A Republican Adrift in Ohio - or: dilemmas for the Dems

Forums: Politics, Republicans
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Coupla questions raised in this article here.

What about Dan Imbrogno and the way he's now "in search of a new political home"? Its about more than just the one lost client and resulting grumbling about China - who can provide a perspective on "what happens to our guys -- very competent machinists -- who are 45 or 50 years old, if manufacturing closes down", for one?

And what about Congressman Brown's message? It doesnt refer to Imbrogno at all, really, but to a lot of other voters in the same state. It's amazing, to me, that the main left-wing party in America can't rely on the support of the working class. When I hear about how, for example, in a state like Virginia, Dem support is clustered around the newly in-moving high-wage earners in hi-tech towns, while the old factory towns vote Rep, it just seems upside down to me. Apparently the divisive politics of culture have been brandished much more effectively there than here in Europe, where only the topic of immigration has had some of the same effect.

Brown says, "We can't just be the party of social issues favored by the elites on the coasts". That is to say, to be the party that defends workers' interests against the rich, the upper middle class Dem supporters might have to compromise a little on their cultural sensitivities.

Now I live in a country with a multi-party system - I have the opportunity to vote for a small party that fits my proclivities exactly. But when you live in a two-party state, you might have to make choices. Focus on the economic fight, even if it means exercising some patience on, I dunno, gay marriage -- or considering those cultural values to be overriding, at the cost of losing much of your working / lower middle class constituency?

I understand from the polls and such that the Dems still have the clear support of those in the lowest income brackets (but then, many of those are people of colour); but that skilled workers trend Republican. How can that be turned about, and how would you handle it? Or don't you think it needs to be a priority, and the Dems should keep focusing on a liberal rainbow-style, cross-class coalition?

To me, the issue touches on what I dislike about what "liberal" connotates in America. I associate it with a kindof wishy-washy, piecemeal approach to social-democracy, to workers' interests and socio-economic justice, which too often ends up taking a backseat to the moral-cultural issues that just are so much closer to home for yer typical above-average earning Dem activist. Again - easy for me to talk, I can vote Green and have the best of both worlds. But you have only one left-wing (well, kind of leftwing) party - and it seems to have identified with metropolitan middleclass outlooks to the point of alienating much of the working class. That just cant be right.

Quote:

A Republican Adrift in Ohio

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 11, 2004; Page A21

ELYRIA, Ohio -- In theory, Dan Imbrogno shouldn't be a voter George W. Bush has to worry about. Imbrogno, a lifelong Republican, Ohioan and business executive, looks like central casting's idea of the model Bush voter.

Imbrogno is president and chief executive of Ohio Screw, a precision-parts manufacturer located in this working-class suburb of Cleveland. In newer and more upscale suburbs, office parks may dot the landscape, but in Elyria, small factories were plunked down in residential neighborhoods many decades ago, and, whether open or shuttered, there they remain.

Ohio Screw is emphatically open, and if you had to have a factory next door, Imbrogno's is the one you'd ask for. The plant -- employing 75 workers, chiefly highly skilled machinists -- is in an attractive building on almost manicured grounds. It produces an array of distinctive metallic little thingies that Imbrogno places on the conference table for my inspection.

Imbrogno calls my attention to one thingy in particular, a hollowed-out cylinder about an inch in length. His company had been supplying that part to Cooper Power for years when, in 2002, Cooper announced it would be buying its parts in China. Ohio Screw responded by developing new machinery that cut the price of producing the part to just one penny-per-part more than the Chinese estimate. Cooper then asked its Chinese contractor to bring down its costs still further, which the contractor did -- to the level of the cost of materials, a level where Ohio Screw could not follow.

"It cost us $500,000 a year -- a big chunk out of our $8 million in total sales," says Imbrogno. In 2000, before the recession hit, Ohio Screw was doing $10 million in sales. It has won new contracts now that the recession is easing, and Imbrogno says the company would be nearly back to $10 million today were it not for its clients' decisions to do their shopping in China. "I was a tried-and-true free-trader," Imbrogno says. "But you put details into the theory and it falls apart. When the Chinese government manipulates its currency and subsidizes its manufacturers, the theory doesn't work. Now I believe in managed trade. It's how we built our country; it's how European and East Asian nations built theirs."

Imbrogno is a tried-and-true Republican, too, but even so, he says, "I won't vote for Bush. I won't necessarily vote for Kerry; I have trouble with his positions on some issues other than economics." But he supports John Kerry's proposal to end tax breaks for companies that have moved their jobs overseas.

Imbrogno is not alone. He's active in the Northeast Ohio Coalition for American Manufacturing (NEOCAM), a group of corporate executives who Imbrogno estimates to be roughly 80 percent Republican. And among his fellow NEOCAM members, he says, "I know I'm not exceptional" in breaking with Bush.

Even as some NEOCAM members shift allegiances, the votes of hundreds of thousands of less affluent Ohioans are still very much in play. One Ohio Democrat who's been successful at winning the support of culturally conservative working-class voters is Sherrod Brown, a progressive Democratic congressman whose suburban Cleveland district includes Elyria. When I meet Brown for lunch at a classic '50s Elyria diner, he mentions that he and his staff registered one somewhat reticent waitress during their last lunch there.

"I think her indecision was based on social issues, and the problem is, most Democrats don't know how to talk to her. Democrats have long assumed that workers know we're better on the economy than the Republicans, but I don't think many of them do." Brown has been fighting for years to move his party toward a more managed trade perspective -- this year, with some success.

But that's hardly enough, Brown believes. "Until we take on the drug industry, the energy industry, the insurance companies front and center, we won't win working-class votes." Brown points to the overwhelming margins by which he's carried heavily Catholic Lorain County to prove his point. "We can't just be the party of social issues favored by the elites on the coasts," he says.

Brown's message is certainly that of America Coming Together, the Democratic 527 group that is waging a massive, $15 million ground campaign in Ohio on Kerry's behalf. Republicans are countering with an unprecedented church-based mobilization of religious traditionalists.

Dan Imbrogno and his NEOCAM buddies aren't susceptible to either pitch. Indeed, Imbrogno voices a more distinctively Burkean conservative concern about the fast-forward destruction of the Ohio he's lived in almost all his life. He supports policies that would manage the transition to a postindustrial economy, he says, "but it can't happen overnight. What happens to our guys -- very competent machinists -- who are 45 or 50 years old if manufacturing closes down?"

But the Republicans have gone from manufacturing to finance, from Mark Hanna to Karl Rove, leaving Dan Imbrogno in search of a political home.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,633 • Replies: 28

No top replies

The right-wing looks good to the average working class family when it embraces Christianity and promises to cut taxes.

Average Americans love the sound of having their taxes cut. They also love the idea of being a Christian nation. (They just don't want to act Christ-like).

0 Replies

Hmm...

Complicated.

I think that the voters themselves have a great deal of complicity in this. When I lived in L.A., there were all kinds of ways that parties tried to get people involved in the process, and it just didn't work. At what point does it become the responsibility of the party for not getting their point across, vs. people just plain not being interested?

Because, and I know this is horribly cliche itself, so much of the political process is soundbites. So much of the political process is what is sexy, what can get the greatest proportion of people exercised. So we have photos of headless fetuses, we have photos of women gripping a coat hanger dead in a pool of their own blood -- we have this for as many issues as can be posterized.

The fine-tuning, the detail work of what happens with metal thingamabobs under free trade agreements is just beyond the interest level of most people I know. Democrats have already been denigrated for being wonks, Al Gore as the poster boy. Al GORE would know all about metal thingamabobs and really, really care about them. That is not an image the Democrats want right now.

So Obama-style togetherness, hope, etc. I dunno, it seems a bit rock and hard place. I am glad I don't have to make decisions for them, and am not even sure what I'd suggest. I'm on the Dem mailing list and got a series of emails from Kerry last week, one talking point per -- those were good.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

The fine-tuning, the detail work of what happens with metal thingamabobs under free trade agreements is just beyond the interest level of most people I know. Democrats have already been denigrated for being wonks, Al Gore as the poster boy. Al GORE would know all about metal thingamabobs and really, really care about them. That is not an image the Democrats want right now.

Oh, it wouldnt be about any of that. It would be about making the Dems the party of working folk again, the party that stands up for your workfloor rights, your working conditions, the party of decent wages and turning this economy towards rewarding work rather than speculation again.

Populist, why not. Not quite "the people vs the powerful", perhaps, doesnt need to be that adversary (wouldnt work in America, anyway) - but, "we're on your side". No, strike that - make it, "we're from where you're from - we work for you". Bread-and-butter politics. You have a hard time earning your money - cant afford health care - you're a decent man doing what you gotta do, but the system just seems tilted towards the stock-exchangers, the 1% who had their taxes slashed. Like I said, the true social-democratic cause.

The Dems are saying all of that, I know ... but its all so undermined by, specifically, the moral-cultural gap, and in a broader sense, a kind of lack of real affinity ... like, its people from uptown saying that, you know, they really care about you - but when the next fight is picked, they'll pick one on gay marriage rather than your 50-hour working week for a below-average wage.

I dont think there would be a lack of appealing soundbites and images for a social-democratic, labour-type party. I do think that for the Dem party to get considered the party of working folk again, it would have to revisit some of its self-image and priorities -- and possibly, make some painful compromises on 'em. But now it just seems like to many Dem activists and politicians, its just that much more easy and exciting to get fired up about the environment, the division between church and state, gay rights etc, than about the dreary reality of underpaid, badly treated workers that often dont vote anymore anyway. Sure, but why dont they vote anymore? Could it be because they dont recognize themselves in this fight between the rich people's tax-cutters on the one hand and the upper middle-class' libertine do-gooders on the other?

Now I have my 'holy houses' too, or just the one: immigration and race. I wouldnt accept compromise on that one. But I do look at America and think - God - how can the Democratic party have allowed itself to lose so much of its natural, working class base? Considering it is a two-party state ... what is more important? How much better would a more socially conservative, but economically Progressive Dem party have done, electorally, from '72 through to '00? How different would the now-exploded wealth gap have been? Might that have been worth some cultural compromises?

But its a self-confirming cycle I guess ... the more the parties align culturally rather than economically, the more the Dems' rank-and-file will consist of, you know, former university students wanting to do good ... and when push comes to shove, they'll let their cultural values override the economic interests of income brackets they've themselves long upwardly mobiled out of.

Thats how I'm looking at it tonight, nuances be damned, anyway. Glad you showed up btw, Soz, I was looking for your take ... I was very curious what you would have to say about it, especially since I suspect this could be one topic we might well distinctly disagree on ... ;-)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Oh, it wouldnt be about any of that. It would be about making the Dems the party of working folk again, the party that stands up for your workfloor rights, your working conditions, the party of decent wages and turning this economy towards rewarding work rather than speculation again.

When was the U.S. Democratic party last like this? I don't think it's been within the decades of my political consciousness.

Watching from north of the border, it's always seemed that there were two parties, one slightly and one slightly more right of centre fighting to convince people they were more like the centre than the other.

Definitely odd to watch when you're used to having actual choices when voting.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

When was the U.S. Democratic party last like this? I don't think it's been within the decades of my political consciousness.

Era-FDR, I guess? Perhaps still when LBJ first started, Great Society etc ...

And before FDR co-opted much of the Left´s agenda, well ... the 1890s, I suppose ;-)

0 Replies

I agree with what you say, above. It's a bit circular -- they should do this, hmm they are, (insurance and minimum wage are being mentioned a lot) they should do this, hmm I guess they have no choice. But I agree with you pretty much down the line.

I think the two-party system sucks. But it's a two party system, so... then what? In terms of this election, for example, voting Nader won't DO anything. Voting Cobb won't DO anything. And for whatever reason -- soundbite marketing, actual predilictions, lazy voting base -- the way to get elected is to try to get the middle on your side.

I need to get to bed, I don't know how to get out of that rut. The best hope I guess is the Republicans' worst fear -- that Kerry does what he has to do to get elected and then shows some lefty colors. His record is pretty impressive.

0 Replies

Re: A Republican Adrift in Ohio - or: dilemmas for the Dems

nimh wrote:

I understand from the polls and such that the Dems still have the clear support of those in the lowest income brackets (but then, many of those are people of colour); but that skilled workers trend Republican. How can that be turned about, and how would you handle it? Or don't you think it needs to be a priority, and the Dems should keep focusing on a liberal rainbow-style, cross-class coalition?

No, I don't think it needs to be a priority.

As a matter of aesthetics, I find a liberal, rainbow-style, cross class coalition much more attractive than class warfare. That's a big part of why I've been rooting for the Democrats over the last 11 years. On the issues, I side with (grown-up) Republicans at least as often as with Democrats. But I loathe the Republican Party's current class-warfare approach to economic policies, and I absolutely hate their divisive rhetoric on social and cultural issues. If the Democratic Party were to become the Republicans' working class mirror image, that would probably turn me into a Republican. More importantly, it would further erode the politics of competence and bridge-building, and further strengthen the pseudo-politics of throwing macho poses.

As a matter of getting elected, I'd say a vote is a vote, no matter who casts it. There are many special interest groups out there, organized labor is just another one of them, and its size is declining. So why would the vote of organized labor count for more the vote of gay yuppie libertarians, or any other special interest group for that matter? If there's any reason to treat labor as something special, I don't see it.

So as a matter of both aesthetics and arithmetics, I prefer it that the Democrats go for the well-off libertarians. Let the Republicans have the brawny-handed machos and blue-collar Bible thumpers. I like this much better than the other way round.

0 Replies

Re: A Republican Adrift in Ohio - or: dilemmas for the Dems

Thomas wrote:

No, I don't think it needs to be a priority.

[..] On the issues, I side with (grown-up) Republicans at least as often as with Democrats. [..] If the Democratic Party were to become the Republicans' working class mirror image, that would probably turn me into a Republican.

Well, thats why in that one recent thread, I classed you in as a right-wing poster, much to the disagreement of Sofia! Razz

Thomas wrote:

There are many special interest groups out there, organized labor is just another one of them, and its size is declining. So why would the vote of organized labor count for more the vote of gay yuppie libertarians, or any other special interest group for that matter?

Because there's noone sticking up for them now. The conservatives stroke their religious and cultural sensitivities while ****ing them over when it comes to their working wage, conditions, rights, everything. OK, so its their own fault that they fall for that - but they dont, most of them I guess just dont vote at all anymore. Its just that the liberals, meanwhile, dont offer an alternative political home for 'em (anymore?).

I have sorta the same here in Utrecht. Theres a certain working class neighbourhood here, much of it will be demolished, to make way for new houses, larger houses mostly that will be for sale. The current inhabitants, who now have old, but nice houses with a little garden, will have to move into new highrise blocks on the edge of the neighbourhood or out to the new neighbourhood they're building all the way on the edge of the city. These are people who've often lived there for all their life, some have been there for decades - everyone knows each other, they look out for each other. All the more important cause there is a lot of unemployment, crime etc. City council would rather "clean it up", put them in highrises, build fancy new houses in what is after all quite close to downtown.

Who's sticking up for their rights? Noone. They dont vote anyway - if they do vote, recently, its been for Fortuyn or the like. It used to be solid Labour, but Labour has gone the Dem way to some extent too, plus its in the city government in a coalition with the right, not much it can do. Only party sticking up for them now, ironically, is the Green Left. But what do I find? The Green city council members take their side, but the party rank and file dont seem too interested. Appeals for helping in some actions yielded little. Instead, the people of the "action committee" and so on focus on actions to preserve green spaces in town (many of which in the nice neighbourhoods many Greens live in), or for better bicycle routes, or ... I mean, I'm proud of my party's councillors that they are the only ones sticking out for these people, but it just doesnt seem much "alive" as an issue among the party as a whole.

Now generally, in Holland, this isnt so much of a problem - the Greens can drop the ball here, cause the Socialists will pick it up, and in some towns, Labour still will too. Theres a kind of division of tasks. But in America there isnt. If the Dems aren't the people of the working folk, noone is. They're left out of the system, decided over by one quarter of the people fighting another quarter.

(I woke up in an angry mood today so I'm still on my populist tack as you can see)

0 Replies

Re: A Republican Adrift in Ohio - or: dilemmas for the Dems

nimh wrote:

Thomas wrote:
No, I don't think it needs to be a priority.

[..] On the issues, I side with (grown-up) Republicans at least as often as with Democrats. [..] If the Democratic Party were to become the Republicans' working class mirror image, that would probably turn me into a Republican.

Well, thats why in that one recent thread, I classed you in as a right-wing poster, much to the disagreement of Sofia!

Hmmm, I obviously missed that exchange. Have a link for me?

nimh wrote:

Thomas wrote:
There are many special interest groups out there, organized labor is just another one of them, and its size is declining. So why would the vote of organized labor count for more the vote of gay yuppie libertarians, or any other special interest group for that matter?

Because there's noone sticking up for them now.

Nobody's sticking up for comfortably-well-off libertarians like me either. For example, we want capital punishment abolished in America. No candidate, left or right, is standing up against this barbaric relict. In the "war on drugs", as in the war on Iraq, we want America to declare victory and go home; in fact, we wish America had never gotten itself into these wars. Still, both wars have a firm, bi-partisan consensus in their favor, never mind their cost in human lives and civil rights. Even John Kerry said he wouldn't change his vote on Iraq, knowing what he knows now. For a last example, we want the deceptively labelled PATRIOT act terminated, but it, too, has a broad, bipartisan consensus in its favor.

So America's political landscape is a pretty lonely place for people like me too, which leads me to repeat my question: Why single out labor from all the people who get neglected in America's two-party system?

nimh wrote:

(I woke up in an angry mood today so I'm still on my populist tack as you can see)

No problem. I voted green once upon a time too. Smile

Proportional representation rules! It's strange to hear that even the Socialists have stopped representing your working class though. I have no good answer for that one.

0 Replies

The working class and organized labor have been marginalized in this country, that's not to be doubted. As for Ohio specifically, there is a fair amount of the financial and insurance industries here, so that's a no-brainer Republican base. Much of the state is still given over to agriculture, and since the era of the "Reagan Democrats," those jokers have voted Republican in lock-step. Fundamentalist and charismatic christian sects are sufficiently represented, as well. The upshot is that with the decline in the membership and power of organized labor, a traditional battle-ground state such as Ohio remains up for grabs politically.

I find it rather ironic that Thomas, who claims to be in Germany, and states that he has voted green (not a ballot choice in the U.S. with a very few exceptions), complains about not being represented in a nation in which it does not appear he resides.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I find it rather ironic that Thomas, who claims to be in Germany, and states that he has voted green (not a ballot choice in the U.S. with a very few exceptions), complains about not being represented in a nation in which it does not appear he resides.

Not yet. I got myself a Green Card in February though, so it's only a matter of time until I do reside in America. Also note that I said "people like me", which does include quite a lot of Americans -- just not enough to be worth representing for the two major parties.

0 Replies

You wrote:

Nobody's sticking up for comfortably-well-off libertarians like me either. For example, we want capital punishment abolished in America. No candidate, left or right, is standing up against this barbaric relict. In the "war on drugs", as in the war on Iraq, we want America to declare victory and go home; in fact, we wish America had never gotten itself into these wars.

By and large, the Republicans represent well-off libertarians in this country. It is a figment of your imagination that there would be an significant number of "well-off libertarians" in this country who can be relied upon to consistently oppose the death sentence, or the "war on drugs." Any such reaction would be ideosyncratic. People who identify themselves as libertarian in the United States are generally conservative in outlook, and could not be considered by definition to be opposed to capital punishment or drug-enforcement programs. To most Americans, such a point of view would be seen as liberal, as opposed to libertarian.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

People who identify themselves as libertarian in the United States are generally conservative in outlook, and could not be considered by definition to be opposed to capital punishment or drug-enforcement programs. To most Americans, such a point of view would be seen as liberal, as opposed to libertarian.

Interesting. From what I read on libertarian webpages like Reason Magazine and the Cato Institute, I gather that libertarians are at least evenly split on capital punishment, consistently anti-war-on-drugs, consistently anti-war-on-Iraq, and consistently anti-PATRIOT-act. My wording may have been imprecise on capital punishment, but are you sure that the overall view I expressed is not libertarian by American standards? That would surprise me, but I'm always willing to learn.

0 Replies

Re: A Republican Adrift in Ohio - or: dilemmas for the Dems

Thomas wrote:

So America's political landscape is a pretty lonely place for people like me too, which leads me to repeat my question: Why single out labor from all the people who get neglected in America's two-party system?

I have an old-fashioned answer to that one too: because comfortably well-off libertarians are less defenceless and marginalised than low-wage factory workers.

(In case there is any confusion about the label "labor", I'm not referring to unions, but to the 'working class' (or what passes for it in this postmodern age), generally.)

Thomas wrote:

Proportional representation rules! It's strange to hear that even the Socialists have stopped representing your working class though. I have no good answer for that one.

Oh, in other towns its the Socialists ... I dunno why they dropped the ball here in Utrecht. Its the Labour Party thats really let these people down, right now and really, ever since the late eighties ... its the very reason for the Socialists' emergence from Maoist obscurity into the mainstream in the 90s.

Thomas wrote:

Hmmm, I obviously missed that exchange. Have a link for me?

yep

0 Replies

Organized Labor, in it's hey day, fought against far greater odds than it is presented with today.

There are two major reasons why Organized Labor has been marginalized:

1) Federal and State statutes and voluntary concessions by Employers have provided most workers with the benefits they once needed Unions to obtain for them.

2) Corruption within Unions cost them the loyalty of workers.

I was a member of the Teamsters during my early years as a factory worker, construction laborer, and truck driver. I then made the move into the Corporate ranks and have worked for three large companies over the last 28 years. I currently work for a relatively small operation which employs about 200 people. The majority of these jobs are professional in nature, but there are at least 50 to 75 positions which would fall within the conventional definition of Labor. The benefits provided to all of our employees are superior to any I have received in Union and Non-Union companies. The two companies I worked for prior to my current employer each had employment rolls in excess of 15,000. Both of the those companies provided all of their employees with far better compensation rates and benefits than any I received in Union jobs.

The benefits I received in Union jobs were adequate, but it's hard for me to believe I would not have received something very similar if I had not been paying dues to a Union.

More importantly, I found, without exception, that the local Union officials were very cozy with the owners of the companies for which I worked and that their championing of our safety, let alone our interests, was virtually non-existent. In one company for which I drove a truck, the factory workers were routinely sweeping out large vats of chlorine with only dust masks as protection. Just walking onto the factory floor would cause my lungs to hurt. After encouraging my fellow workers to complain of the conditions to the Union Rep I was confronted by the very same low life and warned to mind my own business. I didn't; went over his head and within a week found the tires of my car slashed. The workers continued to breath in toxic fumes on a daily basis.

This was the most extreme example of Union disregard for its members which I encountered but in each Union shop in which I worked, there were similar, although less pronounced, situations.

These types of situations and conditions prompted me to get my act together and start my climb up the corporate ladder.

I'm sure that others have had favorable experiences with Unions, but I am equally sure that mine were not the exception to the rule.

Full time, American citizen workers who are employed by companies with payrolls in excess of 50 people are not without health insurance and other benefits. The much smaller employers who cannot afford to provide their workers with comparable benefits, are not worth the time of the Unions.

Irrespective of what the actual number of American workers without health insurance may be, they do not constitute a large enough or cohesive enough constituency for either party to court.

To the extent that the poor in America constitute any kind of voting bloc, it is along racial and not economic lines, and as the black middle class continues to grow, that bloc will diminish in clout. Latin immigrants do not have the same historical legacy as African-Americans and are not likely to find themselves a similar exception to the American immigrant experience.

Repeated surveys have shown that Americans, in general, do not consider themselves as rich or as poor as the demographers would contend. Class warfare as a political strategy has been, largely, ineffective because there isn't a clear consensus on who fits in which class. Contrast this with Europe where class distinctions, historically, transcend salary levels and one finds a major reason for the distinction between American and European politics.

I think that it's probably true that cultural issues have a greater influence on American voters than they do on European voters, but one can as easily view this in a positive light as a negative one. It's simply a matter of perspective. It is not axiomatic that class issues are more important than cultural ones.

I can sympathize with any who might sneeringly dismiss the "brawny-handed machos and blue-collar Bible thumpers" in jest or otherwise, as I, too, find elitism seductive, and am usually happy to sneeringly dismiss the "hand wringing effetes and self-righteous hypocrites"

0 Replies

<snort>
Finn--
<hee hee>

Thomas! I didn't recognize you as having ever been near the GOP ballpark...

And, you've ditched your principles over popularity? UGH!

It is THEY, THEY! who use the politics of division and class warfare!!! Who has brainwashed you?

<My name is George Bush, and I approve this message...>

0 Replies

Perhaps its due to America never having had a proper Social-democratic or Labour Party that there seems to be some confusion here and discussion keeps returning to the unions. I was not talking about the unions.

I was talking about how the major leftwing-party, imho, should always make it its priority to stand up for workers, the working class, the working poor, however you want to label it. Ties with unions may or may not be a way to keep the affinity up (in America obviously less so than its been here), but I havent in any case been talking about it.

The Dems still poll a ample majority of the poor - the bottom 10%, the bottom 20%. Of course a large percentage of those are people of colour, so to what extent race and class intermingle in shaping loyalties is an open question. Meanwhile, like in NC, you can find factory towns going for the Reps while the Dems rely on the whitecollars. That seems to me both unnatural and a missed opportunity. It signals the primacy of cultural issues over economic issues. To the extent that its the Dems themselves who have put a greater priority (or let themselves be sidetracked) onto cultural issues, and lost touch with the very people they should imho stick up for most of all, I consider that a shame.

0 Replies

Thomas, you really don't know much about what Americans mean when they say they are Libertarian if you go to someone's web site to find out what they are all about. Those describing themselves as Libertarians here are as close to anarchists as one can get, and still have some fuzzy notion of a political agenda. About the only precepts which might be said to unite Libertarians is a repugnance for big government, and opposition to nearly all forms of taxation--which is why i've said that they usually find the Republicans their choice when voting. What is called the Libertarian Party does not nearly represent even a significant fraction of those here who describe themselves as Libertarian. But if you want to support Lyndon LaRouche, i'm sure they'll welcome you gladly.

0 Replies

Quote:

People who identify themselves as libertarian in the United States are generally conservative in outlook, and could not be considered by definition to be opposed to capital punishment or drug-enforcement programs. To most Americans, such a point of view would be seen as liberal, as opposed to libertarian.

I always thought libertarians were kind of like Arnold -- fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Someone once told me that libertarians were anti-force -- therefore anti-war (on drugs and Iraq) and against social programs (forcing someone to pay for the welfare of others) but split on abortion and the death penalty. The split due to some reasoning that the government should not force women to have babies they don't want, and others reasoning that women should not force babies out of their wombs. I'm not sure why the split on the death penalty other than maybe differences in moral judgment.

Sorry if I'm straying off topic -- just think it's interesting and maybe worth another thread.

0 Replies

A Republican Adrift in Ohio - or: dilemmas for the Dems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know