|
James The 1st posted:It's a fascinating read. One thing I wonder is that if what he says about government not needing taxes to spend is true, why does everyone get it so wrong? Excellent question. There are many reasons for this, but chief among them is that once you understand that taxation does not actually fund all of the expenditures of government the political rationale for taxation is weakened. For the most part, even anti-tax types will allow that if they must be taxed at least some of it goes to things they agree with, be it Social Security, the Military, NASA, etc. Political elites, even those who generally understand how government finance works, are terrified that the average person might decide that if literally none of "their" tax dollars actually fund these programs that there will be an enormous anti-tax revolt. Of course, some might say that such a revolt is already happening anyway. Ultimately, widespread misunderstanding of the functions of national finance lead to focus on canards that result in confused, ineffective, or even counterproductive policy debate. Instead of asking: "What level of taxation is necessary to achieve price stability, encourage/discourage economic activity of national import, and achieve our politically agreed level of economic equality/opportunity?" We ask: "How can I get government to spend my tax money on what I want?" and "Why does government tax me so much?" Instead of asking: "What level of government spending is necessary to achieve our national goals?" and "What level of US Treasuries are necessary to support the US position in world finance?" and "What conditions necessitate increased/decreased government spending?" We ask: "Why can't government live within its means like I have to do in my house?" and "When will government debt bankrupt the country?"
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 18, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:And of course the question is what should be done about it? If your solution is that the left needs to accept frothing Rush Limbaugh listeners into the political fold, or embrace opposition to gay marriage or other social changes, well, that's not going to happen. Similarly the left isn't going to stop snickering about the right being racist bigoted yokels until they actually stop throwing up reflexive opposition to every single change in their lives, and stop demonizing everyone who lives in a city (blacks and liberals) or doesn't accept their childish cariacture of a culture. The issue is that the vast majority of "frothing Limbaugh listeners" are middle-upper middle class suburbanites, not people living in rural towns in flyover country. Part of the reason these people are reactionary and socially conservative is how much they get poo poo on by all corners of society. When's the last time a leftist group did genuine outreach to rural areas? For all the talk about the oppressed that self-professed leftists do, poor rural folk tend to see similar oppression and are largely ignored. Their exposure to the culture of big cities and foreign countries is through tv shows and the news, and no one makes any effort to divorce them of these preconceptions. I don't agree with the social politics of many of them but much of it comes from ignorance instead of straight up malice. Hell, that Chik-Fil-A picture proves my point. The people that flocked to those issues weren't the rural poor. They were racist white suburbanites who could afford to spend a bunch of money to spite minorities and liberals. Aves Maria! fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Few populist movements are characterized by a truly populist nature – most are typified by elites employing populist rhetoric. Yup, elites are going to jump in at some point if they perceive there's a political advantage to be gained. Movements that try to avoid this by remaining "leaderless" or actively shunning existing political establishments are pretty easy to dismiss and marginalize in all but the most extreme circumstances. For example, Occupy Wall Street. It's really hard to get a bunch of people to spontaneously mobilize without any sort of organization scheme unless people are literally facing imminent death.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:I hate to break it to you, but the Tea Party wasn't a populist movement. It was astroturfed by wealthy interests pretty much from day one. So it's like every other populist movement the US has had then? Unless you genuinely think support for Jackson, Bryan, or the like was bottom up instead of top down. My argument is that "left populism" was never left at all. Sorry, wanting a social safety net for yourself isn't leftist so long as you're willing to throw everyone else (women, gays, non-Christians, ect.) under the bus to get it. Sorry if I don't feel like throwing away a centry plus of progress towards modernity for at best a minor benefit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:So it's like every other populist movement the US has had then? Unless you genuinely think support for Jackson, Bryan, or the like was bottom up instead of top down. You're comparing populist movements in a 90 percent white country where minorities couldnt even reliably vote across much of the country to possible populist movements in a 60 percent white country. I hope you realize why this comparison is dumb and incredibly speculatory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:The issue is that the vast majority of "frothing Limbaugh listeners" are middle-upper middle class suburbanites, not people living in rural towns in flyover country. Part of the reason these people are reactionary and socially conservative is how much they get poo poo on by all corners of society. When's the last time a leftist group did genuine outreach to rural areas? For all the talk about the oppressed that self-professed leftists do, poor rural folk tend to see similar oppression and are largely ignored. Their exposure to the culture of big cities and foreign countries is through tv shows and the news, and no one makes any effort to divorce them of these preconceptions. I don't agree with the social politics of many of them but much of it comes from ignorance instead of straight up malice. Uh, leftist groups reach out all the damned time? There's plenty of outreach going on all the time on issues that affect rural people, like universal health care, worker protection and unionizing, minimum wage, etc. You name it, there's someone trying to sell the policy. I mean think about just how much time has been spent on explaining the issue of gay marriage. The opposition from flavor country has (as usual) been reactionary and total. The more urbanized states passed it over the objection of the rural hick areas, and eventually the courts had to start forcing it into the states who just refuse to get the memo. This is a story that's played out repeatedly throughout American history, with slavery, civil rights, and so on. No amount of "outreach" and good-hearted explaining of the merits of the issue is going to convince some hick who really wants to drag you behind his coal-rollin' truck. Periodically they just have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st/20th/19th century by the urban states and the courts. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Uh, leftist groups reach out all the damned time? There's plenty of outreach going on all the time on issues that affect rural people, like universal health care, worker protection and unionizing, minimum wage, etc. You name it, there's someone trying to sell the policy. These two thoughts don't have anything to do with one another. A lot of resistance to policies is very often tied to the organization attempting to push the policy than anything else. computer parts fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:These two thoughts don't have anything to do with one another. You don't think there's been any outreach on gay marriage in rural states? Here I picked a random rural state and googled "lgbt outreach" for you. quote:I’m especially proud to be launching the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Project One America in Montgomery and Birmingham on Wednesday. With 20 full-time staff and dedicated offices, Project One America is an unprecedented, $8.5 million effort to advance equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas. It will be the largest-ever coordinated campaign for equality in the history of the South. We’ve got to do more than we’ve ever done before, because no one in this state should have to wait a single day more for equality to reach them. The issue is not that there are no leftists in rural states trying to speak the lingo and win hearts and minds. There are certainly leftists who will adopt whatever cultural signifiers they need to to sell leftist policies in rural areas. The issue is that most of the people in rural areas aren't interested in listening. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You don't think there's been any outreach on gay marriage in rural states? My point is that gay marriage is not an issue that really effects rural people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:My point is that gay marriage is not an issue that really effects rural people. There are no gay rural people? Huh. Must be those cities gayifying people!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:There are no gay rural people? Huh. Must be those cities gayifying people! There are very very small numbers of rural gay people. This is for a variety of reasons (there are small numbers of gay people as a percentage of the population, there are small numbers of rural people in general, rural people don't interact with other people as often as urban people, and any gay person with the means is likely to move out of the rural area due to existing biases).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:No amount of "outreach" and good-hearted explaining of the merits of the issue is going to convince some hick who really wants to drag you behind his coal-rollin' truck. Periodically they just have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st/20th/19th century by the urban states and the courts. I guess this explains why those awesome, progressive urban states like California straight up voted to ban same-sex marriage in a popular vote while backwards, rural states like Minnesota shot down a similar amendment and then voted to legalize same sex marriage. This black-and-white dichotomy between urban and rural states doesn't hold up in reality, especially as you have states like Vermont which are not heavily urban that constantly vote for progressive reform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:My point is that gay marriage is not an issue that really effects rural people. What a privileged opinion. Gay marriage certainly does affect rural people. Do you think there's no gay people in rural areas? (It's affect by the way). Pick whatever issue you want. Do you really think that no one's tried to sell unions, worker protection laws, minimum wage, etc to rural areas? You think that no one has tried that in, say, coal country, or to the auto workers down south? No one's tried "the right of hard-working West Virginia coal miners to a fair wage for a fair day's work" or whatnot? It's not a question of effort, it's not a question of the activists being locals who embrace the culture and speak the lingo. It's a question of the willingness of rural people to consider those stances and not just go back home and turn on Fox News. Buying a pickup truck and campaigning in it is not the missing element in the left's success. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:urban states like California No.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Umm, a bit more of a local question, does anyone know much about Zephyr Teachout? Or Tim Wu? They are running against Cuomo in the Democratic primary for the governor's race. She sounds cool, but I don't know how much of a shot she's got. I basically only just heard about her when she got endorsed by the Public Employees Federation union. That's a pretty big deal, and I don't think Cuomo has the CSEA or the teacher's union, but the election is coming up fast. Rockopolis fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There are very very small numbers of rural gay people. This is for a variety of reasons (there are small numbers of gay people as a percentage of the population, there are small numbers of rural people in general, rural people don't interact with other people as often as urban people, and any gay person with the means is likely to move out of the rural area due to existing biases). This is stupid. I just googled "what percentage of the american population is rural?" and got this: "About 46.2 million people, or 15 percent of the U.S. population, reside in rural counties, which spread across 72 percent of the nation's land area. From 2011 to 2012, those non-metro areas lost more than 40,000 people, a 0.1 percent drop." I don't know what the going average percentage of LGBT people is, but even 10% of that is 4.5 million people. That's a fuckload of people who are directly affected by rural bigotry every day. They're either bullied or forced to stay closeted due to fear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:What a privileged opinion. Gay marriage certainly does affect rural people. Do you think there's no gay people in rural areas? To just jump on this, the UMWA and coal miners in general have fought literal wars over labor rights. Coal miners, at least in the past, were actually fairly receptive to labor rights arguments; most due to just how amazingly lovely their lives were.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:What a privileged opinion. Gay marriage certainly does affect rural people. Do you think there's no gay people in rural areas? There are very small numbers of gay people and one of the main vectors for acceptance of gay rights is interaction with gay people and learning that they aren't meaningfully different. This is hard for a rural person for evident reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
What would be an urban state, then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
The farmer-labor connection is old and runs deep, especially in the midwest. Minnesota is a great example of this. Unfortunately, propaganda/culture wars have driven a bit of a spike between them (especially after the 2nd Great Migration when the color of labor started to change). But suburbs are really the drivers of reactionary policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:These two thoughts don't have anything to do with one another. Did you read the article at all? The UAW bungled the unionization process and the workers want a different union to come in and try their hand at it but the AFL-CIO won't let another one because they're poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Crain posted:To just jump on this, the UMWA and coal miners in general have fought literal wars over labor rights. Coal miners, at least in the past, were actually fairly receptive to labor rights arguments; most due to just how amazingly lovely their lives were. J.H. Blair shooting at a bunch of coal hicks? A massacre of striking workers in Ludlow? ugh who gives a poo poo about those hill trash problems, we've got leftism to spread over here!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Did you read the article at all? The UAW bungled the unionization process and the workers want a different union to come in and try their hand at it but the AFL-CIO won't let another one because they're poo poo. Yes, that's my point. A lot of resistance to unionization (for example) is tied to the fact that the organizations promoting them are poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Crain posted:To just jump on this, the UMWA and coal miners in general have fought literal wars over labor rights. Coal miners, at least in the past, were actually fairly receptive to labor rights arguments; most due to just how amazingly lovely their lives were. So when were these wars fought, 1910? This is relevant a century later how? Again, my point is that those arguments and outreach have been tried and rejected. It's not a matter of hitting the right cultural buttons, rural voters actually don't want minimum wage or unions or worker protections anymore in the year 2014. Those issues have been successfully framed away from the left in rural areas. Those things are now "bad for the worker" because they "hurt the economy". It's not a lack of outreach, it's not the fact that candidates or activists aren't driving pickup trucks or listening to country music, it's a failure on what rural voters perceive as the merits of the issue. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, that's my point. A lot of resistance to unionization (for example) is tied to the fact that the organizations promoting them are poo poo. Oh goddamnit I misread your post and thought you were blaming the workers, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:So when were these wars fought, 1910? This is relevant a century later how? Down here in Illinois, we had an armed communist uprising in the 40s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The farmer-labor connection is old and runs deep, especially in the midwest. Minnesota is a great example of this. Unfortunately, propaganda/culture wars have driven a bit of a spike between them (especially after the 2nd Great Migration when the color of labor started to change). But suburbs are really the drivers of reactionary policy. This has been entirely my point. Blaming everything on "rural hicks" just drives what should be natural allies of progressive policy (i.e. rural farmers and laborers) to vote for folksy Republican idiots who at least pretend not to completely disdain them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
zoux posted:I will never, ever stop making fun of moron conservatives. Don't discriminate. Make fun of all morons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Those issues have been successfully framed away from the left in rural areas. Those things are now "bad for the worker" because they "hurt the economy". It's not a lack of outreach, it's not the fact that candidates or activists aren't driving pickup trucks or listening to country music, it's a failure on what rural voters perceive as the merits of the issue. Is this not evidence that outreach is actually very successful at changing people's views and getting them to frame issues in the way that activists want?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:This has been entirely my point. Blaming everything on "rural hicks" just drives what should be natural allies of progressive policy (i.e. rural farmers and laborers) to vote for folksy Republican idiots who at least pretend not to completely disdain them. Why should rural farmers and laborers be natural allies of progressive policy? Farmers were some of the biggest pushers of policies like slavery, rural folks have been consistent opponents of miscegenation and gay marriage, and so on. Rural folks tend to be the last people to sign on-board progressive policies because they don't encounter affected people very much in their daily lives. If we wait until hicks in appalachia agree to stuff we'll never get anything done. Even if Democrats completely abandoned social policy and focused solely on economic policy, rural and urban people still have different needs and goals. Farms are a cultural touchstone that happen to be nasty, dangerous places that employ people at lovely low wages. Rural farmers are the "employer" and labor protections and fair wages are perceived as hurting them. Every goddamn protection and wage law has to include special carveouts so that they can employ teenager and illegal immigrants for sub-minimum wage, who then turn around and get killed because Farmer Brown doesn't want to follow OSHA rules. You seem to have the idea that just because the left wants to support poor people that poor rural people would be natural allies. That's not the case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is this not evidence that outreach is actually very successful at changing people's views and getting them to frame issues in the way that activists want? Are you suggesting the left utilize the same kind of outreach that resulted in that particular change? So let's see, how did Reagan do his outreach for trickle-down economics? Maybe have some leftists campaign at sites of famous lynchings, throw black people and gays out of the party, and then we can start having some nice things for white people? Doesn't sound like a great plan to me. Unfortunately, historically that's been the cost of getting rural voters to sign on to Having Nice Things - making sure that none of those nice things go to The Wrong Sort. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Why should rural farmers and laborers be natural allies of progressive policy? Farmers were some of the biggest pushers of policies like slavery, rural folks have been consistent opponents of miscegenation and gay marriage, and so on. Rural folks tend to be the last people to sign on-board progressive policies because they don't encounter affected people very much in their daily lives. If we wait until hicks in appalachia agree to stuff we'll never get anything done. So, we shouldn't pay attention to the past except when to compare rural farmers in 2014 to plantation owners in the south and people against miscegenation in the 50s and 60s? And actually, they do encounter affected people very much in their daily lives because progressive economic policy is something that would also make their lives better. The problem is getting over decades of conservative messaging with legitimate outreach efforts and exposing these isolated areas to more cosmopolitan thinking. I grew up in rural Iowa in a depressed ex-manufacturing town where these people aren't malicious about bigotry, they are just ignorant. Those of them that went off to school elsewhere tended to (surprise, surprise) tone down their prejudices quite a bit. quote:Even if Democrats completely abandoned social policy and focused solely on economic policy, rural and urban people still have different needs and goals. Farms are a cultural touchstone that happen to be nasty, dangerous places that employ people at lovely low wages. Rural farmers are the "employer" and labor protections and fair wages are perceived as hurting them. Every goddamn protection and wage law has to include special carveouts so that they can employ teenager and illegal immigrants for sub-minimum wage, who then turn around and get killed because Farmer Brown doesn't want to follow OSHA rules. You realize the people that push most for depressing wages and employing illegal immigrants tend to be the large corporate farmers, right? The small rural farms tend to be run almost entirely by the families that own them, and don't have a lot of leeway to hire a bunch of outside help. This is something you would know if you actually, I don't know, lived in a rural area or actually knew anything about them. e: A lot of the reason some farmers oppose new safety measures is because they're told it would stop their kids from working on their farm. It's a problem with messaging, not because every rural farmer wants to kill their teenaged sons/daughters for profit. Aves Maria! fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
mdemone posted:
I think it's been shown a bunch of times that most Millennials or kids in the generation after (post-2000) have a very colorblind mindset when it comes to race, which is a set backwards and makes it more difficult to confront or deal with issues of race. So yeah, probably not going to get better any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:I think it's been shown a bunch of times that most Millennials or kids in the generation after (post-2000) have a very colorblind mindset when it comes to race, which is a set backwards and makes it more difficult to confront or deal with issues of race. Is this millenials writ-large, or mainly white millenials? v yeah, figured. Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:I think it's been shown a bunch of times that most Millennials or kids in the generation after (post-2000) have a very colorblind mindset when it comes to race, which is a set backwards and makes it more difficult to confront or deal with issues of race. To be fair, it's more like they are halfway there but haven't really thought it the whole way through yet. It seems to me, purely anecdotally, that the prevailing opinions on race in the younger generation is that hey, we should just ignore it because it doesn't matter what color you are, we're all equals here, right? Which is a laudable end goal, but the problem is that they have been cultured to ignore the vast structural disadvantages faced by minorities that still exist, and that to achieve that desired end state of "who cares we're really all the same anyway" we need to be very much aware of racial differences, and the different hurdles and pressures that need to be overcome before we get there. So I wouldn't really call it a step backwards, so much as a step, like, sideways. Edit: to the guy above's point; white millenials. I don't think we really need to explain to young minorities the challenges they face based on their race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:What would be an urban state, then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
The constant stereotyping and marginalization of rural people, both in political discourse and in entertainment/media is ignorant and actually actively harmful to our society. This constant painting of cities as better places to live -- escape from your shithole countryside -- is a huge reason we're seeing a drastic generational decline for farmers. Guess what happens when you can't find any farmers to run your small, environmentally conscientious and sustainable farms?! You get huge megafarms and CAFOs that end up being enormously lovely to our environment and also giving us lovely unhealthy antibiotic-ridden food! Also you goddamn sheltered city-hicks Wisconsin (infamously rural) was a huge source of progressive politics and brought us Fighting Bob, Tammy Baldwin and Russ Feingold. Stop attacking and denigrating rural people and farmers and you'll find that they're among the best allies for the progressive moment and workers. Huge part why Wisconsin is red right now is because the Republicans have successfully convinced people that the left hates them, their religion, their traditions and lifestyles, and wants to take away their guns because they're too dumb to be trusted with guns. And to be honest, the Republicans aren't one bit wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Brannock posted:The constant stereotyping and marginalization of rural people, both in political discourse and in entertainment/media is ignorant and actually actively harmful to our society. This constant painting of cities as better places to live -- escape from your shithole countryside -- is a huge reason we're seeing a drastic generational decline for farmers. I don't think the "escape from your shithole countryside" mentality is necessarily about denigrating or marginalizing rural people. Cities have a lot more things to do, more people to meet, and more diversity by definition. Given that this is a forum mostly made up of young adults it's no surprise that rural life is generally seen as undesirable, whether or not the actual people living there are viewed in a negative manner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
I think it's fair to say that most rural and white suburban areas vote republican, and the vast majority of elected republicans are essentially destroying (or trying to destroy) -- either cynically, selfishly, spitefully and/or through ignorance -- much of what's decent about this country from a macro socio-economic standpoint. This doesn't mean that all people in white rural/surburban areas are destroying America, it just means that a majority of them are. So although I think that rkajdi's statement was a too strong, there is some truth to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 18, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Down here in Illinois, we had an armed communist uprising in the 40s. Where at? I live in Central/Southern Illinois and have never heard of one. I completely understand why (it either happened in Chicago and we were never taught about anything outside of the Chicago fire or since it involves Communist we do not talk about it.) I am a history teacher and I am always surprised at what places gloss over when teaching history (even the university I went to never discussed it and I took Illinois history). It is truly the downfall of history since history continues to add things but there is only so much time to teach it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 20:36
|
|
