Hillary Clinton and the Populist Revolt

On the whole globalization has increased the wealth in this country. To certain pockets of industries and groups of workers it has been very painful. Shutting down trade and raising tariffs only stands to lower our standard of living but we need a way to offer assistance of some sort to who globalization hurts.

These ideas don't have to be a straight right/left paradigm either.

I do get the frustration of the workers who have been left behind and then get mocked by the elites.
 
cawacko said:
On the whole globalization has increased the wealth in this country. To certain pockets of industries and groups of workers it has been very painful. Shutting down trade and raising tariffs only stands to lower our standard of living but we need a way to offer assistance of some sort to who globalization hurts.

These ideas don't have to be a straight right/left paradigm either.

I do get the frustration of the workers who have been left behind and then get mocked by the elites.
Click to expand...
Two points. I essentially agree with your first comment but take issue with your "some pockets" statement as a gross understatement and this sort of down playing by the GOP establishment of the large numbers adversely affected by trade agreements has played no small roll in the GOP populist revolt.

The second point I take issue with is the shutting down trade comment. No one is advocating that. Many people are frustrated with this willingness to needlessly sacrifice the economic well being of a substantial part of the population so that the rest prospers. This isn't necessary. We can still have global trade agreements while protecting our own domestic interests by enforcing sanctions against bad faith players who dump products or manipulate their currencies to game those trade agreements or review immigration laws that permit foreign workers to undermine our labor market.

I don't see it as an all or nothing game. There are times when protectionism is appropriate. Name one developed industrial nation that didn't protect critical industries from foreign competition as they developed those industries. The US sceeding manufacturing to foreign trade, for example, is not jus bad economics it is short sighted and dangerously naive from both an economic standpoint but a national security one as well. It is simply insane of us to sceed manufacturing in critical industries like technology and strategic basic materials to foreign nations.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Well again...read the article. That's what the author points out. The Democratic parties coalition has changed from the traditional supporters of the working class. That transformation began in the mid 60's due to Vietnam and the Civil Rights movement. The 1968 Democratic convention was a key catalyst...and you want to talked about a rigged electoral system. The convention nominated Hubert Humphrey who had not competed in a single primary election over the candidates who had. The Democratic party system was rigged to favor urban party bosses and an ossified AFL-CIO politbureau who were very disconnected from Democratic constituents who opposed the war in Vietnam and supported the civil rights movement.

That precipitated a change in the Democratic party with young aspiring professionals pushing out the old big city party bosses and union leaders. With that transition the Democratic party stopped being the party of the working class and become a party of aspiring professionals with diversity. That is most symbolized by Bill Clinton becoming the leader of the DLC and co-opting GOP center right policies.
Click to expand...

Way true, and not a revelation by any means.

Here in WV there are no shortage of WWC's [mostly miners but not all of them] who are registered democrats but lack any representation on the national level. And if they leave the party or vote for republicans in the general it's because their party left them. It's not a matter of being rednecks, it's a matter of jobs and economic opportunity.

And it's no different in the Rust Belt or anywhere that has lost jobs due to trade policy.

But the change in the democrat party started in the 60's---not with Obama and Pelosi. If a JFK was on the ballot against Trump, he would get virtually all the WWC dems and a large swath of registered republicans and win in a landslide.

But like Elvis, JFK has left the building. He wouldn't recognize his own party if he miraculously appeared on the scene. Not only have the national democrats Balkanized the electorate into disparate groups but the WWC's no longer have a seat at the table. In fact, it's easy to get the idea they're no longer welcome there.

Michael Moore picked up on that in his recent video clip---the WWC's are using Donald Trump to basically give a big hearty F-you to Hillary, the establishment and everything they represent.

Can't say as I blame them.
 
By the way Wacko what do you think of the observation that the old political paradigm of Democrats were the party of labor and Republicans the party of management is dead. That the current paradigm is Democrats are the party of aspiring professionals and diversity and Republicans are the party of Business interests and the white working class.

Specifically that professional type Democrats and business type Republicans have more in common politically than we do with working class voters?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Way true, and not a revelation by any means.

Here in WV there are no shortage of WWC's [mostly miners but not all of them] who are registered democrats but lack any representation on the national level. And if they leave the party or vote for republicans in the general it's because their party left them. It's not a matter of being rednecks, it's a matter of jobs and economic opportunity.

And it's no different in the Rust Belt or anywhere that has lost jobs due to trade policy.

But the change in the democrat party started in the 60's---not with Obama and Pelosi. If a JFK was on the ballot against Trump, he would get virtually all the WWC dems and a large swath of registered republicans and win in a landslide.

But like Elvis, JFK has left the building. He wouldn't recognize his own party if he miraculously appeared on the scene. Not only have the national democrats Balkanized the electorate into disparate groups but the WWC's no longer have a seat at the table. In fact, it's easy to get the idea they're no longer welcome there.

Michael Moore picked up on that in his recent video clip---the WWC's are using Donald Trump to basically give a big hearty F-you to Hillary, the establishment and everything they represent.

Can't say as I blame them.
Click to expand...
I can't blame the WWC as it is true, Democrats did abandon them but let's be clear, the populist revolt is occurring in the GOP because the GOP elites have exploited the WWC and that the primary value that binds them together is their mutual distrust of government and government institutions and because GOP elites have not acted in good faith with the WWC which is why we are currently witnessing a hostile takeover of the GOP by the WWC base.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I can't blame the WWC as it is true, Democrats did abandon them but let's be clear, the populist revolt is occurring in the GOP because the GOP elites have exploited the WWC and that the primary value that binds them together is their mutual distrust of government and government institutions and because GOP elites have not acted in good faith with the WWC which is why we are currently witnessing a hostile takeover of the GOP by the WWC base.
Click to expand...

I agree totally.

Both parties have exploited their rank and file to varying degrees. There's a reason Bernie made such a strong run in the primary.

And if the uni-party establishment thinks the rebellion will die along with Trump's candidacy [assuming he goes down] they're in for a rude awakening.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'm trying to get away from partisan bickering on this post as that is not the central point of the article in the OP. So please all, read the bloody long article before posting. I think you'll learn something.
Click to expand...
Mott that is a great article, it addresses the issues I have seen. My girlfriend and her husband who is a 62 helicopter pilot, suffered a major set back from the housing downturn, lost their home in Reno, then lost his job due to oil prices falling. They are Trump supporters because they feel like no one understands their plight. They basically need someone to blame for poor decisions they made, trying to live above their means, and some things they had no control over. They fault the "establishment" for their woes. This article pinpointed exactly what some middle class are struggling with these days.

My millennial friends are worried about their futures and the future of their children.

Do I have answers, no, this is the part that is truly frustrating to all of us.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
I agree totally.

Both parties have exploited their rank and file to varying degrees. There's a reason Bernie made such a strong run in the primary.

And if the uni-party establishment thinks the rebellion will die along with Trump's candidacy [assuming he goes down] they're in for a rude awakening.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that. I'd say that the Democrats abandoned the WWC but have done a pretty good job of representing interests of the professional classes. This, of course is why the WWC is no longer the base of the Democratic party like it has historically been. If they were the Democratic base the populist revolt occurring now would be happening to the Democratic party and not the GOP but I do agree with you that if the GOP tries to blow off the WWC revolt without actually doing something to meet their concerns than the hostile takeover will get a lot more hostile.
 
Rana said:
Mott that is a great article, it addresses the issues I have seen. My girlfriend and her husband who is a 62 helicopter pilot, suffered a major set back from the housing downturn, lost their home in Reno, then lost his job due to oil prices falling. They are Trump supporters because they feel like no one understands their plight. They basically need someone to blame for poor decisions they made, trying to live above their means, and some things they had no control over. They fault the "establishment" for their woes. This article pinpointed exactly what some middle class are struggling with these days.

My millennial friends are worried about their futures and the future of their children.

Do I have answers, no, this is the part that is truly frustrating to all of us.
Click to expand...
There are answers and the article did point out them out. The working classes, not just the white working class, need to organize around their common needs and values and if working class minorities and working class whites ever get on the same page and organize for their own common benefit...you'll see solutions and changes happening to benefit them real fast.

That has yet to happen though.
 
Rana said:
Mott that is a great article, it addresses the issues I have seen. My girlfriend and her husband who is a 62 helicopter pilot, suffered a major set back from the housing downturn, lost their home in Reno, then lost his job due to oil prices falling. They are Trump supporters because they feel like no one understands their plight. They basically need someone to blame for poor decisions they made, trying to live above their means, and some things they had no control over. They fault the "establishment" for their woes. This article pinpointed exactly what some middle class are struggling with these days.

My millennial friends are worried about their futures and the future of their children.

Do I have answers, no, this is the part that is truly frustrating to all of us.
Click to expand...
There are answers and the article did point out them out. The working classes, not just the white working class, need to organize around their common needs and values and if working class minorities and working class whites ever get on the same page and organize for their own common benefit...you'll see solutions and changes happening to benefit them real fast.

That has yet to happen though.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
There are answers and the article did point out them out. The working classes, not just the white working class, need to organize around their common needs and values and if working class minorities and working class whites ever get on the same page and organize for their own common benefit...you'll see solutions and changes happening to benefit them real fast.

That has yet to happen though.
Click to expand...

A big reason why racism needs to go the way of the do-do.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Two points. I essentially agree with your first comment but take issue with your "some pockets" statement as a gross understatement and this sort of down playing by the GOP establishment of the large numbers adversely affected by trade agreements has played no small roll in the GOP populist revolt.

The second point I take issue with is the shutting down trade comment. No one is advocating that. Many people are frustrated with this willingness to needlessly sacrifice the economic well being of a substantial part of the population so that the rest prospers. This isn't necessary. We can still have global trade agreements while protecting our own domestic interests by enforcing sanctions against bad faith players who dump products or manipulate their currencies to game those trade agreements or review immigration laws that permit foreign workers to undermine our labor market.

I don't see it as an all or nothing game. There are times when protectionism is appropriate. Name one developed industrial nation that didn't protect critical industries from foreign competition as they developed those industries. The US sceeding manufacturing to foreign trade, for example, is not jus bad economics it is short sighted and dangerously naive from both an economic standpoint but a national security one as well. It is simply insane of us to sceed manufacturing in critical industries like technology and strategic basic materials to foreign nations.
Click to expand...

If you engage in trade wars, and enact Smoot-Hawley style tariffs, aren't you effectively going to shut down trade?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Two points. I essentially agree with your first comment but take issue with your "some pockets" statement as a gross understatement and this sort of down playing by the GOP establishment of the large numbers adversely affected by trade agreements has played no small roll in the GOP populist revolt.

The second point I take issue with is the shutting down trade comment. No one is advocating that. Many people are frustrated with this willingness to needlessly sacrifice the economic well being of a substantial part of the population so that the rest prospers. This isn't necessary. We can still have global trade agreements while protecting our own domestic interests by enforcing sanctions against bad faith players who dump products or manipulate their currencies to game those trade agreements or review immigration laws that permit foreign workers to undermine our labor market.

I don't see it as an all or nothing game. There are times when protectionism is appropriate. Name one developed industrial nation that didn't protect critical industries from foreign competition as they developed those industries. The US sceeding manufacturing to foreign trade, for example, is not jus bad economics it is short sighted and dangerously naive from both an economic standpoint but a national security one as well. It is simply insane of us to sceed manufacturing in critical industries like technology and strategic basic materials to foreign nations.
Click to expand...
You think Democrats acknowledge the downsides of trade? If they do why the populist insurgence of Bernie Sanders?

Enforcing trade agreements is a good thing. If two (or more) countries make an agreement they should follow the rules of those agreements. That's different than protectionism. The U.S. is not a developing market. What technology that is being created is being outsourced? All the top tech companies are headquartered here. They farm out low cost work but the ideas and technologies are created here.
 
cawacko said:
You think Democrats acknowledge the downsides of trade? If they do why the populist insurgence of Bernie Sanders?

Enforcing trade agreements is a good thing. If two (or more) countries make an agreement they should follow the rules of those agreements. That's different than protectionism. The U.S. is not a developing market. What technology that is being created is being outsourced? All the top tech companies are headquartered here. They farm out low cost work but the ideas and technologies are created here.
Click to expand...
I suggest you research on who manufactures most of the world semiconductors and computer chips.
 
cawacko said:
You think Democrats acknowledge the downsides of trade? If they do why the populist insurgence of Bernie Sanders?

Enforcing trade agreements is a good thing. If two (or more) countries make an agreement they should follow the rules of those agreements. That's different than protectionism. The U.S. is not a developing market. What technology that is being created is being outsourced? All the top tech companies are headquartered here. They farm out low cost work but the ideas and technologies are created here.
Click to expand...
True about the Sanders insurgence but enforcing trade agreements and assuring they don't undermine our labor market is not the same as being anti trade.

Yes we are developed but your wrong if you don't think that being able to produce our own basic materials and technology isn't of national strategic importance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top