I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

The thing about the Supreme Court is that it is possibly the most important, but anyone who thinks that Trump will appoint a strong justice for limited constitutional government is smoking crack. Hillary will without a doubt appoint justices abhorrent to me. As Trump indicated with his attack on the "Mexican" judge, he's going to appoint someone who will cater to his every whim. Not someone who will limit the power of the Presidency. It's not a credible argument. While, in theory, Trump may accidentally stumble onto a position I don't find abhorrent, literally the only argument a Trump supporter can rationally make in his favor is that he's not Hillary. But that's not enough for me.

Is Merrick Garland abhorrent to you?

If Hillary supports the Dem platform, she's not exactly a moderate.

You should talk to the Bernie supporters, who are convinced that she doesn't support it. I believe that they have pushed her to the left, but I also am convinced that her instincts are more centrist. My biggest fear about her is that she listens to too many people, and is too inclined to pick the consensus path. I say this not from a left-right perspective.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You won't hear me call Hill a moderate. I believe she was Bill's liberal conscience from the beginning, and remains roorted strongly left of center.

But I do think she is practical. She likes what works, not what fits an ideological mold.

Moderate on what issues? She is left of center in that she cares about civil rights and social policies that benefit women, children, the disabled, and other disadvantaged groups. In that the moderate position on these issues is to pay lip service, she is not moderate since she actually wants to get shit done.

On the economy, I believe she will be a Wall Street-oriented moderate, like her husband was. I think the same crowd has her ear.

On foreign policy, she's a hawk.

More generally, I think she will pursue incremental reform on a variety of fronts, but I don't see her shaking anything up. To me, that spells moderate. I think she'd be more effective than many other moderates at pursuing her moderate goals, but I don't think she's a raging lefty.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...s-poor-whites/

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...s-poor-whites/

TM

Yes, that's an interesting perspective.

The idea that poor whites they only get attitude from the left ("condescension" and "exasperation") is not quote right (and makes Tom Frank's point). The left wants to use the government to help in different ways, not just "handouts". That's not judging less and understanding more. The cultural resentment here is just so strong. And there's this funny blending of culture and class -- the author keeps talking about the "white working class", but he's really talking about regional attitudes, not class. His "elites" are different from the rich. Hard for me to square this with a professed belief in changing social norms.

eta: Apropos of all of which, I love the note at the very bottom about the picture of the lady in the Trump hat at the top.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I'll take four more years. I'm worried that Obama will be the best president of my lifetime.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...s-poor-whites/

TM

Very. This is the point that Chris Arnade and others have been making that sometimes comes across as an excuse for racism. While racism is in there, the witch's brew has more than one ingredient.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...s-poor-whites/

TM

Variations on this theme are pretty common, especially as everyone attempts to understand the Trump phenomenon:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-trump-america

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The idea that poor whites they only get attitude from the left ("condescension" and "exasperation") is not quote right (and makes Tom Frank's point). The left wants to use the government to help in different ways, not just "handouts".

Perhaps it does. But skills retraining, the govt's other form of assistance, is pie-in-the-sky stuff. Most of the people written about in this excellent article have no hope of switching careers.

Trump promises them jobs and dignity. It's lies from him, of course, but the idea is on the right track. Our govt could assist them in the manner they seek with a massive New Deal style infrastructure rebuilding program. And I think we'll see it do exactly that in the coming decade. We either do something like that, or we give up on the lower middle class entirely.

That's not judging less and understanding more. The cultural resentment here is just so strong. And there's this funny blending of culture and class -- the author keeps talking about the "white working class", but he's really talking about regional attitudes, not class. His "elites" are different from the rich. Hard for me to square this with a professed belief in changing social norms.

I don't think he's trying to change anything. He's telling us why a large segment of society isn't listening to elites.

As to the regional comment, yes and no. The angry working class person in Levittown isn't culturally 1:1 with the guy in WV. But the complaints are the same, and so is the attraction to Trump. They don't want to be simultaneously dictated to, ignored, and offered a handout.

The best of this excellent piece is where the author discusses personal responsibility. And it focuses on what I think is, strangely, the most positive element of a very bleak story. In voting for Trump, these lost souls are choosing to take their chances rather than bet on expansion of the safety net to sustain them. My knee jerk reaction is the same as Thomas Frank's ("these rubes are voting for a plutocrat who's going to screw them"). But that's elitist, and it's narrow-minded. What these simple people are doing is throwing a hand grenade at a system in which they no longer have a place. Perhaps that's anti-social, and it's probably foolish. But I have to admire the sentiment... "I'd rather possibly blow it all up than fade away, forgotten." Can't fault a man for that.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Perhaps it does. But skills retraining, the govt's other form of assistance, is pie-in-the-sky stuff. Most of the people written about in this excellent article have no hope of switching careers.

Trump promises them jobs and dignity. It's lies from him, of course, but the idea is on the right track. Our govt could assist them in the manner they seek with a massive New Deal style infrastructure rebuilding program. And I think we'll see it do exactly that in the coming decade. We either do something like that, or we give up on the lower middle class entirely.



I don't think he's trying to change anything. He's telling us why a large segment of society isn't listening to elites.

As to the regional comment, yes and no. The angry working class person in Levittown isn't culturally 1:1 with the guy in WV. But the complaints are the same, and so is the attraction to Trump. They don't want to be simultaneously dictated to, ignored, and offered a handout.

The best of this excellent piece is where the author discusses personal responsibility. And it outlines what I think is, strangely, the most positive element of a very bleak story. In voting for Trump, these lost souls are choosing to take their chances rather than bet on expansion of the safety net to sustain them. My knee jerk reaction is the same as Thomas Frank's ("these rubes are voting for a plutocrat who's going to screw them"). But that's elitist, and it's narrow-minded. What these simple people are doing is throwing a hand grenade at a system in which they no longer have a place. Perhaps that's anti-social, and it's probably foolish. But I have to admire the sentiment... "I'd rather possibly blow it all up than fade away, forgotten."
Can't fault a man for that.

You're over-analyzing. A lot of people these people are angry, and Trump is angry. They don't care what they're promised or what he'll do, they just want anger.

That anger can result from economic displacement, it can result from inequalities around them, it can result from cultural shifts, or it can result from environmental issues, or any number of other things. But the anger isn't limited to the working class folks, there are plenty of rich people who are full of it too. I mean, look at Slave.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

You know, Trump needs a nickname. He's always giving them to someone else.

What should his be? A few suggestions:

Don the Con
Traitor Trump
No Clue Trump
Comrade Donald

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Perhaps it does. But skills retraining, the govt's other form of assistance, is pie-in-the-sky stuff. Most of the people written about in this excellent article have no hope of switching careers.

Trump promises them jobs and dignity. It's lies from him, of course, but the idea is on the right track. Our govt could assist them in the manner they seek with a massive New Deal style infrastructure rebuilding program. And I think we'll see it do exactly that in the coming decade. We either do something like that, or we give up on the lower middle class entirely.



I don't think he's trying to change anything. He's telling us why a large segment of society isn't listening to elites.

As to the regional comment, yes and no. The angry working class person in Levittown isn't culturally 1:1 with the guy in WV. But the complaints are the same, and so is the attraction to Trump. They don't want to be simultaneously dictated to, ignored, and offered a handout.

The best of this excellent piece is where the author discusses personal responsibility. And it focuses on what I think is, strangely, the most positive element of a very bleak story. In voting for Trump, these lost souls are choosing to take their chances rather than bet on expansion of the safety net to sustain them. My knee jerk reaction is the same as Thomas Frank's ("these rubes are voting for a plutocrat who's going to screw them"). But that's elitist, and it's narrow-minded. What these simple people are doing is throwing a hand grenade at a system in which they no longer have a place. Perhaps that's anti-social, and it's probably foolish. But I have to admire the sentiment... "I'd rather possibly blow it all up than fade away, forgotten." Can't fault a man for that.

Your hyper-romanticization of the Trump voter is as demented as it is unwavering. You're living in an alternate reality, but I guess we all inhabit our own alternate realities. That said, I can objectively confirm with 100% certainty that your alternate reality is super cray cray.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You're over-analyzing. A lot of people these people are angry, and Trump is angry. They don't care what they're promised or what he'll do, they just want anger.

That anger can result from economic displacement, it can result from inequalities around them, it can result from cultural shifts, or it can result from environmental issues, or any number of other things. But the anger isn't limited to the working class folks, there are plenty of rich people who are full of it too. I mean, look at Slave.

One could say that about Black Lives Matter, and he'd be guilty of the same failure to adequately analyze the situation.

Nobody's angry without reason.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Your hyper-romanticization of the Trump voter is as demented as it is unwavering. You're living in an alternate reality, but I guess we all inhabit our own alternate realities. That said, I can objectively confirm with 100% certainty that your alternate reality is super cray cray.

I'm not romanticizing anything. They're tragic, fucked people. I'm looking for some element of something positive.

ETA: I'm also not taking about "Trump voters." I'm talking about the poor, screwed people of pieces like the one linked who happen to be voting for Trump. These are obviously not all of his voters.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Perhaps it does. But skills retraining, the govt's other form of assistance, is pie-in-the-sky stuff. Most of the people written about in this excellent article have no hope of switching careers.

Trump promises them jobs and dignity. It's lies from him, of course, but the idea is on the right track. Our govt could assist them in the manner they seek with a massive New Deal style infrastructure rebuilding program. And I think we'll see it do exactly that in the coming decade. We either do something like that, or we give up on the lower middle class entirely.

I agree that skills retraining is weak sauce. We should be spending money on infrastructure right now, which creates decent jobs. It's the Republicans who are standing in the way.

That said, there are parts of this country where the jobs aren't coming back. Trump isn't promising those people anything except that he'll stick it to the elites, and for a lot of people, that's enough.

I don't think he's trying to change anything. He's telling us why a large segment of society isn't listening to elites.

I was quoting him.

As to the regional comment, yes and no. The angry working class person in Levittown isn't culturally 1:1 with the guy in WV. But the complaints are the same, and so is the attraction to Trump. They don't want to be simultaneously dictated to, ignored, and offered a handout.

I think the complaints are a little different, and I think it's useful to hear the differences.

The best of this excellent piece is where the author discusses personal responsibility. And it focuses on what I think is, strangely, the most positive element of a very bleak story. In voting for Trump, these lost souls are choosing to take their chances rather than bet on expansion of the safety net to sustain them. My knee jerk reaction is the same as Thomas Frank's ("these rubes are voting for a plutocrat who's going to screw them"). But that's elitist, and it's narrow-minded. What these simple people are doing is throwing a hand grenade at a system in which they no longer have a place. Perhaps that's anti-social, and it's probably foolish. But I have to admire the sentiment... "I'd rather possibly blow it all up than fade away, forgotten." Can't fault a man for that.

Sure you can. They're not just blowing up themselves.

If there's a party that believes in "I've got mine, and you're on your own," it's the Republican Party, and it has waged a war to make government less effective for decades. That war hurts working people.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Your hyper-romanticization of the Trump voter is as demented as it is unwavering. You're living in an alternate reality, but I guess we all inhabit our own alternate realities. That said, I can objectively confirm with 100% certainty that your alternate reality is super cray cray.

The back and forths here are indicative of the kind of disconnect the author was describing.

You come in with an analysis that's almost always 1:1 with something one would hear from Rachel Maddow. Slave comes in with something you'd hear from Stuart Varney. (Just picked you guys because you're the most consistently at opposite poles.)

There's a lot of "narrative," even here. But how many Trump voters from Appalachia do you see every week? Right.

I think we'd all (including myself, prominently) do ourselves a great favor to borrow Not Bob's position: It's a "witches brew," and it's a lot more complex than what we think.