On November 5th, MAGA voters knew what they were getting, but some pretended they didn’t want it – the violent purging of the racially “impure,” the control and punishment of women, a leader that would relieve them of freedom’s burdens, and a ruthless, sadistic, and unrestrained daddy who
In 1956 C. Wright Mills wrote The Power Elite, which describes income inequality and the factors that enthrone it.
In 1962, the Left's political policy thinkers, Students for a Democratic Society, issued the Port Huron statement, criticizing national policy for failing to cure economic inequality (and social inequality, and foreign policy, etc.). By the way, the conference took place at a United Auto Workers retreat, and the UAW paid for part of the conference expenses.
We of the Left were mocked, beaten, jailed, derided, and politically ostracized. And we did not reduce income inequality.
Now the Republican voters have discovered income inequality.
Now our beliefs are mainstream. 62 years is all it took.
Let's see what happens when Republican voters find that they will fail to reduce their own income inequality under Trump.
Will they approach the Left seeking coalition, having realized that we're all in the same boat, and the boat belongs to the billionaires?
If you'll buy that, I'll throw the Golden Gate in free.
I'm not so sure Republican voters care about income inequality (or any other inequality, for that matter). They do seem to want more money, status, and folks to punch down at. What they appear to covet the most is the grace of impunity that luck and psychopathy have granted Trump. I'll rethink the question when I'm in less of a foul mood.
I'm not so sure that the Democratic leadership cares about income inequality, except insofar as they can benefit from it. Harris (almost?) never mentioned poverty. Democrats are still trading stocks while minimum wage hasn't risen since 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN6LfLwvVQM
On almost every issue, the choice was between one party, MAGA, that promised to make everything worse, and another, the Dems, whose plans to solve things were sometimes hobbled by timidity and occasional hypocrisy. That was no less the case with income inequality. Trumpers vowed to make the tax system more regressive, give free rein to corporate predators, make groceries more expensive by deporting those who pick our produce, and drive up inflation with tariffs. While Harris's plans were in some respects suboptimal and insufficiently bold, the choice was pretty stark. This is why the economic explanation for Trump's victory is so bogus. His voters selected him despite openly shilling for the billionaire class. It was clearly his openly expressed fascist agenda they loved.
Economics, you say?
I got to thinking about it and had a realization.
In 1956 C. Wright Mills wrote The Power Elite, which describes income inequality and the factors that enthrone it.
In 1962, the Left's political policy thinkers, Students for a Democratic Society, issued the Port Huron statement, criticizing national policy for failing to cure economic inequality (and social inequality, and foreign policy, etc.). By the way, the conference took place at a United Auto Workers retreat, and the UAW paid for part of the conference expenses.
We of the Left were mocked, beaten, jailed, derided, and politically ostracized. And we did not reduce income inequality.
Now the Republican voters have discovered income inequality.
Now our beliefs are mainstream. 62 years is all it took.
Let's see what happens when Republican voters find that they will fail to reduce their own income inequality under Trump.
Will they approach the Left seeking coalition, having realized that we're all in the same boat, and the boat belongs to the billionaires?
If you'll buy that, I'll throw the Golden Gate in free.
I'm not so sure Republican voters care about income inequality (or any other inequality, for that matter). They do seem to want more money, status, and folks to punch down at. What they appear to covet the most is the grace of impunity that luck and psychopathy have granted Trump. I'll rethink the question when I'm in less of a foul mood.
I'm not so sure that the Democratic leadership cares about income inequality, except insofar as they can benefit from it. Harris (almost?) never mentioned poverty. Democrats are still trading stocks while minimum wage hasn't risen since 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN6LfLwvVQM
On almost every issue, the choice was between one party, MAGA, that promised to make everything worse, and another, the Dems, whose plans to solve things were sometimes hobbled by timidity and occasional hypocrisy. That was no less the case with income inequality. Trumpers vowed to make the tax system more regressive, give free rein to corporate predators, make groceries more expensive by deporting those who pick our produce, and drive up inflation with tariffs. While Harris's plans were in some respects suboptimal and insufficiently bold, the choice was pretty stark. This is why the economic explanation for Trump's victory is so bogus. His voters selected him despite openly shilling for the billionaire class. It was clearly his openly expressed fascist agenda they loved.