Should one fearful of losing privilege be elected in a democracy

[Thumpalumpacus]

No sweat. I just want to say that I'm not sure that the key to Trump's support is racism. No doubt Trump's dog-whistles a big part of his appeal to WN/SF-type assholes (it seems like he pulled them straight out of a white-nationalist tract), but I think that more than that, economic stagnation (in terms of wage-growth vs inflation, or the availability of quality jobs -- or many jobs at all in some places).

Mind you, I'm not saying there's any good justification for voting for that twatwaffle; I'm just trying to explain why the Trumpeteers I know voted the way they did.

I think that Trump's success was primarily due to his speaking to the old Democrat constituency of the blue collar middle class. The Democrats were once their champions but abandoned them, allowed their jobs in manufacturing to leave the country, told them to get used to it because their jobs would never return, then disparaged them as "deplorable".

Democrats once represented the interests of the broad working middle class of America and had their unquestioned support. Over the last couple decades, the Democratic party has switched to representing special interest groups and international causes at the expense of their old constituency of working middle class Americans. Trump saw the hole and filled it.

Agreed -- especially about the "deplorable" comment. The moment I heard Hillary say that in the debate, I knew she had blundered ... uh ... hugely. And in the broader context, yes, the Democrats have moved upmarket, so to speak. But that neccessitates narrowing one's base, doesn't it?

 

[fromderinside]

Gotta go with words over facts I guess if one has a fixed perspective.

What lead to the result is white man's fear of losing privilege which Trump locked onto with part racist-part tribalist rhetoric. Hillary lost because of the toxic western world environment surrounding immigrants and violence, primarily in Europe. If it's different fear it. Those at risk are the most likely to succumb to such. Those were, in Michigan, Wisconsin, and upstate Pennsylvania white unionists and family farmers. Unionists were traditionally democratic farmers were traditionally republican so increase in republican voting did the job just because we allowed a racist, liar, and habitual cheat to run for office because the white insecure were afraid.

Loses aren't very often based on a few regrettable words. Romney lost because his strategy was so flawed that even his polls gave wrong answers. Clinton lost because she was insensitive to the fear running rampant in the lower middle class rust belt white districts. Actually she won by about as many votes as Bush did against John Kerry.

 

[skepticalbip]

Gotta go with words over facts I guess if one has a fixed perspective.

What lead to the result is white man's fear of losing privilege which Trump locked onto with part racist-part tribalist rhetoric. Hillary lost because of the toxic western world environment surrounding immigrants and violence, primarily in Europe. If it's different fear it. Those at risk are the most likely to succumb to such. Those were, in Michigan, Wisconsin, and upstate Pennsylvania white unionists and family farmers. Unionists were traditionally democratic farmers were traditionally republican so increase in republican voting did the job just because we allowed a racist, liar, and habitual cheat to run for office because the white insecure were afraid.

Loses aren't very often based on a few regrettable words. Romney lost because his strategy was so flawed that even his polls gave wrong answers. Clinton lost because she was insensitive to the fear running rampant in the lower middle class rust belt white districts. Actually she won by about as many votes as Bush did against John Kerry.

Even though many "issues" are hyped during political campaigns, elections are primarily about personal pocketbook concerns... or as James Carville stressed to Bill Clinton, "It's the economy, stupid." Bill took his advice and won big.

Trump, apparently, learned Carville's lesson so promised tax cuts, a return of manufacturing to the US, and job growth. The Democrats were promising higher taxes and had told the blue collar workers that had lost their jobs to suck it up and accept that their jobs would never return as the new reality. Hillary was even promising to shut down industries like coal mining and then was surprised that she lost Pennsylvania, a major coal producing state.

I think that the Democratic party may be in trouble if the leadership continues to ignore Carville's sage advice, which they seem to be determined to do. Pilossi promises that, if she returns to speaker of the house, the tax cuts (crumbs, she calls it) that the Republican congress, under Trump, passed will be eliminated and taxes will be raised.

Bernie Sanders understands this but he was shut down by the Democrat machine.

 

[fromderinside]

Elections are usually based on emotional factors which are more likely to be out of fear, anger, hatred, than out of comfort, wages, personalities, etc.

In a time of recession the economy IS important. In a time of tribal stress fear IS important. This is time of conflict between being civilized and being a bully. IMHO democrats are probably going to win big.

 

[southernhybrid]

Charles Blow had an interesting column this morning about "white male victimization anxiety".

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/opinion/trump-white-male-victimization.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

During the swearing-in of Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Monday, Donald Trump took it upon himself to apologize to Kavanaugh and his family “on behalf of our nation” for the “terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure.”
He repeated the tired lines that he and Republicans hope will stick, and steer the comatose base to electoral fervor: That accusations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh were part of a “campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception” and that “what happened to the Kavanaugh family violates every notion of fairness, decency and due process.”
But to me, this was not just a president and party worried about an approaching “blue wave” and trying to take political advantage of a moment of victory. It was also an outright and increasing amplification of a reactionary white male victimization syndrome that has consumed modern American conservatism.
Vox has called it “the unleashing of white male backlash.”
The women accusing the white man of assault weren’t the victims; instead, the white man was the victim. In some people’s eyes, he was the victim of political correctness, #MeToo’s overreach, a check-your-white-male-privilege culture drunk on its own self-righteousness.

Hillary Clinton lost because a lot of people hated her and imo, at least some of that was due to her gender. There is someone in my own neighborhood that has a sign in front of their beautiful, well maintained home, that reads: NEVER HILLARY. It's still up two years after the election. I've never seen such vitriolic hatred directed at a white male candidate. When I was still working, I had patients that told me they would never vote for a female for president. Granted they were all over 80, and most of them were likely already Republicans, so they voted for a totally unqualified white male instead of a highly qualified woman. I don't know whether to call that sexist based immoral behavior or just plain ignorance.

 

[fromderinside]

Social norms moved hugely under Obama. Mostly it was because they were long overdue. some, though, like catching up with the french on bathroom attendance and accepting feeling like as sufficinent to cross dress amplified religious reich alarm over sex role's place in society. With the migrations from Africa and Central and west Asia into Europe and in a minor way into the US all these thing conflated into a social comfort jerk, well beyond a smooth transition.

White male panic was to be expected. The problem is that the result also moved truth and information into the crosshairs of the bullies and bigots enabling racists and sexists, and scofflaws and imperialists to climb on board the new bread wagon. We got Trump the racist, cowardly, pompous, crook, dictator wannabe.

Things are looking better. However if we don't get our buts to either mail or go to precinct to vote all may be lost and a new dark age may be rising up on us.

Tamp the damn thing down. Your kids and grandkids will call you hero.

 

[skepticalbip]

Elections are usually based on emotional factors which are more likely to be out of fear, anger, hatred, than out of comfort, wages, personalities, etc.

In a time of recession the economy IS important. In a time of tribal stress fear IS important. This is time of conflict between being civilized and being a bully. IMHO democrats are probably going to win big.

You are talking about the "red meat crowd" on both sides. The hard right and hard left make up about 30% each of the voting population. Both Dem and Repub candidates throw out emotional "issues" as red meat to stoke their loyal base and insure they make it to the polls. It is the 40% of voters, independents, that can be swayed to either side (or become so disgusted with both sides that they don't vote) that determine the outcome of elections. These are the voters that are concerned with "what is good for themselves and the country" that vote on proposed policy matters rather than the "red meat" so hyped by our politicians and news media.

ETA:
For instance: A candidate running on "insuring that appropriate signage is on bathrooms for the LGBQ" or one running on "disciplining those who take a knee during the national anthem" are red meat issues to stoke their bases. But the difference between a candidate running on promoting industrial growth vs. a candidate running on shutting down industries is an important national and political matter.

 

[bilby]

Elections are usually based on emotional factors which are more likely to be out of fear, anger, hatred, than out of comfort, wages, personalities, etc.

In a time of recession the economy IS important. In a time of tribal stress fear IS important. This is time of conflict between being civilized and being a bully. IMHO democrats are probably going to win big.

You are talking about the "red meat crowd" on both sides. The hard right and hard left make up about 30% each of the voting population. Both Dem and Repub candidates throw out emotional "issues" as red meat to stoke their loyal base and insure they make it to the polls. It is the 40% of voters, independents, that can be swayed to either side (or become so disgusted with both sides that they don't vote) that determine the outcome of elections. These are the voters that are concerned with "what is good for themselves and the country" that vote on proposed policy matters rather than the "red meat" so hyped by our politicians and news media.

ETA:
For instance: A candidate running on "insuring that appropriate signage is on bathrooms for the LGBQ" or one running on "disciplining those who take a knee during the national anthem" are red meat issues to stoke their bases. But the difference between a candidate running on promoting industrial growth vs. a candidate running on shutting down industries is an important national and political matter.

When did any candidate ever run on shutting down industries? Every candidate from both sides always says that their policies will lead to industrial and economic growth, lower taxes, motherhood and apple pie. What they disagree on is how to achieve these things. And the electorate at large is typically unqualified to assess whether any particular plan will have the claimed effects, or the exact opposite.

 

[skepticalbip]

Elections are usually based on emotional factors which are more likely to be out of fear, anger, hatred, than out of comfort, wages, personalities, etc.

In a time of recession the economy IS important. In a time of tribal stress fear IS important. This is time of conflict between being civilized and being a bully. IMHO democrats are probably going to win big.

You are talking about the "red meat crowd" on both sides. The hard right and hard left make up about 30% each of the voting population. Both Dem and Repub candidates throw out emotional "issues" as red meat to stoke their loyal base and insure they make it to the polls. It is the 40% of voters, independents, that can be swayed to either side (or become so disgusted with both sides that they don't vote) that determine the outcome of elections. These are the voters that are concerned with "what is good for themselves and the country" that vote on proposed policy matters rather than the "red meat" so hyped by our politicians and news media.

ETA:
For instance: A candidate running on "insuring that appropriate signage is on bathrooms for the LGBQ" or one running on "disciplining those who take a knee during the national anthem" are red meat issues to stoke their bases. But the difference between a candidate running on promoting industrial growth vs. a candidate running on shutting down industries is an important national and political matter.

When did any candidate ever run on shutting down industries? Every candidate from both sides always says that their policies will lead to industrial and economic growth, lower taxes, motherhood and apple pie. What they disagree on is how to achieve these things. And the electorate at large is typically unqualified to assess whether any particular plan will have the claimed effects, or the exact opposite.

In the U.S. 2016 presidential campaign, the Democrat candidate made a big deal of promising to shut down the U.S. coal industry. This would have very quickly (if in the first term) eliminated several hundred thousand quite good paying jobs.

What they did not offer was campaign promise to build nuclear reactors which would be industrial growth and would be a very different matter - however many, if not most, Democrats are against those too - but would have phased out the need for coal without the heavy handed government mandate.

U.S. politics is odd. We actually have a party that usually always runs on raising taxes. Of course they also promise that it will be "the other guy" that has to pay them. For instance, our house minority leader, has already promised to raise taxes if her party wins the house next month and she is selected as the speaker of the house. She was the Speaker the last time her party held the house.

 

[fromderinside]

When did any candidate ever run on shutting down industries? Every candidate from both sides always says that their policies will lead to industrial and economic growth, lower taxes, motherhood and apple pie. What they disagree on is how to achieve these things. And the electorate at large is typically unqualified to assess whether any particular plan will have the claimed effects, or the exact opposite.

In the U.S. 2016 presidential campaign, the Democrat candidate made a big deal of promising to shut down the U.S. coal industry. This would have very quickly (if in the first term) eliminated several hundred thousand quite good paying jobs.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States#Total_coal-related_jobs

What they did not offer was campaign promise to build nuclear reactors which would be industrial growth and would be a very different matter - however many, if not most, Democrats are against those too - but would have phased out the need for coal without the heavy handed government mandate.

How is this the Yin to Coal production Yan?

U.S. politics is odd. We actually have a party that usually always runs on raising taxes. Of course they also promise that it will be "the other guy" that has to pay them. For instance, our house minority leader, has already promised to raise taxes if her party wins the house next month and she is selected as the speaker of the house. She was the Speaker the last time her party held the house.

While it is true increasing Social services requires revenue, Democrats argue business needs to pay their share in providing what they refuse to provide to keep their workers in the workforce. The other guy is the profit sucking fraction of society which has as it's primary aim to spend as little on workforce as they can so shareholders can have a great a profit benefit as possible. Other guy is the other party's client.

 

[skepticalbip]

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States#Total_coal-related_jobs

That is the number of actual miners. The coal industry includes many jobs other than just those doing the mining, actually in the mine blasting or hauling the coal out.

The linked below is just the blue collar jobs in the coal industry, those in the mine and those outside the mine. There is also a lot of office and management jobs involved that are not included in the numbers listed below.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

Total coal-related jobs
There are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S.: mining (83,000), transportation (31,000), and power plant employment (60,000). (See below for details on each sector.) The U.S. civilian labor force totaled 141,730,000 workers in 2005; thus, permanent blue-collar coal industry employees represent 0.12% of the U.S. workforce.[1]

What they did not offer was campaign promise to build nuclear reactors which would be industrial growth and would be a very different matter - however many, if not most, Democrats are against those too - but would have phased out the need for coal without the heavy handed government mandate.

How is this the Yin to Coal production Yan?

The major use of coal is in power production. If people want power then there must be some method to produce it. Eliminating coal without a replacement is a non-starter.

U.S. politics is odd. We actually have a party that usually always runs on raising taxes. Of course they also promise that it will be "the other guy" that has to pay them. For instance, our house minority leader, has already promised to raise taxes if her party wins the house next month and she is selected as the speaker of the house. She was the Speaker the last time her party held the house.

While it is true increasing Social services requires revenue, Democrats argue business needs to pay their share in providing what they refuse to provide to keep their workers in the workforce. The other guy is the profit sucking fraction of society which has as it's primary aim to spend as little on workforce as they can so shareholders can have a great a profit benefit as possible. Other guy is the other party's client.

You are back to the red meat shit... "Industry is EVIL" - which, in part, was the appeal of "shutting down the evil coal industry" for Democrats.

Besides, that was a response to Bilby"s statement that all politicians always advocate reducing taxes during campaigns. Our Democrat party much more often than not advocate tax increases (but on the "other guy" that they have demonized, the evil and deplorable among us).

 

[fromderinside]

That is the number of actual miners. The coal industry includes many jobs other than just those doing the mining, actually in the mine blasting or hauling the coal out.

The linked below is just the blue collar jobs in the coal industry, those in the mine and those outside the mine. There is also a lot of office and management jobs involved.

Uh, no, that is the number of people involved with coal production and on/off labor for transportation delivery. I exclude power plant personnel since they can convert to natural gas, solar, wind, water, or nuclear.

The major use of coal is in power production. If people want power then there must be some method to produce it. Eliminating coal without a replacement is a non-starter.

see above answer.

While it is true increasing Social services requires revenue, Democrats argue business needs to pay their share in providing what they refuse to provide to keep their workers in the workforce. The other guy is the profit sucking fraction of society which has as it's primary aim to spend as little on workforce as they can so shareholders can have a great a profit benefit as possible. Other guy is the other party's client.

You are back to the red meat shit... "Industry is EVIL" - which, in part, was the appeal of "shutting down the evil coal industry" for Democrats.

Besides, that was a response to Bilby"s statement that all politicians always advocate reducing taxes during campaigns. Our Democrat party much more often than not advocate tax increases (but on the "other guy" that they have demonized, the evil and deplorable among us).

Interesting translation there. Industry is evil is industry discounting worker's needs for investor's pocket books Please point out the evil. Why is it evil to argue against established positions of the opponent party, republicans? Actually democrats argue for reducing taxes on working people which are their clients and increasing taxes on those, the other party's client, who profit from short changing their employees in favor of big pocket investors. It's always been a popular view with the reich that the business community are job creators while employees are scabs and scavengers deserving nothing.

I can play the code word game as well as can you. That won't advance our conversation. It is obvious that the most advantaged are the rich and very white in U. S. of A. So why should they be permitted to use their advantage to keep down those who comprise their work force.

That then gets us to the fear component of tribalism which is where we need to focus.

 

[skepticalbip]

Uh, no, that is the number of people involved with coal production and on/off labor for transportation delivery.

I would suggest that you actually read the link you offered and the link that I offered. They both give the same number for actual miners but the link I offered also included blue collar workers in the coal industry other than the miners. Neither indicated the number of coal industry employees who are in office or management positions.

 

[Underseer]

I was reading the Krugman column "The Angry White Man Caucus" when I was struck by an apparent problem with those of privilege being many of the ones running for office or running the country.

The problem is this. Can those with societal privilege legislate and govern in a multi-status system of government when they obviously are there to preserve their advantages over those who are the targets of their privilege?

What distinguished Trump voters was, instead, racial resentment. Furthermore, this resentment was and is driven not by actual economic losses at the hands of minority groups, but by fear of losing status in a changing country, one in which the privilege of being a white man isn’t what it used to be.

This became obvious when one who has privilege is rallied around because he is angry about having his privilege challenged by those from a less less privileged status as recent polls indicate. One can't say I don't remember that incident as easily as one can say I remember that incident for the counter reasoning those of privilege used when they denigrated an accuser. It is as likely that a what one considers minor event will not be remembered as it will for who considers the same event major and traumatic will remember the event.

The point is why denigrate and edeny when one doesn't actually remember unless one is fearful that one may have unknowing done something that caused another great harm while one considered it just play or fun, a trifle. Isn't that immoral and unbalanced?

I found the approach of denial and responsibility transfer as an act of cowardice and explicitly immoral by the privileged ones who acted thus. Even Senator Collins comes up short here.

Jump in the water's political but isn't it moral as well?

Privilege doesn't exist because I'm half white and I'm not the richest man in the world, therefore the entire concept of white privilege is some fake bullshit libtards made up to complain about racism, and complaining about racism is the same thing as persecuting white people, therefore you're all a bunch of Nazis!!!!!!! Stop oppressing white people!!!!!!! [/sarcasm]

 

[bilby]

Uh, no, that is the number of people involved with coal production and on/off labor for transportation delivery.

I would suggest that you actually read the link you offered and the link that I offered. They both give the same number for actual miners but the link I offered also included blue collar workers in the coal industry other than the miners. Neither indicated the number of coal industry employees who are in office or management positions.

The number of employees per TWh for making electricity from coal is far higher than for making the same electricity with nuclear power; And that's including the very large proportion of nuclear industry jobs that are needless compliance roles - A US nuclear power plant has more people writing reports for the NRC than it has doing the actual work of running the plant.

Nuclear plant construction typically requires more workers than coal plant construction, but as nuclear plants have a rather longer working life, the difference is trivial; Averaged across a large country like the US, the construction costs per nameplate GW are higher for nuclear, but the construction cost per delivered TWh over the life of the plant is about the same. (lower for nuclear if the regulatory and safety targets were set at similar levels, but of course they are not - nuclear plants are held to a standard of excellence that the coal industry would find crippling).

If you replace coal with nuclear, you need far fewer total workers in power generation. And of course, they are not the same workers.

But coal miners, despite being numerous voters in swing states, and therefore able to effectively lobby to keep their industry running, are not morally entitled to keep their jobs at the cost of lower efficiency for the nation as a whole, and wouldn't be even if their industry wasn't also destroying our environment. The industry persists because its employees are powerful politically, but ultimately they are just delaying the inevitable.

 

[skepticalbip]

Uh, no, that is the number of people involved with coal production and on/off labor for transportation delivery.

I would suggest that you actually read the link you offered and the link that I offered. They both give the same number for actual miners but the link I offered also included blue collar workers in the coal industry other than the miners. Neither indicated the number of coal industry employees who are in office or management positions.

The number of employees per TWh for making electricity from coal is far higher than for making the same electricity with nuclear power; And that's including the very large proportion of nuclear industry jobs that are needless compliance roles - A US nuclear power plant has more people writing reports for the NRC than it has doing the actual work of running the plant.

Nuclear plant construction typically requires more workers than coal plant construction, but as nuclear plants have a rather longer working life, the difference is trivial; Averaged across a large country like the US, the construction costs per nameplate GW are higher for nuclear, but the construction cost per delivered TWh over the life of the plant is about the same. (lower for nuclear if the regulatory and safety targets were set at similar levels, but of course they are not - nuclear plants are held to a standard of excellence that the coal industry would find crippling).

If you replace coal with nuclear, you need far fewer total workers in power generation. And of course, they are not the same workers.

But coal miners, despite being numerous voters in swing states, and therefore able to effectively lobby to keep their industry running, are not morally entitled to keep their jobs at the cost of lower efficiency for the nation as a whole, and wouldn't be even if their industry wasn't also destroying our environment. The industry persists because its employees are powerful politically, but ultimately they are just delaying the inevitable.

You seem to have veered into an entirely different subject.

I mentioned that the Democrat candidate ran on shutting down the coal industry (without offering any other replacement, by the way - well she did mention solar panels but that ain't gonna do it) because you had said that politicians always promote industrial growth, never against industry.

I also agree that nuclear power would be much, much more preferable than coal power. But that is another industry that the party that promised to shut down the coal industry is also avidly against.

 

[bilby]

The number of employees per TWh for making electricity from coal is far higher than for making the same electricity with nuclear power; And that's including the very large proportion of nuclear industry jobs that are needless compliance roles - A US nuclear power plant has more people writing reports for the NRC than it has doing the actual work of running the plant.

Nuclear plant construction typically requires more workers than coal plant construction, but as nuclear plants have a rather longer working life, the difference is trivial; Averaged across a large country like the US, the construction costs per nameplate GW are higher for nuclear, but the construction cost per delivered TWh over the life of the plant is about the same. (lower for nuclear if the regulatory and safety targets were set at similar levels, but of course they are not - nuclear plants are held to a standard of excellence that the coal industry would find crippling).

If you replace coal with nuclear, you need far fewer total workers in power generation. And of course, they are not the same workers.

But coal miners, despite being numerous voters in swing states, and therefore able to effectively lobby to keep their industry running, are not morally entitled to keep their jobs at the cost of lower efficiency for the nation as a whole, and wouldn't be even if their industry wasn't also destroying our environment. The industry persists because its employees are powerful politically, but ultimately they are just delaying the inevitable.

You seem to have veered into an entirely different subject.

I mentioned that the Democrat candidate ran on shutting down the coal industry (without offering any other replacement, by the way - well she did mention solar panels but that ain't gonna do it) because you had said that politicians always promote industrial growth, never against industry.

I also agree that nuclear power would be much, much more preferable than coal power. But that is another industry that the party that promised to shut down the coal industry is also avidly against.

Well that seems to me to be a major problem with democracy. The only parties here who don't vehemently oppose nuclear power, and who don't vocally support coal mining for the jobs it provides, are lunatic fringe nutcases parties with insane economic and social policies.

There have recently been some vague hints that the Liberal Party (our mainstream conservative party) might consider repealing the ban on nuclear power in Australia; But I am not sure I could vote for them on the basis of that one policy position (if it ever becomes more than a hint), because their general policy platform is vile.

Single issue parties and candidates are unfit for power; And mainstream parties with broad platforms all oppose something I feel is of great importance and should be strongly promoted. So how do I vote? Where's the democracy? Is my only option to run myself as an independent? And if so, what realistic chance do I have of winning?

Fuck it, maybe I will run for the senate at the next federal election as an independent. Occasionally senators get elected here with minuscule shares of the primary vote. It's a bit of a lottery.

 

[fromderinside]

There is a more expensive, yet adequate solution for resolving both fear of radiation and drowning the earth in CO₂

Controlling existing solar derived energy. By that I mean wind, solar, water, exploitation with proper safeguards for protecting existing ecology will provide more than needed energy for the foreseeable future.

Instead of thinking about how to get people to build 'safe' from risky sources continue with safe forms and design for naturally existing energy usage exploitations that don't run risks of either coal or nuclear power exploitation. Face it. Silt recovery and alternate transport for existing species for water exploitation will be far safer than either coal or nuclear.

Solar fields and homes with integrated energy transport and natural storage through such as subterranean storage and other battery methods will be far superior as well. There are ways to exploint wind and waves that are improving all the time. Home based conductor grids are on the verge of becoming viable as well.

I say leave planet destroying and star generating activities to stars and planet formation and running.

Of course all this has little to do with potentially constraining majority privilege is social systems.

No. The bromide that abundant energy solves all problems won't do against human nature.