Party realignment ending or just starting?

[Kinser79]

(05-23-2016, 04:12 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Lind comes across as trying very hard to believe your thesis.

Mike did you even bother reading the article? He is trying to compare newly forming parties that are composed of primarily Xers and Millies with those composed of mostly Silents and Boomers. Nomad and Civic generations have different expressions than Artist and Prophet generations. That is of course if you even buy into the theory that archetypes matter.

 

Quote: It seems to me that you and he are working with some mighty thin gruel.  Trump is offering very little that will material affect the economic situation of working class Americans.

I can't speak for Anthony, but Lind's gruel may as well be water because the article contains absolutely no critical thought. As for Trump's policy, we have to consider that the alternatives are "Cheap imported shit" from Establishment Republicans (never mind that cheap imported shit is paid for with inflated currency and destroys the economic libido of working age Americans it tastes pretty good in the short term but has the nutritional value of a big mac), and the Democrats are offering the opposite of help--literally massive increases of welfare if you're Sanders or an attempt to freeze progress if you're Clinton. The former the country cannot afford without debasing the currency and losing reserve status (at which point the empire is over), the latter is an impossibility. One of the few universal constants is that change is constant.

Quote: Of course, all of Trump's Republican opponents were offering even less.

Indeed, so-called free trade hasn't worked. Importation of cheap labor has resulted in stagnant wage growth (see law of supply and demand). As such the obvious choice for any improvement is to limit labor importation (restrict supply), and institute protectionist measures (increase demand for labor). As a result wages will rise far higher and far faster than a statutory increase in the minimum wage which would just drive what jobs that remain to be automated.

Quote:The economic problem workers face today is not a new one.  An earlier generation of workers faced a similar situation during the Gilded Age.  Their attempt at a solution was to create a an organized entity for the explicit purpose of looking out for worker's economic interests, labor unions.  It look generations, but after WW II workers made major gains.  Labor unions were a key part of this success. They needed political allies and had them.

Except for some key problems. In the US during the gilded age workers were some of the most highly paid in the world (the US was running a more or less constant labor shortage through the 19th century due to westward expansion), furthermore industry had the protection offered by tariffs and so forth. As such with such protections unions could form, and once they did form the sought out political allies.

However, in order to have unions, and have them be effective a state must also protect the production of the country from foreign competition in the form of dumping and similar practices.

Quote:For 60 years Republicans and Southern conservatives have worked to destroy unions. 

I would argue that Unions destroyed themselves by being largely successful.

Quote:Now you are saying that the nominee of the party containing both of these groups is a national liberal with a leftist tinge?

I would argue that Trump is to the left of most Establishment Republicans (not that that means much since they are so far right), but he is no leftist. Trump's ideology can be best phrased as Nationalist with Classical Liberalism which should not be confused with what passes for liberal these days which used to be called socialist. You know back when people were honest with labels. It speaks to a Jacksonian tradition that in the US is centuries old.