Thought-provoking blog post on race

[ESF]

I thought this was very interesting. It reminded me in a way of the intersectional feminism threads, and about our discussions about how white women historically would denigrate women of color to maintain some foothold of power, even if it wasn't quite as much as white men held.   In essence, what this article is saying is similar with regards to class instead of gender.  It explains why poor whites will align themselves with some business interests and against public programs. I think he overstates certain things, like how far a college degree will take you, to drive a more compelling disparity, but the overall point is a good one.

And it's written by a white Republican man!

goplifer.com/2015/12/27/sympathy-for-the-blue-eyed-devil/

Sympathy for the (blue-eyed) devil

Kentucky voters who supported Republican Matt Bevin in his race for Governor began to recognize a sickening reality in the weeks after the election. Many of them had effectively voted away their access to health care.

Stories about these voters took on a consistently hostile tone, criticizing their foolish vulnerability to racist appeals. That reaction is not only unfair, but deeply counter-productive. White Americans, especially those dependent on disappearing blue-collar jobs for their livelihood are not voting against their interests when they respond to racially-tinged populist appeals. Until we understand the concrete, structural significance of white supremacy to our economy and our political order we will continue to be baffled by the behavior of millions of influential white voters.

Late in his life, Dr. Martin Luther King began to shift the focus of his work beyond race toward poverty. King held out the charitable belief that elevating the awareness of lower income whites to their condition might offer a pathway to a post-racial coalition among America’s lower-earners. He described his insights in a 1968 sermon, centered on his conversations with police while he was jailed in Birmingham. Here’s a digest of his comments on that interaction:

“And when those brothers told me what they were earning, I said, “Now, you know what? You ought to be marching with us. You’re just as poor as Negroes.” And I said, “You are put in the position of supporting your oppressor, because through prejudice and blindness, you fail to see that the same forces that oppress Negroes in American society oppress poor white people. And all you are living on is the satisfaction of your skin being white, and the drum major instinct of thinking that you are somebody big because you are white.”

As he was wont to do, King spread a Hallmark-card sheen on that interaction, but his jailers did not set him free. They did not join hands with him. They did not march by his side then or at any time after.

For all his many insights, King seems to have failed to perceive what professor Derrick Bell would describe thirty years later. In the strictest sense, blue collar white workers were not voting against their interest by supporting racist politicians. They were rallying around their last tie to a form of racial solidarity that for centuries had delivered meaningful, material rewards. Voters in the Kentucky counties most desperately dependent on the welfare state voted overwhelmingly for Romney in 2012 and elected a Tea Party extremist Governor in 2015. By the same logic, that cohort of voters is flocking to Donald Trump and ignoring Bernie Sanders.

The material rewards of racism are as real as the bars that separated King from his jailers. On one side were men who held secure government jobs for life. Though their incomes were modest, they enjoyed guaranteed health care and a pension. The machinery of a deeply oppressive system was calibrated to spare them from its most violent tendencies. Those men saw (and sometimes meted out) the worst abuses that system could deliver. By virtue of the racial heritage they shared with wealthier whites, they enjoyed a thin, but vital degree of protection. Those jailers held down government jobs with pensions for one reason and one reason only – their skin color. And they knew it.

On the other side of the bars were men with few economic prospects, despised, and subjected to relentless oppression, humiliation and violence. The only crime those prisoners had committed was their defiance of white supremacy. King’s jailers recognized that race was the only force keeping them outside that cage. They feared what would happen to them if black citizens were given equal treatment. Many white voters continue to see that same potential in the growth of a post-racial America, their last tie to their modest collection of privileges cut, the last advantages and protections of their race terminated. White support for the likes of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz emerges from a terrible logic that we ignore at our peril.

In King’s lifetime we were already experiencing the dawn of a new global capitalist order, bringing with it innovation, prosperity and disruption on an unprecedented scale. For all our present angst about income inequality, the trend toward extreme outcomes we see today was already in motion by the late 50’s. An economy built more on talent than on muscle respects only one color – green. Racial preferences were standing in the way of a new world of profit. King had a potent ally he never recognized.

As the knowledge economy shifts into second gear it is fueling greater and greater variation in incomes. Those with the education, positioning and drive to get in the game have a chance to reap inordinately large payoffs. Those who do not compete successfully get less than in the past. It is an economy of extremes. That thick layer of predictable, middle income jobs is thinning steadily.

An obvious solution might be to deliver a basic level of income and lifestyle for everyone, without regard for old concerns about “need.” Pay for it with taxes on the higher earners who made it into the express lanes of the knowledge economy. Those who want to reap the rewards of the knowledge economy will be free to do so. Those who either don’t want that high-pressure, high-speed lifestyle, or for some reason cannot perform there, will be prevented from falling into penury.

One glaring political problem blocks this move. A large minority of US voters who might seem like the prime beneficiaries of this reform are determined not to go there. Lower income whites, especially in the South, are not interested in a new deal. They want to restore the old one.

Under the old deal, white men got preferential access to all of the best jobs available. Generations of white families earned their living in the fire or police departments, or worked in road construction, sanitation, or public works. Sons worked alongside fathers in union jobs at a local factory. They had every reason to expect that their children would have a chance to follow in the family tradition.

Global capitalism and the rise of the knowledge economy destroyed that simple, yet dignified way of life. As the demands of competition intensified, political will behind generations of racial preferences broke down. Race and gender-based protections for whites weakened or melted away.

Economic outcomes for those who earned an education, moved to big cities, and poured themselves into an exciting and demanding competition bloomed. Capitalism drove down the price of practically everything except for the labor of a smart, talented, educated human being. Salaries for educated professionals exceed anything broadly available just a generation ago while the range of products and services available for that money has exploded. For many, this is a bright new age of wonder, defined by affluence, freedom and seemingly endless potential.

Those who had hoped to join their uncles at the assembly line, in local government or public service jobs found fewer options available. Most importantly, in political terms they faced fresh competition from those who had been locked out of those roles in the past. People who, from their perspective, were the most American Americans, found their relative lifestyles dented, unable to achieve the economic security a previous generation of blue collar whites took for granted. Meanwhile, for all their continuing struggles, minority families have seen their relative incomes and well-being improve.

Whites with a college education and a chance to earn a living in a professional or technical field seldom have more than a distant attachment to racism, varying by how much they’ve learned or how much exposure they’ve had to a wider world. For those who come from a blue-collar tradition, especially manufacturing, mining or public service families, this new world is a rapidly unfolding catastrophe. They aren’t just falling behind, they are dying off.

Expanded access to Medicaid isn’t merely a poor compensation for what they’ve lost, it’s a stinging insult. White racial solidarity across income levels cannot be dismissed as a sentimental attachment, an opiate for the white masses. It has always been a cornerstone of their well-being. From the perspective of blue collar workers, affluent whites pushing “political correctness” or “diversity” are traitors. Having climbed the ladder they are sawing off the bottom rungs.

What the Trumps and Cruz’s of the world offer these voters is a chance to put the genie back in the bottle. They want to restore an America that reserves its bounty for “good, hard-working” white people, where women know their place and behave as humble, modest women should. Where a white man doesn’t need to slog through years of “socialist indoctrination” at some godless university to earn a chance at honest work. They offer a government that will ‘take my country back’ blocking a mythical wave of greedy newcomers who haven’t earned their place from stealing what little is left over after the wealthy take their share. They promise to put “uppity” minorities in their place, suppressing the supposed wave of crime and general thievery perpetrated by lesser races who would steal from the more deserving.

Want to convince lower income white Americans that they are voting against their interests? Explain how you can offer them something better than white supremacy. When we understand what white supremacy actually delivered for these folks, the scale of our challenge in building a just post-racial society becomes evident.

Perhaps King failed to recognize the depth of the challenge he faced in trying to forge an alliance with lower income whites. That said King didn’t become an American secular saint by setting modest goals. No one who is serious about challenging racism in America should ignore the structural, functional importance of bigotry.

With that obstacle squarely in sight the power of our Goliath becomes clear. So does his weakness. King always insisted that peace was inseparable from justice. Once we recognize that racism in America is more than just a moral compromise or a product of ignorance, we start to see the flaw in our efforts to date. Our approach to racism over the past forty years has placed the bill for white supremacy at the feet of the white families who benefited least. Affluent whites have walked away and retained their accumulated rewards.

Until we address this imbalance we will continue to be hounded by populist politicians profiting from fear and hate. The longer we ignore the problem, the more powerful will be our reckoning. This devil will have his due.

[sparrowsong]

That's a good article. Thanks for sharing it.

[elleblue]

Enlightening and depressing. Depressing because I don't really see a solution. Those lost blue collar manufacturing jobs aren't going to magically come back and competition is increasing naturally, since the pool of eligible applicants now includes women and minorities. It's just not possible to coast into a financially stable job without any effort or on the virtue of your gender or race. But it does make it perfectly clear why some in those one time favorite demographics now feel incredibly threatened.

[rupertpenny]

ESF I've been following this blog since you first posted it here and it is really interesting. He often has a viewpoint that I don't hear other places.

[chedifuen]

Great post and great blog

[twotrue]

Reading that was like a light bulb moment. I just kept nodding and saying to myself, "well shit, that makes total sesnse!"

[msmerymac]

I guess I'm wondering what the ideal candidate would look like, then. Bernie Sanders ha built his whole campaign on economic equality and poverty alleviation. Is it that he's too liberal in terms of equality? Because I can't imagine you can talk about policies that will provide a basic standard of living and a sense of economic independence for everyone, and yet NOT address racial and gender equality. Is it that people don't like the word socialist? What?

[mrsukyankee]

What an interesting and thought provoking article. Helped me understand a few things.

[NitaX]

Jan 4, 2016 21:47:22 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I guess I'm wondering what the ideal candidate would look like, then. Bernie Sanders ha built his whole campaign on economic equality and poverty alleviation. Is it that he's too liberal in terms of equality? Because I can't imagine you can talk about policies that will provide a basic standard of living and a sense of economic independence for everyone, and yet NOT address racial and gender equality. Is it that people don't like the word socialist? What?

I think that this has more to do with how we as a nation have historically viewed Socialism and Communism. If you look at our history - a new government formed out of distrust and angst from a monarchy to a government run by it's people, then it makes sense to be distrustful of additional government interference. The system of checks and balances was designed to keep the power structure from leaning too heavily in one direction.

With socialism, Americans think of Cuba and Russia and on its heels one begins to think of how socialism can devolve into Communism. So, we're skeptics of anything that shifts the balance we created too far left or right. I don't think you can view any discussion ofSanders' policies without that view as to why they aren't more popular.

I liken it to gun control - it's pretty much embedded in the DNA of this nation and you aren't going to wipe that out. Same thing with institutional racism - its embedded in the nation's psyche. 

To the blog - great read.

This stood out out me: "Whites with a college education and a chance to earn a living in a professional or technical field seldom have more than a distant attachment to racism, varying by how much they’ve learned or how much exposure they’ve had to a wider world. For those who come from a blue-collar tradition, especially manufacturing, mining or public service families, this new world is a rapidly unfolding catastrophe. They aren’t just falling behind, they are dying off.
"


I want the blogger to examine this further - because now I want to ask, why is it that poor white folks are anti-education? Black folks don't really begrudge education contrary to popular media hype. Not a single one of my thug-life relatives hold disdain because I went to college. I might get called bougie every once in a while, but no one gets upset that you've done well. It seems white folks don't do this based on some shows I've seen. So, I'm really curious about this as maybe a cultural difference.

[downtoearth]

I appreciate his perspective that women and WOC have not had it equal, and that WOC have had it much harder.

But I still want to talk about his final thesis in this that he asserts that affluent and college educated white (men) are the ones who have widened this rift between affluent white males and poor white males. He says toward the end, "From the perspective of blue collar workers, affluent whites pushing “political correctness” or “diversity” are traitors. Having climbed the ladder they are sawing off the bottom rungs." What does this mean and why are the poorer white males more anti-education and anti-changes like NitaX asked above?

The author also asserts that the appeal of Trump and Cruz are that they are offering the lower, socio-economic whites to "put the genie back in the bottle." But they can offer that all day and it won't happen. I mean, sure, gut the ACA and lower taxes for industry... what has that industry really every done for blue collar workers to take care of them since the 1980s?

As a GOPlifer, as his blog title mentions, he believes, I assume, of a whole ideal that industry and corporations, when left with more of their money, will do well for their employees and the economy for everyone? That hasn't happened with the corporations of yore and most larger corporations who were trying to do this have failed or changed in one way or another (especially the automotive and manufacturing sectors). So I see that he's identified the problem... poorer white people (mostly men) are feeling left out, but what are we supposed to do with this info? We can't unleash a Trump or Cruz to try to dismantle regulations and taxes. So is the final feeling that there is nothing that the GOP can do to fix this or is he saying the party really needs to refocus on education platform so that the next generation will not feel this disenfranchised?

[partiallysunny]

Thank you for sharing. Interesting article.

[downtoearth]

Can I also say, which is a tangent to this and not directly mentioned, that I am always surprised that all these lower socio-economic males who feel disenfranchised from the corporate world want to roll back time ("put the genie back in the bottle" as the blogger says), but the heyday economic times of Bill Clinton aren't enough for them to even consider voting Dems.  It just seems ironic that they want economic change, but want to still be un-pc and blame POC or women for their jobs going away, so they can't even consider voting for a socially liberal candidate. 

[ESF]

Jan 5, 2016 10:47:23 GMT -5 NitaX said:

Jan 4, 2016 21:47:22 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I guess I'm wondering what the ideal candidate would look like, then. Bernie Sanders ha built his whole campaign on economic equality and poverty alleviation. Is it that he's too liberal in terms of equality? Because I can't imagine you can talk about policies that will provide a basic standard of living and a sense of economic independence for everyone, and yet NOT address racial and gender equality. Is it that people don't like the word socialist? What?

I think that this has more to do with how we as a nation have historically viewed Socialism and Communism. If you look at our history - a new government formed out of distrust and angst from a monarchy to a government run by it's people, then it makes sense to be distrustful of additional government interference. The system of checks and balances was designed to keep the power structure from leaning too heavily in one direction.

With socialism, Americans think of Cuba and Russia and on its heels one begins to think of how socialism can devolve into Communism. So, we're skeptics of anything that shifts the balance we created too far left or right. I don't think you can view any discussion ofSanders' policies without that view as to why they aren't more popular.

I liken it to gun control - it's pretty much embedded in the DNA of this nation and you aren't going to wipe that out. Same thing with institutional racism - its embedded in the nation's psyche. 

To the blog - great read.

This stood out out me: "Whites with a college education and a chance to earn a living in a professional or technical field seldom have more than a distant attachment to racism, varying by how much they’ve learned or how much exposure they’ve had to a wider world. For those who come from a blue-collar tradition, especially manufacturing, mining or public service families, this new world is a rapidly unfolding catastrophe. They aren’t just falling behind, they are dying off.
"


I want the blogger to examine this further - because now I want to ask, why is it that poor white folks are anti-education? Black folks don't really begrudge education contrary to popular media hype. Not a single one of my thug-life relatives hold disdain because I went to college. I might get called bougie every once in a while, but no one gets upset that you've done well. It seems white folks don't do this based on some shows I've seen. So, I'm really curious about this as maybe a cultural difference.

Yeah, I think this would be an interesting question to explore.

Speaking out of my ass, but I think religion plays a huge component.  Education, and in particular, science and history, are very threatening to some religious people. Black Christians never had the privilege to complain about being forced to learn evolution, they were lucky just to get to go to a school where it was taught, so they weren't going to rock the boat. Now, they can't complain about being forced to be taught things counter to their faith because they have bigger problems in combatting a stereotype that they don't care about education. 

 White people, especially poor whites, have been coddled. They've always been given the right to complain about being taught fact-based science and history. So I imagine that this resistance to being educated in a way that conflicts with religion gave rise to an entitlement to being educated about things that conflict with any pre-conciveved notion, faith based or otherwise.  So much of it is a gray area that is a little bit religion and a little bit race based.  Think about the Crusades.  Portraying that chapter in history honestly will probably piss off religious people. But it will probably piss off even non-religious whites since it doesn't make Europeans look so good. It challenges their views of the world, and it's seen as a tool to elevate other groups above white people.

[msmerymac]

Good point , ESF, but there are also poor/blue collar whites who aren't religious. Those tend to fall under the "If it was good enough for me, it's good enough for you" philosophy, at least according to my experience with my dad's family. Think every Old Economy Steve meme you've ever seen. Oh, your dad had an 11th grade education and was able to support a family, buy a new car every 5-6 years, own a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs, and have a boat to take to the lake in the summer? Cool story! They just want that back - never mind that the post-war economic development rewarded white men above and beyond any other group in the US. I get the sense that a lot of these people are maybe somewhat ashamed of not having a lot of advanced education or technical skills, and they take the immature approach of making fun of those who do.

[blink]

Interesting read -- thank you for sharing. I've never thought about it in quite that way.

[NitaX]

Jan 5, 2016 21:23:23 GMT -5 @mx said:

I have a lot of thoughts about the working class white, education disdaining portion of the population. And the relationship to declining faith in institutions. It's actually something H and I talk about a lot on our hikes. I'm too tired now, but I'll try to post tomorrow if I remember.

I'll try to tag you tomorrow for your thoughts!

[NewOrleans]

Jan 5, 2016 10:47:23 GMT -5 NitaX said:

Jan 4, 2016 21:47:22 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I guess I'm wondering what the ideal candidate would look like, then. Bernie Sanders ha built his whole campaign on economic equality and poverty alleviation. Is it that he's too liberal in terms of equality? Because I can't imagine you can talk about policies that will provide a basic standard of living and a sense of economic independence for everyone, and yet NOT address racial and gender equality. Is it that people don't like the word socialist? What?

I think that this has more to do with how we as a nation have historically viewed Socialism and Communism. If you look at our history - a new government formed out of distrust and angst from a monarchy to a government run by it's people, then it makes sense to be distrustful of additional government interference. The system of checks and balances was designed to keep the power structure from leaning too heavily in one direction.

With socialism, Americans think of Cuba and Russia and on its heels one begins to think of how socialism can devolve into Communism. So, we're skeptics of anything that shifts the balance we created too far left or right. I don't think you can view any discussion ofSanders' policies without that view as to why they aren't more popular.

I liken it to gun control - it's pretty much embedded in the DNA of this nation and you aren't going to wipe that out. Same thing with institutional racism - its embedded in the nation's psyche. 

To the blog - great read.

This stood out out me: "Whites with a college education and a chance to earn a living in a professional or technical field seldom have more than a distant attachment to racism, varying by how much they’ve learned or how much exposure they’ve had to a wider world. For those who come from a blue-collar tradition, especially manufacturing, mining or public service families, this new world is a rapidly unfolding catastrophe. They aren’t just falling behind, they are dying off.
"


I want the blogger to examine this further - because now I want to ask, why is it that poor white folks are anti-education? Black folks don't really begrudge education contrary to popular media hype. Not a single one of my thug-life relatives hold disdain because I went to college. I might get called bougie every once in a while, but no one gets upset that you've done well. It seems white folks don't do this based on some shows I've seen. So, I'm really curious about this as maybe a cultural difference.

Re: your closing thoughts.  IMO, it's because they believe education and educators are inherently liberal and therefore biased, and because public education is a government institution. And because they are anti-union?

[NitaX]

Alright @mx - This is your reminder to post your thoughts!

[omgzombies]

Jan 5, 2016 22:21:59 GMT -5 @domerjen said:

I think I must have read this the wrong way b/c you all are responding very calmly and rationally. This article really irritated me! That we should feel bad for people b/c they just want things to be better for themselves by pushing those who aren't as "good" as them back down?

I get that this is an explanation of what some people, who look as though they are shooting themselves in the foot, are thinking, but I'm not feeling sympathetic. Should I be? It's an interesting take, but kind of enraging.

I'm tired. Maybe I'm having a comprehension fail.

I felt this way the first time I read it too.  Oh boo hoo for you.  I had no patience for it.

Coming back to it today has allowed me to look at it without all the irritation.  I was not in that place yesterday.

[ESF]

Jan 5, 2016 22:21:59 GMT -5 @domerjen said:

I think I must have read this the wrong way b/c you all are responding very calmly and rationally. This article really irritated me! That we should feel bad for people b/c they just want things to be better for themselves by pushing those who aren't as "good" as them back down?

I get that this is an explanation of what some people, who look as though they are shooting themselves in the foot, are thinking, but I'm not feeling sympathetic. Should I be? It's an interesting take, but kind of enraging.

I'm tired. Maybe I'm having a comprehension fail.

The main takeaway is about how to appeal to these people as voters, who are manipulated by the GOP and ignored or looked down upon by the Democrats.

But we should care what happens to these people. There's a whole demographic being cut out of society, left behind, and dying off at alarming rates. They are swelling Medicaid and disability rolls. They are stockpiling guns. Their kids are going to declining public schools, being brought up to be scared and racist and uneducated. It's a bad, bad situation. Sure, some of its of their own doing, but that doesn't mean that Americans are justified in writing this group off.

Liberals have looked at this demographic and said, "stupid racist jerks, voting against their own interests, meh....good riddance, dipshits!" What we've missed in all this is that Jim Crow was a good time for them, not because they loved being able to be racist, but because they were like the legacy admits into a prestigious university, getting a lot of great stuff because of their legacy. So in thinking about how to reach these people, we've got to realize that the situation is more complex than just, "these people are racist dipshits, can't do nothing about that!" Colorblind solutions that deliver them something better than Jim Crow aren't going to be easy, but writing them off is only going to make the problem worse.

[ESF]

@mx , that's a really interesting perspective, and I think it makes a lot of sense.

I grew up in a small, rural town, and this is definitely true:

Now you'd probably find no group in America that says family is not a priority, but the difference with this group may be that because they never HAD to migrate for work or acceptance in recent memory they have become particularly hardened against the notion and their circle of trust has always been small.

The difference between my upbringing and some of these others though is that my rural town was not filled with an anti-college sentiment. But I grew up in Massachusetts, where so much of the state, even the very rural parts, have close ties to academia, and rural doesn't mean what it means in less dense states. That's probably true for huge portions of the Northeast.

There's a little distrust and disapproval of people who leave the area, sure, but not totally unreasonable.  But I can easily see what you describe in a town that's like mine, just a little more isolated and a little less enmeshed geographically into a huge network of colleges.

[downtoearth]

Jan 6, 2016 10:30:02 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jan 5, 2016 22:21:59 GMT -5 @domerjen said:

I think I must have read this the wrong way b/c you all are responding very calmly and rationally. This article really irritated me! That we should feel bad for people b/c they just want things to be better for themselves by pushing those who aren't as "good" as them back down?

I get that this is an explanation of what some people, who look as though they are shooting themselves in the foot, are thinking, but I'm not feeling sympathetic. Should I be? It's an interesting take, but kind of enraging.

I'm tired. Maybe I'm having a comprehension fail.

The main takeaway is about how to appeal to these people as voters, who are manipulated by the GOP and ignored or looked down upon by the Democrats.

But we should care what happens to these people. There's a whole demographic being cut out of society, left behind, and dying off at alarming rates. They are swelling Medicaid and disability rolls. They are stockpiling guns. Their kids are going to declining public schools, being brought up to be scared and racist and uneducated. It's a bad, bad situation. Sure, some of its of their own doing, but that doesn't mean that Americans are justified in writing this group off.

Liberals have looked at this demographic and said, "stupid racist jerks, voting against their own interests, meh....good riddance, dipshits!" What we've missed in all this is that Jim Crow was a good time for them, not because they loved being able to be racist, but because they were like the legacy admits into a prestigious university, getting a lot of great stuff because of their legacy. So in thinking about how to reach these people, we've got to realize that the situation is more complex than just, "these people are racist dipshits, can't do nothing about that!" Colorblind solutions that deliver them something better than Jim Crow aren't going to be easy, but writing them off is only going to make the problem worse.

Don't you think that some of their disenfranchising is b/c the GOP isn't reaching out to them and fulfilling their needs?  They aren't seeing their issues being addressed by the GOP, which has been seen with the rise of the tea party politicians who oust even incumbent Repubs.  The GOP is like two parties tied in a little power struggle as to what their agenda should be and then they have to turn around and compromise with a third party at the national level to get anything done (Dems, of course).

And, yeah, you're right the liberal Dems haven't "needed" to read out to this group b/c their demographics aren't as reliant on anti-education white guys, but I don't think they ever "had" them to push away, did they?  I agree that the Dems are sometimes didactic about it saying, "but this policy is good for you, too, if you'd just stop fighting it."

[NitaX]

That's good stuff @mx. So, through all of that it does become a question of how do you get them to accept that the nature of the world has changed? It's like Common Core math. LMAO. And I say that because I was reviewing my kid's math homework and the way she showed me to equalize fractions wasn't the way I learned it BUT, either way, the result was still the same. As my granny would say - there is more than one way to skin a cat. Either you can rebuff it, kick and scream about it or find commonality to make it work.

But, I get the though about the community not looking the same. It's the very same thing that I see when discussing the current educational landscape in TN. These people don't "know me;" how can they help me. So, if I'm the elected official with this information - I would at least try to find ways to bring a greater business investment or tackle the issues presented for that specific community. And tackling those issues isn't just well, get jobs for whites only, it's really an issue of NO opportunity at all. It means creating some level of workforce whereby they benefit as well.

[ESF]

Jan 6, 2016 13:32:59 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Jan 6, 2016 10:30:02 GMT -5 ESF said:

The main takeaway is about how to appeal to these people as voters, who are manipulated by the GOP and ignored or looked down upon by the Democrats.

But we should care what happens to these people. There's a whole demographic being cut out of society, left behind, and dying off at alarming rates. They are swelling Medicaid and disability rolls. They are stockpiling guns. Their kids are going to declining public schools, being brought up to be scared and racist and uneducated. It's a bad, bad situation. Sure, some of its of their own doing, but that doesn't mean that Americans are justified in writing this group off.

Liberals have looked at this demographic and said, "stupid racist jerks, voting against their own interests, meh....good riddance, dipshits!" What we've missed in all this is that Jim Crow was a good time for them, not because they loved being able to be racist, but because they were like the legacy admits into a prestigious university, getting a lot of great stuff because of their legacy. So in thinking about how to reach these people, we've got to realize that the situation is more complex than just, "these people are racist dipshits, can't do nothing about that!" Colorblind solutions that deliver them something better than Jim Crow aren't going to be easy, but writing them off is only going to make the problem worse.

Don't you think that some of their disenfranchising is b/c the GOP isn't reaching out to them and fulfilling their needs?  They aren't seeing their issues being addressed by the GOP, which has been seen with the rise of the tea party politicians who oust even incumbent Repubs.  The GOP is like two parties tied in a little power struggle as to what their agenda should be and then they have to turn around and compromise with a third party at the national level to get anything done (Dems, of course).

And, yeah, you're right the liberal Dems haven't "needed" to read out to this group b/c their demographics aren't as reliant on anti-education white guys, but I don't think they ever "had" them to push away, did they?  I agree that the Dems are sometimes didactic about it saying, "but this policy is good for you, too, if you'd just stop fighting it."

Yes, I think the GOP hasn't been good to them either.  But I think it's not unlike the relationship that the African American community has with the Democrats.  The Democrats take the black vote for granted, knowing that they can phone it in and toss a few concessions here and there to black people without meaningful reform, because the Republicans are just out there advocating for even worse things.  Likewise, the GOP knows they can take the working class white vote for granted by railing against affirmative action and food stamps, without offering any sort of real solution to their problems.

Trump offers a "solution" - a wall and a database of Muslims. And he hasn't let up on it. That's why they love him.





Which is why I think we are seeing a rise of Trump, an anti-immigration populist nut job.