• 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!

The Democratic Party Left Me Behind

WFcatamount22 said:
That's because those countries built their success and wealth through capitalism in low population non diverse states, thus are able to temporarily sustain highly socialized programs.

Plus the "happyness" metrics are skewed to favoring socialized countries.
Click to expand...

A lot of wrong to unpack in this post, and I have limited time. So a few high points:
1. You obviously know very little about the history or economies of Europe. Read more.
2. This post highlights the fundamental flaw in the "socialism = failed Latin American state" talking point. Different aspects of an economy can be "socialized" and greatly benefit the population without some kind of crackpot Cuban planned economy. This is clearly demonstrated by the Nordic welfare states, and the universal education and health care systems common in Europe, Australia, Israel, Singapore, etc. Conservatives have been foaming at the mouth about the socialist slippery slope since pre-President Reagan recorded his famous rant about how Medicare was going to be the end of the free market. It's a crap argument. Socializing critical aspects of the economy leaves capitalism intact in the rest of the OECD - which was about the only thing you got right in your post.
3. I find the comment about "low population non-diverse states" interesting, as it points out that white people will support socialist policies only if the beneficiaries are perceived to be other white people. That is a pretty poor argument to make in defense of your preferred social model.
4. Re happiness - Pick your metric, as I said there are plenty to choose from. The Nordic and other economies with far more socialized elements out run the US on every metric except how much money billionaires can stack up in their Scrooge McDuck swimming pools. The US wins that one going away.
 
Deacon923 said:
A lot of wrong to unpack in this post, and I have limited time. So a few high points:
1. You obviously know very little about the history or economies of Europe. Read more.
2. This post highlights the fundamental flaw in the "socialism = failed Latin American state" talking point. Different aspects of an economy can be "socialized" and greatly benefit the population without some kind of crackpot Cuban planned economy. This is clearly demonstrated by the Nordic welfare states, and the universal education and health care systems common in Europe, Australia, Israel, Singapore, etc. Conservatives have been foaming at the mouth about the socialist slippery slope since pre-President Reagan recorded his famous rant about how Medicare was going to be the end of the free market. It's a crap argument. Socializing critical aspects of the economy leaves capitalism intact in the rest of the OECD - which was about the only thing you got right in your post.
3. I find the comment about "low population non-diverse states" interesting, as it points out that white people will support socialist policies only if the beneficiaries are perceived to be other white people. That is a pretty poor argument to make in defense of your preferred social model.
4. Re happiness - Pick your metric, as I said there are plenty to choose from. The Nordic and other economies with far more socialized elements out run the US on every metric except how much money billionaires can stack up in their Scrooge McDuck swimming pools. The US wins that one going away.
Click to expand...

TornMammothAmericangoldfinch-size_restricted.gif
 
#3 is very true and the history of "socialism" in this country reflects it. Poor white people will vote against a social safety net they use if they believe non-whites benefit from it.
 
"If the left insists on naming a system of generous government benefits combined with a free market democratic socialism, I cannot stop them."

What should we call a system that provides a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high level of workforce unionization that also has economic foundations of free market capitalism?
 
PhDeac said:
#3 is very true and the history of "socialism" in this country reflects it. Poor white people will vote against a social safety net they use if they believe non-whites benefit from it.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you here because I believe you are missing a fundamental element of American politics - American racialism/tribalism among the poor generally requires a propaganda campaign strategy.

No doubt that white Americans are racist, but material concerns are a greater priority than racial hatred - it's the Republican political strategy to convince whites that the "safety net" = poor lazy blacks are trying to take something from them.
 
No matter what you think about racism, you can't look at voter participation among the poor and honestly say "poor whites" are responsible for conservative legislation. People who are financially insecure don't vote, whether that be in the city, the suburbs, or the country.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
"If the left insists on naming a system of generous government benefits combined with a free market democratic socialism, I cannot stop them."

What should we call a system that provides a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high level of workforce unionization that also has economic foundations of free market capitalism?
Click to expand...

Apparently the answer is "compassionate capitalism".
 
MDMH, your posts just look like disagreeing to agree.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
"If the left insists on naming a system of generous government benefits combined with a free market democratic socialism, I cannot stop them."

What should we call a system that provides a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high level of workforce unionization that also has economic foundations of free market capitalism?
Click to expand...

Social Liberalism.
 
PhDeac said:
MDMH, your posts just look like disagreeing to agree.
Click to expand...
I'd rather not disagree with you - Tell me why "poor white people" are always a political punching bag for Democrats when Republican voters have a higher income avg than Democrats.
 
You don't disagree with me, but you're arguing anyway. That's my point.
 
PhDeac said:
You don't disagree with me, but you're arguing anyway. That's my point.
Click to expand...

No, I vehemently disagree with this:

PhDeac said:
Poor white people will vote against a social safety net they use if they believe non-whites benefit from it.
Click to expand...

You're conflating poverty with racism, and providing no context for doing so. I disagree with that.
 
So why do you think poor white people vote against safety nets they use that had broad support among poor white people before the Civil Rights movement?
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
No matter what you think about racism, you can't look at voter participation among the poor and honestly say "poor whites" are responsible for conservative legislation. People who are financially insecure don't vote, whether that be in the city, the suburbs, or the country.
Click to expand...

If you check who voted for whom in PA, MI and WI, your premise is blown out of the water. Poor and nearly poor white put Trump and other candidates over the top.
 
PhDeac said:
So why do you think poor white people vote against safety nets they use that had broad support among poor white people before the Civil Rights movement?
Click to expand...
1. The southern strategy, and 2. how do you know what was "broadly popular" among poor white people before the civil rights movement?

You can say i'm just arguing to argue all you want, but i'm not going to let you or anyone else conflate poverty and racism. That's ignorant and classist. And Lazy.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I disagree with you here because I believe you are missing a fundamental element of American politics - American racialism/tribalism among the poor generally requires a propaganda campaign strategy.

No doubt that white Americans are racist, but material concerns are a greater priority than racial hatred - it's the Republican political strategy to convince whites that the "safety net" = poor lazy blacks are trying to take something from them.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of social science studies that suggest the opposite, that all else being equal, whites in poverty will consider themselves better off than minorities in poverty and perceive any benefits for those impoverished minorities as a bad thing for them.
 
Come to think of it, phdeac, you've got some explaining to do!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top