Support NeoGAF

[Cocaloch]

I think that "look how well racist populism just did! If we run on socialist populism we'll do so well! After all our message is so much better!" is really misguided. It just...it just seems to ignore a lot of realities about the American electorate

This is only true if you only examine right wing populism from a racial perspective. That's a major element, but there is obviously more too it than just that. At the bare minimum the obsession with language about corruption is indicative of that.

Populism is heavily rural in nature- it's basically people seeing the world as though the Hunger Games is real life. (man, that movie looks outright poisonous in hindsight.)

It's also majoritarian, which causes issues w/ minority groups.

Maybe in 21st century America. Before that I think you'll find it's actually heavily urban. Especially in the 19th century.

The decline of the social democrats is understandable: on the one hand they reacted to Thatcherism and its equivalents by tacking towards neoliberalism, eroding some of their base's enthusiasm. On the other hand, the success of capitalism after the Treinte Gloriouses had diminished the appeal of socially-conscious parties.

The New Gilded Age is bringing back the perceived need for hard-left parties, when that need never really vanished.

I think we can flesh this out a lot more, but you are more or less on the mark. Something changed in the late 70s and 80s and it's been disastrous for politics.

 

[boiled goose]

I think that "look how well racist populism just did! If we run on socialist populism we'll do so well! After all our message is so much better!" is really misguided. It just...it just seems to ignore a lot of realities about the American electorate

Running using left wing social issues as a shield while actually representing corporate economic interests is a horrible strategy. Agreed.

See results of dnc today.

 

[The Technomancer]

This is only true if you only examine right wing populism from a racial perspective. That's a major element, but there is obviously more too it than just that. At the bare minimum the obsession with language about corruption is indicative of that.

Trump has nakedly, blatantly, filled his cabinet and advisory positions with people who are either from "corrupt" industries or are openly shilling for them, and yet he's still seen as "draining the swamp"

It wasn't about Wall Street. It was about liberals.

 

[Boney]

stronger far right movements doesn't equate to them politically doing better. They could just be able to organize better in a reactive way without it translating into a majority.

 

[Ogodei]

Andrew Jackson founded the party on the principal of representing the "common man". This has been a thread through the entire history of the party. Representing workers in the fight against the elitist rich definitely falls in line with populism vs elitism.

However, the shifts in the Democratic and Republican Party has lead to differing ways in which each party represents populism vs elitism. The Democratic Party now has intellectual elitism and the Republican Party has white racial and religious populism.

Not really. The party was basically co-opted by Southern Elites in the runup to the Civil War (after which they lost all the clout they had due to their "human capital.").

The main thrust of the party was about opposing those "in power" in a general sense. In Jackson's day it was the Yankee merchant class, in the leadup to the civil war it was about opposing Northern industrialists who were trying to lead the country into the Industrial Revolution. After the war it was a loose anti-industrial coalition before the populist movement of the 1890s revitalized it, and then in the 1900s the agrarian-populists started to join up with the industrial working class, which was the first time a Democratic party recognizable to the modern day was formed, but the Southern Elites were a part of that coalition because they too were excluded from the prosperity of the north in their own way, even though they were elite and wealthy in their own context.

Then Civil Rights came and the party finally came down hard on the side of justice for all, and we have what we see today.

So the party has a long history of elite influence, just elites who were on the outs with a more upwardly-mobile group of elites.

 

[ZealousD]

No, it's not. That's like trying to say anyone in favor of a welfare state is a socialist or anyone pro-choice is a feminist. Populism has a very specific definition. Here's the Wikipedia one:

Populism is heavily rural in nature- it's basically people seeing the world as though the Hunger Games is real life. (man, that movie looks outright poisonous in hindsight.)

It's also majoritarian, which causes issues w/ minority groups.

Populism in the US has always been a distinctly anti-intellectual movement, so yeah it has been about feelings rather than facts.

Is it anti-intellectual and dangerous if the rich elite really are exploiting the masses?

Corrupt politicians working for the benefits of corporations instead of people. The growing wealth inequality between the richest 1% and the middle class. These are the kinds of issues that some populist policies would aim to fix. None of this contradicts even the narrower definition of populism that kirblar quoted.

I'm generally not of the fan of the kind of "intellectual" populism that tries to claim that rails against "the experts". I'm not a fan of the kind of white racial populism that Trump promotes. But that doesn't mean that all populism is inherently wrong.

 

[Cocaloch]

Trump has nakedly, blatantly, filled his cabinet and advisory positions with people who are either from "corrupt" industries or are openly shilling for them, and yet he's still seen as "draining the swamp"

It wasn't about Wall Street. It was about liberals.

People are dumb. I don't think that invalidates my point. It's a combination of a bunch of things, but if you can't see the not all anti-establishment and anti-elite elements in this campaign was a thinly veiled cover for racism then you are willfully blinding yourself.

 

[kirblar]

Trump has nakedly, blatantly, filled his cabinet and advisory positions with people who are either from "corrupt" industries or are openly shilling for them, and yet he's still seen as "draining the swamp"

It wasn't about Wall Street. It was about liberals.

I'd go further. It wasn't about liberals, it was about women. The same "Corrupt!" narrative sprung up in GG and the 2016 campaign, and I don't think it was an accident.

I think we can flesh this out a lot more, but you are more or less on the mark. Something changed in the late 70s and 80s and it's been disastrous for politics.

In the US it was straight up a reactionary response to the Civil Rights era. White voters fled the Dems.

 

[The Technomancer]

People are dumb. I don't think that invalidates my point. It's a combination of a bunch of things, but if you can't see the not all anti-establishment and anti-elite elements in this campaign was a thinly veiled cover for racism then you are willfully blinding yourself.

I think that his supporters are now cheering on the fact that he's filling his presidency with the most established of the establishment is actually a pretty big strike against that yeah. They didn't like the current political establishment because it was full of liberals. They're just fine with Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State

 

[Cocaloch]

I'd go further. It wasn't about liberals, it was about women. The same "Corrupt!" narrative sprung up in GG and the 2016 campaign, and I don't think it was an accident.

In the US it was straight up a reactionary response to the Civil Rights era. White voters fled the Dems.

There is a fundamental difference in understanding corruption in the polity and seeing corruption in private institutions. Moreover I don't see how the fact that Gamer Gaters were talking about corruption should mean that we take everyone who has ever talked about it to be disingenuous.

In America when people feel like corruption is increasing it galvanizes country style politics.

In the US it was straight up a reactionary response to the Civil Rights era. White voters fled the Dems.

I suppose GAF isn't the place for subtly at all.

I'm not seeing that as being the only factor at all. I think the change I'm thinking of is actually itself a part of the reason that happened. The end of the Keynesian-Fordian consensus was a very big deal for not just economics, but, more importantly in this case, also political-economy and political discourse.

I think that his supporters are now cheering on the fact that he's filling his presidency with the most established of the establishment is actually a pretty big strike against that yeah. They didn't like the current political establishment because it was full of liberals. They're just fine with Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State

That's because they've so strongly bought into the narrative that Trump will fix the corruption that they believe whatever he does. Also nothing about corruption means people can associate it with partisanship, but it's still a fundamentally distinct way of thinking than just disliking someone because of their party.

 

[Raitosaito]

I think that his supporters are now cheering on the fact that he's filling his presidency with the most established of the establishment is actually a pretty big strike against that yeah. They didn't like the current political establishment because it was full of liberals. They're just fine with Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State

This is why the GOP trying to discredit the alt-right, when they're actually two sides of the same coin always gets me.

CPAC had alt right speakers on schedule, and they had some BS renouncement of the alt platform at the same time gets me.

 

[kirblar]

There is a fundamental difference in understanding corruption in the polity and seeing corruption in private institutions. Moreover I don't see how the fact that Gamer Gaters were talking about corruption should mean that we take everyone who has ever talked about it to be disingenuous.

In America when people feel like corruption is increasing it galvanizes country style politics.

The issue is that people aren't using that language in other circumstances. This "Corrupt" narrative isn't sticking to men in the same way.

 

[Cocaloch]

The issue is that people aren't using that language in other circumstances. This "Corrupt" narrative isn't sticking to men in the same way.

Sure it stuck to Hillary more than it probably would have to a man, but this is still an extremely powerful idea that gets brought up all the time in political discourse. People are, and have been for this nations entire history of political thought, been very concerned with these ideas.

Do you really think that most people that call Hillary corrupt don't call other politicians corrupt? That's sounds insane to me.

This is one of the major prisms of American political thought. I'm not sure why you're trying to handwave it away.

Sexism is embedded in this in the way it is embedded in everything else in our society. It makes Women more of a target and also causes them to have a harder time dealing with accusations. That being said the idea of corruption certainly doesn't come from sexism, it is just exacerbated by it.

 

[kirblar]

Sure it stuck to Hillary more than it probably would have to a man, but this is still an extremely powerful idea that gets brought up all the time in political discourse. People are, and have been for this nations entire history of political thought, been very concerned with these ideas.

Do you really think that most people that call Hillary corrupt don't call other politicians corrupt? That's sounds insane to me.

This is one of the major prisms of American political thought. I'm not sure why you're trying to handwave it away.

People calling X corrupt (especially on the left) happens all the time. It normally doesn't evolve into a "CROOKED HILLARY" narrative/meme, though. I don't think that the right wing is normally throwing out accusations of "corruption", no. Especially given that they kinda tend to be the ones more likely to have issues w/ it nowadays!

 

[Cocaloch]

People calling X corrupt (especially on the left) happens all the time. It normally doesn't evolve into a "CROOKED HILLARY" narrative/meme, though. I don't think that the right wing is normally throwing out accusations of "corruption", no. Especially given that they kinda tend to be the ones more likely to have issues w/ it nowadays!

All I can say to this is start paying more attention to both high and popular political discourse. Corrupt is probably the most common adjectives applied to politicians.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

This article is such garbage, with logical leaps all over the damn place. He acts like the european social democracy parties are still actively promoting social democracy, rather than standard neoliberal austerity. Then he acts like the republican party is akin to a european center-right party to suit his agenda. He also fails to assess the Republican party compared to european center-right parties (which have a lot in common with the *Democratic party* fwiw). The GOP IS a far-right party. Not as far as Golden Dawn, but certainly more than the Tories.

In all seriousness, the argument is not worth reading.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

one other note I'd add is that while I pretty much agree with the idea (especially in the US) that whites are less likely to support policies when it feels like "underserving" people are benefitting, I think a lot of people underestimate the fact that a lot of liberal programs intentionally feed into this based on how they're designed, even though they don't actually have to be designed that way.

Yes, there are some white people that would be like "Medicare for all, fuck that, don't want my tax dollars going to the poor" even if they would obviously benefit from it (as would literally anyone since it would be a universal program). But the solution to that problem is not to create a program that directly separates people into "deserving" and "undeserving" of it, based on obscure and overly complex formulas that makes your job of politically defending it even tougher than it needs to be.

"Why did my premiums go up, when that person over there can just get Medicaid from the government" is a rational question, even if the right-wing response to it (let's cut benefits for everyone!) is completely incorrect and immoral. Truly universal programs are better able to take that question off the table. Sure, there's gonna still be random irrational people that will fall for right-wing messaging, and still want the government hands off their Medicare, but the fact that Medicare and Social Security remain popular for 60+ years shows that it makes it easier to politically defend when something is simpler to communicate.

To add onto this, Matt Bruenig's been posting about how the Nordic social democratic parties explicit push to make universal programs that leave as little room to opt out as much as possible because the more people participating in the programs the more people who have a stake in seeing them succeed and are also just less likely to want to cut them or see the other participants as the other. He used the example of just making school lunch free for everyone without means testing, so middle class parents are more likely to just want the lunch to be better (after all, their kid eats it!) than to try and have it cut from the undeserving poor. Old racist people don't seem to rail on about Medicare and Social Security even though they're universal and benefiting nonwhite seniors.

 

[soul creator]

All I can say to this is start paying more attention to both high and popular political discourse. Corrupt is probably the most common adjectives applied to politicians.

To add: http://www.gallup.com/poll/185759/widespread-government-corruption.aspx

 

[Corronchilejano]

Makes sense, I don't think we are capable of just thriving. Humans tend to hate stability when we have it.

"We're doing really good but I think we could do better if we just fucked our shit up completely."

 

[sugarhigh4242]

To add onto this, Matt Bruenig's been posting about how the Nordic social democratic parties explicit push to make universal programs that leave as little room to opt out as much as possible because the more people participating in the programs the more people who have a stake in seeing them succeed and are also just less likely to want to cut them or see the other participants as the other. He used the example of just making school lunch free for everyone without means testing, so middle class parents are more likely to just want the lunch to be better (after all, their kid eats it!) than to try and have it cut from the undeserving poor. Old racist people don't seem to rail on about Medicare and Social Security even though they're universal and benefiting nonwhite seniors.

I love you.

Not only are universal programs better on merit (i.e. cheaper, better service, outcomes, etc), they're better politically too for the reasons you mentioned.

We're never going to get where we need to go within the Democratic party.

 

[kirblar]

I love you.

Not only are universal programs better on merit (i.e. cheaper, better service, outcomes, etc), they're better politically too for the reasons you mentioned.

We're never going to get where we need to go within the Democratic party.

Good luck raising taxes to pay for them! (Cost is the real reason they're not universal!)

 

[UrokeJoe]

It's really bothersome. I hate it.

 

[TyrantII]

There's been 40 years of propaganda and counter institutions. That effort bears fruit.

Also, it's being exported. Don't think minority politicians in other nations haven't been paying attention to the viceral reactions and voting habits on US soil. Many are using the GOPs iron grip on their base as a playbook to get themselves into power.

 

[soul creator]

Good luck raising taxes to pay for them! (Cost is the real reason they're not universal!)

Following along with the right-wing framing of "raising taxes is always bad" and contorting every single policy to fit that isn't gonna do us any favors either (and often hasn't done us any favors). At some point, that has to be fought against.

If any sort of collective tax increase (no matter how much it ultimately benefits us and actually saves us money overall) is 100% off the table, then we're kind of fucked no matter what!

I always wonder though, in a couple years we're about to have an election where Republicans will have had all the power in the world, and also openly attempted to pass a policy that directly causes millions of people to lose their health insurance. If Democrats did run on Medicare-for-all in 2018, who are these "moderates" that they're worried about losing? If your choices are Medicare-for-all on one side, and the terrible Republican plan that just got scored by the CBO on the other side...do people think Democrats are going to turn away? Do they think people are going to suddenly like the Republican plan? Do they think turnout will get even lower than it already is?

Because to me, this seems like the perfect opening to 1) actually solve the problem and 2) do it in a way that would be more politically successful. Maybe it wouldn't have been possible in 1992, or 2008, but in 2018 the conditions seem tailor made for a strong, bold, national push towards actual universal health care (and not just "universal health care at some point in the future, hopefully, but we'll tweaks things to get a little better for now")

What are the downsides to this approach?

 

[Somnid]

Good luck raising taxes to pay for them! (Cost is the real reason they're not universal!)

People seem to be willing to raise taxes when it benefits them. The problem is a measured approach means you target the poor to make the most benefit and make the rich pay. That doesn't fly. If you asked the rich to pay for something they benefit from, they are typically fine doing so. Affluent areas and places people want to live tend to have high taxes.

 

[Sunster]

Everyone always wants some radical change in government. Can't we just grow and prosper over time without a call to "shake things up"?

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Good luck raising taxes to pay for them! (Cost is the real reason they're not universal!)

Cost didn't stop Obama from allocating $1 Trillion for new nuclear weapons. It was simply allocated without much debate. Extreme costs are uncontroversial when they pad corporate profits.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...r-nuclear-weapon-modernization-is-unnecessary

Here's two places we could get the money without raising taxes:

The 1%

The Military Budget

Unfortunately, we'd need a political vehicle to go after either of these pools of money. Neither major party is willing to do so.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Everyone always wants some radical change in government. Can't we just grow and prosper over time without a call to "shake things up"?

We cannot. Our economic system consistently makes a tiny minority of people extremely wealthy while practically half the population lives in poverty. That's baked into the economic system, for reasons I'd be happy to explain. If you don't like it, we need to "shake things up".

 

[kirblar]

People seem to be willing to raise taxes when it benefits them. The problem is a measured approach means you target the poor to make the most benefit and make the rich pay. That doesn't fly. If you asked the rich to pay for something they benefit from, they are typically fine doing so. Affluent areas and places people want to live tend to have high taxes.

The general problem is that people think they're way wealthier than they actually are. People are bad, they compare their relative position to their neighbors instead of looking at actual numbers. (This is why they freak out when they see non-white people being successful!)

 

[Sunster]

We cannot. Our economic system consistently makes a tiny minority of people extremely wealthy while practically half the population lives in poverty. That's baked into the economic system, for reasons I'd be happy to explain. If you don't like it, we need to "shake things up".

Educate me

 

[boiled goose]

We cannot. Our economic system consistently makes a tiny minority of people extremely wealthy while practically half the population lives in poverty. That's baked into the economic system, for reasons I'd be happy to explain. If you don't like it, we need to "shake things up".

Yup. Wanting slow convinient change is a position of extreme privilege.

Our system right now is fundamentally broken. We don't have a functioning representative democracy. Transformative change is needed and their are forces that profit heavily from current system resisting that change.

 

[onadesertedisland]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_chicagoschool.html

 

[kirblar]

We cannot. Our economic system consistently makes a tiny minority of people extremely wealthy while practically half the population lives in poverty. That's baked into the economic system, for reasons I'd be happy to explain. If you don't like it, we need to "shake things up".

The Median Household income in the US is 56K.

That is nowhere close to poverty.

 

[Raitosaito]

We cannot. Our economic system consistently makes a tiny minority of people extremely wealthy while practically half the population lives in poverty. That's baked into the economic system, for reasons I'd be happy to explain. If you don't like it, we need to "shake things up".

I don't think half our population is in poverty...

At least base on our current median income.

 

[onadesertedisland]

The Median Household income in the US is 56K.

That is nowhere close to poverty.

Half make less than that. And half of that are in poverty. So about 25% give or take a bit.

 

[kirblar]

Half make less than that. And half of that are in poverty. So about 25% give or take a bit.

The US poverty rates about 12%. It's still bad relative to other western nations, but the idea that most people aren't doing ok is ridiculous.

 

[Somnid]

Yup. Wanting slow convenient change is a position of extreme privilege.

This seems to be a cache 22. Plenty of blacks said they couldn't vote for Bernie because they can't afford to vote for radical change. Although I think at it's core, people are generally change resistant because change is stressful and the thought makes people anxious.

 

[Nabbis]

"The problem is that a lot of data suggests that countries with more robust welfare states tend to have stronger far-right movements."

What is this shit?

Obviously no country is the same but here right wing rhetoric started popping up as alternative policy solutions after the 2008 economic crisis. And even then far-right movements are fringe movements while the populist right-wing ones are arguably more left than the democrats on numerous issues.

I really want to see receipts for this.

 

[kirblar]

This seems to be a cache 22. Plenty of blacks said they couldn't vote for Bernie because they can't afford to vote for radical change. Although I think at it's core, people are generally change resistant because change is stressful and the thought makes people anxious.

Revolution is something driven by the upper classes, because they have the time/resources to invest in it and are least affected by the fallout.

"The problem is that a lot of data suggests that countries with more robust welfare states tend to have stronger far-right movements."

What is this shit?

Obviously no country is the same but here right wing rhetoric started popping up as alternative policy solutions after the 2008 economic crisis. And even then far-right movements are fringe movements while the populist right-wing ones are arguably more left than the democrats on numerous issues.

I really want to see receipts for this.

Once you accept that the primary draw for the far right is racism and fear, the reasons for this pattern become pretty obvious!

 

[Liberty4all]

agreed. So how do we change our message to reach those uhh "racist" voters since we can't tackle them from the same fashion as the GOP?

Not saying this of you specifically but a good start would be by not calling people racists just because they disagree with you politically and stop attacking those people with ad hominem arguments.

“[It’s] a kind of liberal myth,” Pippa Norris, a Harvard political scientist who studies populism in the United States and Europe, says of the Sanders analysis. “[Liberals] want to have a reason why people are supporting populist parties when their values are so clearly against progressive values in terms of misogyny, sexism, racism.”

Clearly. Except they aren't.

That's the real issue. The left's starting point, it's "opening argument" so to speak is that populist parties are "racist, misogynist, and sexist". Actually not just the parties, the so called "deplorables" too.

Many of us on the right disagree with that assessment. I know that many Trump supporters believe strongly in a nationalistic philosophy... Citizens first, allegiance to traditional liberal western values first. Colour, sex, orientation and creed matter not,
all citizens are welcome on the right.

 

[Extollere]

Makes sense, I don't think we are capable of just thriving. Humans tend to hate stability when we have it.

In evolutionary terms, I think it's probably more likely that we're always preparing for disaster, or external threats... so even when there are none, we look for them, and create our own things to be outraged or fearful of.

 

[Raitosaito]

Not saying this of you specifically but a good start would be by not calling people racists just because they disagree with you politically and stop attacking those people with ad hominem arguments.




Clearly. Except they aren't.

That's the real issue. The left's starting point, it's "opening argument" so to speak is that populist parties are "racist, misogynist, and sexist". Actually not just the parties, the so called "deplorables" too.

Many of us on the right disagree with that assessment. I know that many Trump supporters believe strongly in a nationalistic philosophy... Citizens first, allegiance to traditional liberal western values first. Colour, sex, orientation and creed matter not,
all citizens are welcome on the right.

So you didn't read the article? The data shows disproportionate amount of welfare is given to states with a lower black minority population.
There's a graph that shows the social programs by state.

Also, none of us said we should strategize a message by calling people "racist" so they should come over. We're using the term to identify the block of voters from the article.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Educate me

Our economy is structured around the idea of private property. This doesn't mean your toothbrush, or your Playstation. Private property are goods used to make a profit: factory machines, offices, medical equipment, shipping boats, rental homes, etc. Even if you own your own home, it's not really property in the sense I mean if you're personally living in it. Property used in this way is also called "Means of Production".

If you don't own means of production, then your only alternative is to sell your labor time. This makes you a worker, or working-class. The vast majority of people fall into this category. You sell your labor time, and produce a good or service, which is sold for a profit by the person who owns the property. Crucially, whatever you produce during your labor time is relinquished to the owner, you have no claim to it.

The owners have disproportionate economic power in this arrangement. They have total control over wage paid to the worker, they have total control over the market price of the good produced by the worker. Furthermore, they can do whatever they want with the means of production itself. So they can close that factory, or change that shipping route, or buy newer equipment which requires fewer workers to operate.

Over time, this disproportionate economic power also manifests as political power. Politicians cater to the interests of the owners because they're dependent on them for campaign money. News outlets tend to articulate the preferences of the owners. Universities tend to promote professors who teach the preferred ideas of the owners, and so on.

This is a very simplified version, but hopefully you can see how our economy is structured to empower a tiny minority of people. I advocate for a system where the means of production are not owned by a small number of people. Instead, the workers would administer the means of production democratically on the basis of one worker, one vote. I think such a model would stop producing a tiny minority of people with disproportionate power in society.

 

[boiled goose]

This seems to be a cache 22. Plenty of blacks said they couldn't vote for Bernie because they can't afford to vote for radical change. Although I think at it's core, people are generally change resistant because change is stressful and the thought makes people anxious.

It's not that radical change wasn't affordable, it's that it was perceived as too risky (by some). Others argued that "going safe" in this political climate was a huge mistake. We all know. what happened.

The breakdown of opinions in primary was most significant by age, not race. Tie age to media consumption sources and you will understand the flow of certain narratives.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Revolution is something driven by the upper classes, because they have the time/resources to invest in it and are least affected by the fallout.

lol

 

[Liberty4all]

So you didn't read the article? The data shows disproportionate amount of welfare is given to states with a lower black minority population.
There's a graph that shows the social programs by state.

Also, none of us said we should strategize a message by calling people "racist" so they should come over. We're using the term to identify the block of voters from the article.

Of course I read the article. Those Voters from the article are not racist.

The entire article is operating from an assumptive starting point that they must be racist then moving on to show how welfare, etc increases these types of Voters who vote to the right.

Personally I would argue that this type of Voter is nationalistic. Country first, citizens first.

Globalism vs nationalism really. What we are seeing is a wholesale rejection (by a portion of Voters) of globalist policies in North American and European societies, in favour of the idea of the Nation State.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Andrew Jackson founded the party on the principal of representing the "common man". This has been a thread through the entire history of the party. Representing workers in the fight against the elitist rich definitely falls in line with populism vs elitism.

However, the shifts in the Democratic and Republican Party has lead to differing ways in which each party represents populism vs elitism. The Democratic Party now has intellectual elitism and the Republican Party has white racial and religious populism.

Religious literalism/fundamentalism is the part of all of this right wing populism that is extremely dangerous. When irrationality, dogma, and disdain for science and facts both drive and obscure your bad intent, very bad things can and will happen. And the other side will use "religion" as a shield from criticism.

No one in their right mind would want to live in under theocracy/fascism if they knew what that actually entailed.

 

[kirblar]

lol

You should go ask your poly sci professors about this one. Because you're not getting it.

When you are on the lower rungs, you're not worried about revolution, you're worried about survival.

When you don't have to work to support yourself, you have the time and resources to go do other stuff like this. Al Qaeda being run by a trust fund kid wasn't an accident.

Of course I read the article. Those Voters from the article are not racist.

The entire article is operating from an assumptive starting point that they must be racist then moving on to show how welfare, etc increases these types of Voters who vote to the right.

Personally I would argue that this type of Voter is nationalistic. Country first, citizens first.

Globalism vs nationalism really. What we are seeing is a wholesale rejection (by a portion of Voters) of globalist policies in North American and European societies, in favour of the idea of the Nation State.

When you're supporting white supremacists (Steve King, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump) this argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Nabbis]

Once you accept that the primary draw for the far right is racism and fear, the reasons for this pattern become pretty obvious!

Whatever, it's your country. If welfare policies made far right movements strong, there would be no welfare policies in the first place. The whole concept is ridiculous.

 

[The Gorby Congressmanz]

I've pointed this out before, but the US has been in a 30-year cycle of electing Republicans after the Democrats fixed the economy that they previously fucked up. Such short memories.

I don't think Obama "fixed" the economy.