The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(09-05-2020, 12:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 12:04 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If you valued democracy, you wouldn't be placing the integrity of it at risk by purchasing and trading for votes...

Another note about this statement, again.

We Democrats and progressives do need the votes of disadvantaged groups. So we are careful to include concern for their interests and policies that benefit them in order to shore up their votes for us. As I said before, politics involves making alliances and coalitions, especially party politics. And since progressives of all races and creeds naturally believe and agree with justice and the rights of people against power, people in disadvantaged groups are our natural allies and colleagues, and are a natural and valued part of the progressive party and/or faction. You call it purchasing and trading for votes, which implies you don't want disadvantaged groups in your coalition, and don't offer any concern for their interests or policies that benefit them. So instead you and those on your side of the aisle cater to those who scapegoat, fear or resent these groups. Seems a natural trade-off, although not a pleasant and I hope not a lasting one.

I would add the conservatives also trade positions on the issues for votes.  They have always been the party of the Robber Barons.  The Robber Barons have wealth, but not that many votes.  They have to take up populist positions in order to survive.  They have an advantage in accepting 'campaign finance contributions', but they need votes.

Thus, they became the strong on military party when Mao won in China and Truman was unwilling to start a land war in Asia.  They became the racist party when LBJ allied with MLK for the black vote, going with the civil rights legislation and the war on poverty.  As there turned out to be more dedicated racists than border line poor workers, this ended the progressive era.  

We will see if that last it remains true in the modern era.  The Neo Cons already went down when the Iraq War went proxy insurgent.  We will have to see how the racists do. 

It is just a question of which groups the party seeks to attract.  With nukes, insurgent wars and non violent change, it is less beneficial to be the party of using force to get your way.  Too many people have realized that boots on the ground are a bad idea.  When a bunch of people are protesting racial violent policing, it is less effective to be the party of racism and violence.  They can continue to try to attract votes by placing the race card.  Will they succeed?

But to prove this to Classic it will have to become painfully obvious.  He is obsessed with violence, thus sees violence as solving all problems.  Not true anymore.

I am in agreement. I think the parties traded positions over a century and more, in phases. In the 1890s the Democrats became the party of the common man and the working class, seeking to rein in the power of big business. Over time this bifurcation became stronger, especially during the New Deal era. In the sixties and the 80s and now under Trump, further shifts occurred. For better or worse, the two parties have become more consistent. The price of this consistency is a more divided nation.

Some aspects of the progressive era continued under Nixon and Carter, even after the Southern strategy and the civil rights bill put the racists in the Republican camp. The victory of the McGovern anti-war camp in the Democratic Party also put what we now call neo-con militarists squarely in the Republican Party too at this time. Under Trump they are not quite sure they belong there anymore. 

But there was still some major progress on consumerism and the environment in the 1970s, as well as increasing opportunity for women. Nixon backed the environmentalists, and that was a big deal. Tax policy still favored the middle class, and unions were still strong. But then Reagan was put in to put a halt to the reduction and erosion of corporate power that had occurred from these kinds of movements and legislation. The Republican Party, already the Party of Hoover and trickle-down economics, cemented its identity as the Party of Reaganomics, and this was combined with the racist element to create their predominant policy position (of which Classic Xer is the prime example for us here) of scapegoating welfare and "socialist, bureaucratic" programs as a burden of taxation and regulation on white wealth and business. The charming faux-macho actor became Saint Ronnie and deceived the people, and any alternatives to Reaganomics became taboo as "socialism" in our country, affecting the policies of both parties. Trump has just brought this scapegoating out of the closet so that it became a trumpet of white identity politics rather than just a dog-whistle.

The Republican Party's dominant conservative wing has been successful at times in recruiting show-biz performers that create a cult following for them. Only some success by Democrats in finding the great talents of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama has up until now prevented the wholesale slide into fascism that is happening under Trump.