opportunity to wield power in the same way as Ryan, and now they’re cycling in even harder right folks who are like you fucking figured out how to distill years worth of Limbaugh, beck, Hannity and Jones, then figured out how to concentrate that down even further into a perfectly unctuous concoction that drives the Id of the Party forward. A little tincture of a drug made of pure bile, paranoia and undue sense of moral superiority via theocratic madness
Meanwhile, what is it that drives the Id of the Democratic Party? What even is the Id of the Democratic Party?
Under normal circumstances, I would consider the lack of one to be a good thing; that there isn't a singular force driving an entire political party. And Democrats don't have a massive propoganda arm like Fox News that unifies and reinforces one bitter ancient asshole's political views across the entire globe. But as long as Murdoch's bullshit persists, and it's going to for a long time even after he dies, I have to imagine that Republicans are going to be of a single mind, driven by nothing but being loud, hateful jackals.
But this is culture war mistaken for economic policy.
Yes, Volcker successfully tamed inflation. The question is whether there was a better way to do it than setting off a massive recession. At the time, America was dealing with oil shocks, a broken consumer price index, the fallout from funding the Vietnam War, the end of the Bretton Woods system, and a new political enthusiasm for massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Any combination of these factors could have been driving the price spiral.
But Volcker's solution destroyed the American working class for a generation. Unemployment peaked as high or higher than in the Great Recession. Unions, already in decline, went into free fall. Volcker explicitly viewed breaking the power of organized labor as a critical piece of his anti-inflation crusade. "The standard of living of the average American has to decline," Volcker declared shortly after becoming Fed Chair. Trace the modern trends in wage stagnation and inequality, and they lead back to Volcker's recession.
Oh. Oh dear.
*again, not to say that Union history does not have struggles with racism, which is it’s own separate issue that must be tackled properly and not in an attempt to paint the Democrats as Poor Beleaguered Saints
Another reason the Dems suck: their gerontocratic death grip on power and obsession with seniority as the driving force of their power hierarchy has resulted int utterly, utterly neglecting to actually prep subsequent generations of candidates for executive office
I don’t disagree, but what does it look like to “prep subsequent generations of candidacy for executive office”? What does the capital P Party do to support grass roots new blood?
I guess the Republicans do it well because we have young monsters like Matt Gaetz.
Its cradle to grave. While Dems have some of these programs, thry tend to be smaller where they exist. Republicans have entire pipeline to identify and shepard promising republicans in college, move them into internships, congressional offices etc. Then when they run for office the party makes sure they get air time, it makes sure they get committee seats etc.
I'll bet if we looked back about a decade for any prominent outspoken Young Republican types in junior high or even high school, the kind who got air time on media for being the "face of the younger generation" on the conservative side, we could then look at current date and see a decent number of the same names in Republican political offices if not in actual office. If someone of their ilk looks like an outstanding candidate for the future, even despite their actual age, Republicans find ways to involve them in learning the machine so they can either help support it in years to come or take charge of a portion of it someday if they're especially driven.
That's what truly terrifies me about Republicans vs Democrats. Where Republicans love their younger generations and work to bring them into power with careful education, timing, and experience, Democrats actively ignore and shun the younger generations, forcing them to claim territory through tooth and claw to the point the only way they gain seats of power is by metaphorical force. Even then they're considered usurpers and treated as such with the elders loudly saying the young people are the future of the party while at the same time trying to smother them under a pillow.
I don't think this is accurate. There's no McConnell 2.0 waiting in the wings, or anybody he's been raising to carry on his personal fight that has fucked up the judiciary. Paul Ryan's entire EVERYTHING has been chased out. There's nothing left in the Republican party but being loud, hateful, spiteful assholes, and whoever manages to be the loudest, most hateful, most spiteful is not a case of being honed to be that way, but they're in the spotlight BECAUSE they're crazy lunatics. That is all that matters to being a Republican anymore. Whoever gets the most eyes on them and pisses off the most people.
I mean I never said they weren't batshit insane just that they've got a system in place to produce even batshitter insaner people to hold power and it unfortunately seems to be working.
But this is culture war mistaken for economic policy.
Yes, Volcker successfully tamed inflation. The question is whether there was a better way to do it than setting off a massive recession. At the time, America was dealing with oil shocks, a broken consumer price index, the fallout from funding the Vietnam War, the end of the Bretton Woods system, and a new political enthusiasm for massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Any combination of these factors could have been driving the price spiral.
But Volcker's solution destroyed the American working class for a generation. Unemployment peaked as high or higher than in the Great Recession. Unions, already in decline, went into free fall. Volcker explicitly viewed breaking the power of organized labor as a critical piece of his anti-inflation crusade. "The standard of living of the average American has to decline," Volcker declared shortly after becoming Fed Chair. Trace the modern trends in wage stagnation and inequality, and they lead back to Volcker's recession.
Oh. Oh dear.
*again, not to say that Union history does not have struggles with racism, which is it’s own separate issue that must be tackled properly and not in an attempt to paint the Democrats as Poor Beleaguered Saints
And to re-tread information I for sure recall talking about in the Labor thread a while ago, the man who pioneered the concept of At-Will Employment pushed their sponsorship explicitly as being anti-union, which was good because unions promoted the idea that a worker should be paid the same regardless of the color of their skin, which was bad.
But this is culture war mistaken for economic policy.
Yes, Volcker successfully tamed inflation. The question is whether there was a better way to do it than setting off a massive recession. At the time, America was dealing with oil shocks, a broken consumer price index, the fallout from funding the Vietnam War, the end of the Bretton Woods system, and a new political enthusiasm for massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Any combination of these factors could have been driving the price spiral.
But Volcker's solution destroyed the American working class for a generation. Unemployment peaked as high or higher than in the Great Recession. Unions, already in decline, went into free fall. Volcker explicitly viewed breaking the power of organized labor as a critical piece of his anti-inflation crusade. "The standard of living of the average American has to decline," Volcker declared shortly after becoming Fed Chair. Trace the modern trends in wage stagnation and inequality, and they lead back to Volcker's recession.
Oh. Oh dear.
*again, not to say that Union history does not have struggles with racism, which is it’s own separate issue that must be tackled properly and not in an attempt to paint the Democrats as Poor Beleaguered Saints
Go back further to WWI and you can read about how the Wilson administration was instrumental in destroying the intersectional labour movement!
Why did Dems ever abandon unions anyway? Labor seems like it'd be real useful to you know, have on your side right now
Other way around. A lot of the big unions were really racist and stuff like the Civil Rights Act and Southern Strategy got them voting for Reagan.
I would love to read your sources about this.
Reagan was a big proponent of unions back when he was an actor (hell, he was SAG president for a time), but despite the pretty words he kept saying about unions he was, in no uncertain terms, a union-buster as President.
Shortly before noon, more than 400 construction workers, many of whom were building the World Trade Center, converged on the student rally at Federal Hall from four directions. Some construction workers carried U.S. flags and chanted "USA, All the way", and "America, love it or leave it". Anti-war protesters shouted, "Peace now." More than 800 office workers soon joined the construction workers' ranks. Hundreds more construction workers arrived around noon, as the lunch-time crowd and onlookers in the streets exceeded 20,000.[16][17] A thin and inadequate line of police, who were largely sympathetic to the workers' position, formed to separate the construction workers from the anti-war protesters. One spark might have been a protester, near the construction workers, who waved a Vietcong flag from the steps of Federal Hall.[18] At first, the construction workers only pushed but did not break through the police line. After several minutes, however, they broke through the police line and began chasing students through the streets. The workers attacked those who looked like hippies and beat them with their hard hats and other weapons, including tools and steel-toe boots. Victims and onlookers reported that the police stood by and did little.[19]
Hundreds of construction workers and counter-protesters moved up Broadway, making their way to City Hall Park toward City Hall. They pushed their way to the top of the steps, singing City Hall as some chanted "Hey, hey, whattya say? We support the USA", while some held American flags, then attempted to gain entrance because they demanded the flag above City Hall be raised to full staff. Police on duty at City Hall, and reinforcement, were able to stop the men from getting inside. A few workers were asked to enter the building to calm tensions. A postal worker who was already inside went to the roof of city hall and raised the U.S. flag there to full mast. When one mayoral aide lowered the flag back down to half-mast, hundreds of construction workers stormed the area around City Hall, leading to melee like on Wall Street the hour prior. Deputy Mayor Richard Aurelio, fearing the building would be overrun by the mob, ordered city workers to raise the flag back to full mast.[20]
[...]
On Sunday, May 10, Nixon's Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman wrote in his diary, "The college demonstrators have overplayed their hands, evidence is the blue-collar group rising up against them, and [the] president can mobilize them".[33]
Several thousand construction workers, longshoremen and white-collar workers protested against the Mayor on May 11, holding signs reading "impeach the Red Mayor"[34] and chanting "Lindsay is a bum".[35] They held another rally May 16, carrying signs calling the mayor a "rat", "commy rat" and "traitor".[36]
[...]
Brennan later organized significant labor union political support for Nixon in the 1972 election. Nixon appointed Brennan as his labor secretary after the election as a reward for his support and he was retained by President Gerald Ford into 1975, following Nixon's resignation.
That is a supremely disingenuous graph…. But it does imply that Clinton won back the unions… and it was t until trump that we lost them again? so how did he abandon them again?
Goum that Downward trend starts in 1996, 20 years before Trump ran for president.*
Below we display exit poll results from every presidential race dating back to Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980.[1] The figure shows the Democratic candidate advantage over the Republican candidate in the union household vote. In Reagan’s first victory, there was hardly any Democratic advantage: In 1980, Reagan managed 45% of the union household vote, compared to 48% for Jimmy Carter (the rest went largely to the 3rd party candidate in that race, John Anderson).
Oh my god the graph starts in 1980… Jesus Christ you cannot compare to pre 1980 if the graph starts in 1980. The downward slide doesn’t “start in 1992” it recovered from cratering around 1980
Goumindong on
+7
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
It's telling that all these graphs start in 1980, because they neatly avoid the overwhelming shift of support to the Republicans in the late sixties and early seventies.
It's telling that all these graphs start in 1980, because they neatly avoid the overwhelming shift of support to the Republicans in the late sixties and early seventies.
Oh cool, you've got graphs that go back to the late sixties?
It's telling that all these graphs start in 1980, because they neatly avoid the overwhelming shift of support to the Republicans in the late sixties and early seventies.
Oh cool, you've got graphs that go back to the late sixties?
Sure!
(All numbers Wikipedia):
1960: 65% D
1964: 73% D
1968: 61% D
1972: 50% D (within margin of error)
1976: 59% D
It's telling that all these graphs start in 1980, because they neatly avoid the overwhelming shift of support to the Republicans in the late sixties and early seventies.
Oh cool, you've got graphs that go back to the late sixties?
Not on hand but here is a wapo graph that goes to 76’
The loss of Union support in 1996 is nonexistent. The differential changes because Perot split Republicans in 1992 and 1996 making it seem like there was a significant loss of support for conservative politics
Which is like yea it looks like Clinton regained unions and then they didn’t fall off until Trump…
Though Union participation is also way down making that number mean less in terms of overall pop (this could also skew the results because more democratic people are more likely to stay in unions but that would not really imply a lot of “general blue collar support” for unions if people keep leaving them and voting Republican
Edit: also a 23k size poll for is pretty huge for that “only 2% of the Unions voted”. Unless that 2% was biased it would be incredibly unlikely for that result to not hold over the rest of the voting population.
That is a supremely disingenuous graph…. But it does imply that Clinton won back the unions… and it was t until trump that we lost them again? so how did he abandon them again?
Goum that Downward trend starts in 1996, 20 years before Trump ran for president.*
Below we display exit poll results from every presidential race dating back to Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980.[1] The figure shows the Democratic candidate advantage over the Republican candidate in the union household vote. In Reagan’s first victory, there was hardly any Democratic advantage: In 1980, Reagan managed 45% of the union household vote, compared to 48% for Jimmy Carter (the rest went largely to the 3rd party candidate in that race, John Anderson).
Oh my god the graph starts in 1980… Jesus Christ you cannot compare to pre 1980 if the graph starts in 1980. The downward slide doesn’t “start in 1992” it recovered from cratering around 1980
I feel like you are not reading this graph correctly.
You will notice that there is a downward line, starting from 1992 and running to 1996. This begins a trend that continues downward up to the end of the graph, in 2016. At no point does the graph ever again reach the height of 1992. It makes a brief climb back up for 2008 with Obama’s campaign… before again crashing very much.
If only we could figure out what happened after 1992 to cause a resurgent support for Democrats by unions to give way to a decades long downward trend regarding support
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Genuinely can't believe that I'm being asked to cite "a bunch of blue-collar white people started voting Republican because of racism starting with the Nixon administration"
It's telling that all these graphs start in 1980, because they neatly avoid the overwhelming shift of support to the Republicans in the late sixties and early seventies.
You mean the actual bipartisan support that both parties enjoyed until Reagan?
It is often forgotten that Eisenhower and many other Republicans used to support labor unions, if not always enthusiastically. In that speech, Eisenhower noted that the first federal law giving workers a right to organize and bargain came under a Republican, Calvin Coolidge — that was the Railway Labor Act, passed in 1926.
“Only a handful of unreconstructed reactionaries harbor the ugly thought of breaking unions,” Eisenhower told labor leaders that day. “Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice.” In that era, Republicans often praised unions for fighting Communism and lifting living standards to help them make the case that American capitalism was delivering more to workers than Soviet communism was.
Richard Nixon also courted labor, inviting union leaders and their wives to a 1970 Labor Day dinner at the White House with a torchlight military pageant. Nixon tried to woo unions by signing the most significant pro-labor legislation since the 1930s, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. His Republican successor, Gerald Ford, also signed important pro-labor legislation, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which safeguarded pensions after the automaker Studebaker collapsed, leaving 4,100 of its workers with just 15 percent of their promised pensions.
It was Ronald Reagan, with his firing of 11,000 striking air traffic controllers, who sent the Republican Party’s relations with labor into a tailspin. Despite the party’s shift to the right under Reagan, there continued to be many pro-labor Republicans in Congress well into the 1990s, like Representatives Jack Quinn of New York and Bob Ney of Ohio. They often bucked party leaders, for instance, to support a higher minimum wage.
The decisive break came in 1996 when Speaker Newt Gingrich was struggling to retain control of the House. With Gingrich openly hostile to unions, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. endorsed Democrats over many longtime G.O.P. allies.
At the time, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s political director justified the move, saying, “Anybody who stands with Gingrich as often as they do is not standing with working people.” But the spurned Republicans said labor had turned its back on the G.O.P. That ended a 120-year stretch during which unions had always been able to maintain some level of bipartisan support.
Like do you have any actual historic record of a major shift of the unions to the right beyond a 2% of the teamster’s being polled and throwing the McGovern vs Nixon map out as if that is somehow an indictment of Unions and not just lazy shitposting?
Because the historic case here looks like the GOP for a time did actually have support from unions in a bipartisan fashion with the Democratic Party. At which point both parties decided “eh, fuck em”
Genuinely can't believe that I'm being asked to cite "a bunch of blue-collar white people started voting Republican because of racism starting with the Nixon administration"
Sammich and I are actually bothering to bring up data, reporting, etc. to back up our case that the idea that “unions betrayed the Dems, because racism” is more truthiness than truth. You could at least, in the debate subforum, return the courtesy instead of acting indignant that someone is asking you to show your work
Because the issue at hand is “why did the relationship between Union labor and Democrats break.”
You decided instead, ignoring the fact that unions are more than just blue collar white people, to make a case about blue collar white people.
which this also reflects another frustration with Democrats and their defenders: This almost reflexive impulse to boil the working class into the white working class, ignoring the massive portion of it that aren’t white, straight, cis dudes and are in fact, heavily comprised of many different minorities who are actively oppressed in this country.
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Let's be real: people who get paid salaries think they are morally superior to people who get paid wages and think that the degraded standard of living of the latter group in the last 40 years is good, justified, and deserved because the wage-earners are morally lesser. This is the unspoken class divide in the left-liberal schism and the latest turn of the conversation illustrates it beautifully.
Genuinely can't believe that I'm being asked to cite "a bunch of blue-collar white people started voting Republican because of racism starting with the Nixon administration"
You are both conflating union members with "blue-collar white people" and proclaiming that the shift in union voting was because of racism, neither of which is demonstrated by the numbers you posted.
A 2012 study found that if unionization rates remained at their 1970s level—when African American workers were more likely than white workers to be union members—black-white weekly wage gaps would be nearly 30 percent lower among women and 3 to 4 percent lower among men. Research also consistently finds that racial wage gaps are smaller among union members than among nonunion members.
...
In 1973, unionization rates among black men were over 40 percent, while rates among white men were between 30 and 40 percent. And by the late 1970s, almost one in four black women —nearly double the share of white women—belonged to a union.
And again, pretty sure this dance has already been done in the Labor thread, so to summarize: Yes racial discrimination has existed to some degree throughout the history of labor unionization, but to suggest that unions at their core are racially discriminatory and work to increase inequality is to deny overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Another reason the Dems suck: their gerontocratic death grip on power and obsession with seniority as the driving force of their power hierarchy has resulted int utterly, utterly neglecting to actually prep subsequent generations of candidates for executive office
I don’t disagree, but what does it look like to “prep subsequent generations of candidacy for executive office”? What does the capital P Party do to support grass roots new blood?
I guess the Republicans do it well because we have young monsters like Matt Gaetz.
Its cradle to grave. While Dems have some of these programs, thry tend to be smaller where they exist. Republicans have entire pipeline to identify and shepard promising republicans in college, move them into internships, congressional offices etc. Then when they run for office the party makes sure they get air time, it makes sure they get committee seats etc.
I'll bet if we looked back about a decade for any prominent outspoken Young Republican types in junior high or even high school, the kind who got air time on media for being the "face of the younger generation" on the conservative side, we could then look at current date and see a decent number of the same names in Republican political offices if not in actual office. If someone of their ilk looks like an outstanding candidate for the future, even despite their actual age, Republicans find ways to involve them in learning the machine so they can either help support it in years to come or take charge of a portion of it someday if they're especially driven.
That's what truly terrifies me about Republicans vs Democrats. Where Republicans love their younger generations and work to bring them into power with careful education, timing, and experience, Democrats actively ignore and shun the younger generations, forcing them to claim territory through tooth and claw to the point the only way they gain seats of power is by metaphorical force. Even then they're considered usurpers and treated as such with the elders loudly saying the young people are the future of the party while at the same time trying to smother them under a pillow.
I don't think this is accurate. There's no McConnell 2.0 waiting in the wings, or anybody he's been raising to carry on his personal fight that has fucked up the judiciary. Paul Ryan's entire EVERYTHING has been chased out. There's nothing left in the Republican party but being loud, hateful, spiteful assholes, and whoever manages to be the loudest, most hateful, most spiteful is not a case of being honed to be that way, but they're in the spotlight BECAUSE they're crazy lunatics. That is all that matters to being a Republican anymore. Whoever gets the most eyes on them and pisses off the most people.
I mean I never said they weren't batshit insane just that they've got a system in place to produce even batshitter insaner people to hold power and it unfortunately seems to be working.
There is a handful of people trying to be sane or steer the party away from the batshit insane
Mostly they are party leadership or in local {county/state] positions of power but mostly they have a front row seat in the bar fight that is going on in their party
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
what evidence do you have that everyone disagreeing with you is paid a salary instead of hourly wages
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+10
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Let's be real: people who get paid salaries think they are morally superior to people who get paid wages and think that the degraded standard of living of the latter group in the last 40 years is good, justified, and deserved because the wage-earners are morally lesser. This is the unspoken class divide in the left-liberal schism and the latest turn of the conversation illustrates it beautifully.
I'm 37 and have been salaried for less than three years of my life, so maybe go fuck yourself?
Let's be real: people who get paid salaries think they are morally superior to people who get paid wages and think that the degraded standard of living of the latter group in the last 40 years is good, justified, and deserved because the wage-earners are morally lesser. This is the unspoken class divide in the left-liberal schism and the latest turn of the conversation illustrates it beautifully.
I'm 37 and have been salaried for less than three years of my life, so maybe go fuck yourself?
I'm 39 and have been salary for 6 years. My dad grandpa and great grandpa were all UAW tradesmen.
Let's be real: people who get paid salaries think they are morally superior to people who get paid wages and think that the degraded standard of living of the latter group in the last 40 years is good, justified, and deserved because the wage-earners are morally lesser. This is the unspoken class divide in the left-liberal schism and the latest turn of the conversation illustrates it beautifully.
Let's be real: people who get paid salaries think they are morally superior to people who get paid wages and think that the degraded standard of living of the latter group in the last 40 years is good, justified, and deserved because the wage-earners are morally lesser. This is the unspoken class divide in the left-liberal schism and the latest turn of the conversation illustrates it beautifully.
Salaries aren't even necessarily an actually good thing, seeing as how it exempts the employee from OT and then they work more than 40 hours a week anyway without actually getting paid for the work.
Also frankly it is kind of hilarious that SALARY v. WAGE is what divides the "left" and "liberal". What a dumb notion.
Let's be real: people who get paid salaries think they are morally superior to people who get paid wages and think that the degraded standard of living of the latter group in the last 40 years is good, justified, and deserved because the wage-earners are morally lesser. This is the unspoken class divide in the left-liberal schism and the latest turn of the conversation illustrates it beautifully.
Salaries aren't even necessarily an actually good thing, seeing as how it exempts the employee from OT and then they work more than 40 hours a week anyway without actually getting paid for the work.
Also frankly it is kind of hilarious that SALARY v. WAGE is what divides the "left" and "liberal". What a dumb notion.
My first boss was salary. Made less than me per hour, when you counted all the dumbshit random stuff he had to do. Also made (checks notes) less than $15 an hour before all that unpaid OT.
Posts
To my knowledge, the party has yet to ever actually grapple with even this only just now thirty-year-old history, let alone repudiate it.
Like this happened when a good deal of us here were in elementary school, it is that recent. The pivotal Democratic President of a generation sought to begin his campaign by literally hosting a reassurance to White America, at the foot of the birthplace of the KKK, that he would keep black folks in line.
Spoilers: A lot of those people were labor. Clinton was the attempt to win them back or find an alternative.
This is very much not true.
https://onlabor.org/the-union-household-vote-revisited/
Reagan made headway with unions in his election, but it was a landslide election. It didnt last. Instead we see those numbers start to rebound immediately and then whither as the Democeats embrace a type of class and economic policy that leaves them largely struggling to spesk to the working class.
I'll bet if we looked back about a decade for any prominent outspoken Young Republican types in junior high or even high school, the kind who got air time on media for being the "face of the younger generation" on the conservative side, we could then look at current date and see a decent number of the same names in Republican political offices if not in actual office. If someone of their ilk looks like an outstanding candidate for the future, even despite their actual age, Republicans find ways to involve them in learning the machine so they can either help support it in years to come or take charge of a portion of it someday if they're especially driven.
That's what truly terrifies me about Republicans vs Democrats. Where Republicans love their younger generations and work to bring them into power with careful education, timing, and experience, Democrats actively ignore and shun the younger generations, forcing them to claim territory through tooth and claw to the point the only way they gain seats of power is by metaphorical force. Even then they're considered usurpers and treated as such with the elders loudly saying the young people are the future of the party while at the same time trying to smother them under a pillow.
Also that link you posted? not exactly a ringing endorsement.
So… a mail in survey of *two percent* of the union, where just over half supported Reagan, and just under half supported Mondale. You might have an argument in the board’s unanimous vote, but by my memory the relationship between rank and file membership and the board is not always the most amicable one, and that one cannot simply or automatically take the board’s endorsements as the popular will of the rank and file.
And, again you have the issue that this argument construction seeks to create the idea that the unions abandoned the democrats because the unions were racist, thereby inferring the Democrats are, themselves, an anti-racist political entity. Which history proves is absolutely untrue, particularly given that the modern center of power of the party rejected the paradigms of the party that gave us the CRA and VRA, particularly in the throws of its birth.
Goum that Downward trend starts in 1996, 20 years before Trump ran for president.*
EDIT: Actually correction, it starts in 1992. Then starts the sharp plummets in ‘96.
EDIT: Hmm, I wonder what happened between 1992 and 1996 that could precipitate that drop and eventual decades long downward trend
EDIT: *
The commonly held belief that the problem in the last like 40 years is that unions just got too racist to vote Dem doesnt seem to have much support in the data.
On the other hand, pairs well with a lot of reporting I’ve read over the years of people just giving right the fuck up when it comes to electoral participation because they don’t think either party will do anything to improve their lives.
I don't think this is accurate. There's no McConnell 2.0 waiting in the wings, or anybody he's been raising to carry on his personal fight that has fucked up the judiciary. Paul Ryan's entire EVERYTHING has been chased out. There's nothing left in the Republican party but being loud, hateful, spiteful assholes, and whoever manages to be the loudest, most hateful, most spiteful is not a case of being honed to be that way, but they're in the spotlight BECAUSE they're crazy lunatics. That is all that matters to being a Republican anymore. Whoever gets the most eyes on them and pisses off the most people.
Paul Ryan’s entire everything got chased out because he was an ineffective dipshit when it came to entrenching the NeoConfederate project that is the ultimate goal of post-realignment Republicans.
McCarthy keeps his head down comparatively, and hasn’t yet had the opportunity to wield power in the same way as Ryan, and now they’re cycling in even harder right folks who are like you fucking figured out how to distill years worth of Limbaugh, beck, Hannity and Jones, then figured out how to concentrate that down even further into a perfectly unctuous concoction that drives the Id of the Party forward. A little tincture of a drug made of pure bile, paranoia and undue sense of moral superiority via theocratic madness
Meanwhile, what is it that drives the Id of the Democratic Party? What even is the Id of the Democratic Party?
Also keep in mind the FOP is part of that. And they would rather be racist than strengthen their union.
Their share is growing, but slowly compared to the rapidly closing gap in the share dems have over the GOP.
My point isnt that uniom voters havent been voting more Republican, they have, but that the common wisdom that Union voters abandoned Dems and not that Dems damaged their power with unions is not what we see in these numbers.
It’s not a particularly rousing argument for “Unions are moving to the right!”
Under normal circumstances, I would consider the lack of one to be a good thing; that there isn't a singular force driving an entire political party. And Democrats don't have a massive propoganda arm like Fox News that unifies and reinforces one bitter ancient asshole's political views across the entire globe. But as long as Murdoch's bullshit persists, and it's going to for a long time even after he dies, I have to imagine that Republicans are going to be of a single mind, driven by nothing but being loud, hateful jackals.
https://theweek.com/articles/810196/everyone-loves-paul-volcker-everyone-wrong
Oh. Oh dear.
*again, not to say that Union history does not have struggles with racism, which is it’s own separate issue that must be tackled properly and not in an attempt to paint the Democrats as Poor Beleaguered Saints
I mean I never said they weren't batshit insane just that they've got a system in place to produce even batshitter insaner people to hold power and it unfortunately seems to be working.
And to re-tread information I for sure recall talking about in the Labor thread a while ago, the man who pioneered the concept of At-Will Employment pushed their sponsorship explicitly as being anti-union, which was good because unions promoted the idea that a worker should be paid the same regardless of the color of their skin, which was bad.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Go back further to WWI and you can read about how the Wilson administration was instrumental in destroying the intersectional labour movement!
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot
Oh my god the graph starts in 1980… Jesus Christ you cannot compare to pre 1980 if the graph starts in 1980. The downward slide doesn’t “start in 1992” it recovered from cratering around 1980
Oh cool, you've got graphs that go back to the late sixties?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Sure!
(All numbers Wikipedia):
1960: 65% D
1964: 73% D
1968: 61% D
1972: 50% D (within margin of error)
1976: 59% D
Not on hand but here is a wapo graph that goes to 76’
The loss of Union support in 1996 is nonexistent. The differential changes because Perot split Republicans in 1992 and 1996 making it seem like there was a significant loss of support for conservative politics
Which is like yea it looks like Clinton regained unions and then they didn’t fall off until Trump…
Though Union participation is also way down making that number mean less in terms of overall pop (this could also skew the results because more democratic people are more likely to stay in unions but that would not really imply a lot of “general blue collar support” for unions if people keep leaving them and voting Republican
Edit: also a 23k size poll for is pretty huge for that “only 2% of the Unions voted”. Unless that 2% was biased it would be incredibly unlikely for that result to not hold over the rest of the voting population.
I feel like you are not reading this graph correctly.
You will notice that there is a downward line, starting from 1992 and running to 1996. This begins a trend that continues downward up to the end of the graph, in 2016. At no point does the graph ever again reach the height of 1992. It makes a brief climb back up for 2008 with Obama’s campaign… before again crashing very much.
If only we could figure out what happened after 1992 to cause a resurgent support for Democrats by unions to give way to a decades long downward trend regarding support
You mean the actual bipartisan support that both parties enjoyed until Reagan?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/opinion/labor-unions-republicans.html
Like do you have any actual historic record of a major shift of the unions to the right beyond a 2% of the teamster’s being polled and throwing the McGovern vs Nixon map out as if that is somehow an indictment of Unions and not just lazy shitposting?
Because the historic case here looks like the GOP for a time did actually have support from unions in a bipartisan fashion with the Democratic Party. At which point both parties decided “eh, fuck em”
Sammich and I are actually bothering to bring up data, reporting, etc. to back up our case that the idea that “unions betrayed the Dems, because racism” is more truthiness than truth. You could at least, in the debate subforum, return the courtesy instead of acting indignant that someone is asking you to show your work
Because the issue at hand is “why did the relationship between Union labor and Democrats break.”
You decided instead, ignoring the fact that unions are more than just blue collar white people, to make a case about blue collar white people.
which this also reflects another frustration with Democrats and their defenders: This almost reflexive impulse to boil the working class into the white working class, ignoring the massive portion of it that aren’t white, straight, cis dudes and are in fact, heavily comprised of many different minorities who are actively oppressed in this country.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Edit - there's your cites and data.
You are both conflating union members with "blue-collar white people" and proclaiming that the shift in union voting was because of racism, neither of which is demonstrated by the numbers you posted.
Via Urban Institute
And again, pretty sure this dance has already been done in the Labor thread, so to summarize: Yes racial discrimination has existed to some degree throughout the history of labor unionization, but to suggest that unions at their core are racially discriminatory and work to increase inequality is to deny overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
There is a handful of people trying to be sane or steer the party away from the batshit insane
Mostly they are party leadership or in local {county/state] positions of power but mostly they have a front row seat in the bar fight that is going on in their party
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I'm 37 and have been salaried for less than three years of my life, so maybe go fuck yourself?
I'm 39 and have been salary for 6 years. My dad grandpa and great grandpa were all UAW tradesmen.
Hatchface is being a silly goose.
I'm a union wage earner, genius.
Salaries aren't even necessarily an actually good thing, seeing as how it exempts the employee from OT and then they work more than 40 hours a week anyway without actually getting paid for the work.
Also frankly it is kind of hilarious that SALARY v. WAGE is what divides the "left" and "liberal". What a dumb notion.
My first boss was salary. Made less than me per hour, when you counted all the dumbshit random stuff he had to do. Also made (checks notes) less than $15 an hour before all that unpaid OT.