• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

So how exactly did this happen?

Trumps been speaking to the unions issues for his entire campaign, I don't get why you don't see that's why that group went for him. You keep saying republicans. This guy is clearly not your standard republican

You don't seem to understand how Washington works. If Trump can Trojan Horse support for unions through a Republican Congress, God bless him.
 
You don't seem to understand how Washington works. If Trump can Trojan Horse support for unions through a Republican Congress, God bless him.

Trumps going to get whatever he wants from this republican congress. Ryan just today said he was excited to help make America great again today. He bent the knee
 
That was my point! Reich made a ridiculous claim that Trump voters were salty about lack of protection for unions.[/QUOTE

That was only one small point in a very long article. The main point of his article was how the Democratic Party has been transformed into a completely different party from what it once was, and does not now seem to be very interested in average working Americans.

You didn't even mention any of that. Here are some excerpts to jog your memory:

What has happened in America should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure. At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives, and fundraisers; the major media, centered in New York and Washington DC; the country’s biggest corporations, their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; and the wealthy individuals who invest directly in politics.

Hillary Clinton’s defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign vastly outspent the Trump campaign on television and radio advertisements, and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moreover, her campaign had the support in the general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also many leading Republicans, including most of the politically active denizens of Wall Street and the top executives of America’s largest corporations, and even former Republican president George HW Bush. Her campaign team was run by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes. She had the visible and forceful backing of Barack Obama, whose popularity has soared in recent months, and his popular wife. And, of course, she had her husband. Trump, by contrast, was shunned by the power structure. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, actively worked against Trump’s nomination. Many senior Republicans refused to endorse him, or even give him their support. The Republican National Committee did not raise money for Trump to the extent it had for other Republican candidates for president.

A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. “The economy is in good shape,” he said. “Most Americans are better off than they’ve been in years.” Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don’t reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money. Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits. Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it.

The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in “swing” suburbs. Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy’s gains.
Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump’s authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency. Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump’s isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn’t care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans
. Perhaps it also doesn’t wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.


 
Last edited:
bkf, I mentioned the part of the article I took issue with. Like I said before, I never doubted there were angry working class white guys out there.
 
bkf, I mentioned the part of the article I took issue with. Like I said before, I never doubted there were angry working class white guys out there.

The article was about a helluva lot more than just unions and angry working class white guys. You haven't even touched on any of the things that I highlighted in red....and there were many, many different issues there.

You cannot adequately respond to that article in one or two sentences.
 
When I think of an average American worker, I guess I would say a guy with a wife, 2 children, and a mortgage making $40-$50,000/year.

Sounds about right.

Bob, I know you had a history of activism in your younger years. Did you ever work with any feminist groups?
 
Last edited:
Seems like a professional writer would try to avoid making nonsense arguments just to add to the word count.
 
The article was about a helluva lot more than just unions and angry working class white guys. You haven't even touched on any of the things that I highlighted in red....and there were many, many different issues there.

You cannot adequately respond to that article in one or two sentences.

bkf, I've already explained that I largely agree that the article reflects the logic of white working class voters and I highlighted the part I thought didn’t. But if you really want me to address the red I can. I ask that you treat my opinion with some respect.

Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money. Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits. Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it.

One of the big things you and other conservative posters talk about is personal responsibility. Education is a big part of that personal responsibility. Go to the local community college. Get an AS degree in a trade. Go find a job or create a job. Not sure why white working class people without a college degree don’t get the same personal responsibility speech you give to minority working class people without a college degree.

I've made plenty of posts about necessary K-12 reforms to better prepare kids for the workforce. And I blame Obama for following the largely conservative agenda on education left behind by NCLB. But the real blame goes to the states and those are mostly in Republican control. So if a working class white person in a red state is complaining they can't get a good job without a high school education, look at the leaders of your state.

Economic gains have gone to the top because that’s how capitalism is designed. Asking Republicans led by America’s most famous billionaire to stop “bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, etc” is putting the foxes in charge of the hen house.

The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in “swing” suburbs. Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

Democrats carried a majority of voters with incomes under $50,000. Democrats still represent the working class.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

Wages have been stagnant for decades. Pinning this on one President or another is foolish. Again, this is capitalism. The biggest thing governments could do to improve wages is raise the minimum wage. Let that be the rising tide that lifts all boats. Otherwise, it’s up to employers how much to pay their employees and they’re going to pay them as little as possible to make the most profits possible. Again, I’m not sure what you think Republicans will do to change that.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump’s authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency. Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump’s isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn’t care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn’t wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.

First, this grandiose conclusion ignores that many Americans did not participate in this election due to apathy or antipathy. Second, more people voted for Hillary than Trump. So conclusions about “most Americans” based on this outcome ring hollow.

I do largely agree with what he’s saying about corporations. As I’ve said before, if Donald Trump can Trojan Horse the type of reforms needed to get Republicans to move away from the "corporations are people" framework and actually put checks on corporations, we’ll all be better for it.
 
Last edited:
Sounds about right.

Bob, I know you had a history of activism in your younger years. Did you ever work with any feminist groups?

Yes. Well, I wasn't so much working with that group as that group was working with the Dean group. There was one in particular, but the name escapes me right now. (Senior moment.) If you list a few such groups I think I would recognize it.

ETA: The group was NARAL. Don't know if that fits the category you are talking about or not.
 
Last edited:
bkf, I've already explained that I largely agree that the article reflects the logic of white working class voters and I highlighted the part I thought didn’t. But if you really want me to address the red I can. I ask that you treat my opinion with some respect.



One of the big things you and other conservative posters talk about is personal responsibility. Education is a big part of that personal responsibility. Go to the local community college. Get an AS degree in a trade. Go find a job or create a job. Not sure why white working class people without a college degree don’t get the same personal responsibility speech you give to minority working class people without a college degree.

I've made plenty of posts about necessary K-12 reforms to better prepare kids for the workforce. And I blame Obama for following the largely conservative agenda on education left behind by NCLB. But the real blame goes to the states and those are mostly in Republican control. So if a working class white person in a red state is complaining they can't get a good job without a high school education, look at the leaders of your state.

Economic gains have gone to the top because that’s how capitalism is designed. Asking Republicans led by America’s most famous billionaire to stop “bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, etc” is putting the foxes in charge of the hen house.



Democrats carried a majority of voters with incomes under $50,000. Democrats still represent the working class.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

Wages have been stagnant for decades. Pinning this on one President or another is foolish. Again, this is capitalism. The biggest thing governments could do to improve wages is raise the minimum wage. Let that be the rising tide that lifts all boats. Otherwise, it’s up to employers how much to pay their employees and they’re going to pay them as little as possible to make the most profits possible. Again, I’m not sure what you think Republicans will do to change that.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/



First, this grandiose conclusion ignores that many Americans did not participate in this election due to apathy or antipathy. Second, more people voted for Hillary than Trump. So conclusions about “most Americans” based on this outcome ring hollow.

I do largely agree with what he’s saying about corporations. As I’ve said before, if Donald Trump can Trojan Horse the type of reforms needed to get Republicans to move away from the "corporations are people" framework and actually put checks on corporations, we’ll all be better for it.

Thanks for the detailed response. Agree that these are complex problems involving multiple contributing factors.
 
Said this on another thread. Ph- not all billionaires are alike. Don't be surprised if real estate billionaire takes on tech and Wall Street billionaires out of ego. The Wall Street types looked down on trump for quite some time, and Amazon and apple are down for a reason while everything else is up in the market. Trump competed vs Wall Street folks, they could be in trouble
 
Sure, but I'm talking about Trump. Do you really think he hasn't taken advantage of corporate subsidies and tax loopholes?
 
Yeah, agreed, I'm on my phone so started to try to quote down to bank bAilouts line but then didn't want to spend 5 minutes
 
Exactly. Reich is trying to place these gripes within a broader policy context, but the sentiment that leads people to think one of America's leading capitalists is really going to change the system in favor of the little guy isn't based on policy. It's based on feelings. Are those same voters really going to turn on Trump in favor of Tammy Duckworth or whoever if unemployment goes up and wages stay stagnant? Probably not if Trump can tell them to blame immigrants or global elites or whoever and how he's the only one who can fix it. As long as Trump makes them feel heard, he'll have their support.
 
Exactly. Reich is trying to place these gripes within a broader policy context, but the sentiment that leads people to think one of America's leading capitalists is really going to change the system in favor of the little guy isn't based on policy. It's based on feelings. Are those same voters really going to turn on Trump in favor of Tammy Duckworth or whoever if unemployment goes up and wages stay stagnant? Probably not if Trump can tell them to blame immigrants or global elites or whoever and how he's the only one who can fix it. As long as Trump makes them feel heard, he'll have their support.

Well it's tough cause unemployment is gonna go up cause of the 16 year policies of bush and Obama, pretty much no way to avoid that. Wages may finally go up from inflation though
 
Back
Top