Democratic Party still bleeding White voters? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 08:50:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Democratic Party still bleeding White voters? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Democratic Party still bleeding White voters?  (Read 4857 times)
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


« on: May 11, 2015, 09:00:25 AM »

It's a tend that's only likely to continue, something pretty strongly evidenced by election results elsewhere in the advanced democracies. Without anything resembling a real political left existing in the US today, political trends are going to necessarily imitate the extreme identitarianism that has substituted itself for meaningful politics since at least 1947. When Taft-Hartley was enacted, the unions and civil society purged of the left, and left-wing organizations banned or proscribed, political struggle moved from the realm of multiracial, multiethnic, multinational class politics to hyper-individualized identity politics. The fact that this remains unchallenged even on the left is why you're going to see America increasingly resemble South Africa in terms of political coalitions and outcomes.

The Democratic Party may emerge as the majority party over the course of the next generation, but it won't do so as a 'progressive' party in the traditional sense. Much like the ANC, the Democrats will become (even moreso than they already are) a party with a progressive veneer enacting more and more pro-capitalist policies. The trend has existed within the Democratic Party since the 1960s (Kennedy was the first more or less post-New Deal president), and has gained steam as the traditional class coalition that underpinned the old Democratic Party collapsed and was replaced by a frankenstein coalition of ultra-rich financiers and tech magnates and the utterly destitute. As the Republicans play up their own identity politics (white, male, Christian, rural, and suburban identity politics), the Democrats will respond with their own and the coalitions will be increasingly racially, rather than socioeconomically, based.

I'd say we can expect the Republicans to start winning an overwhelming majority of the white vote at some point in the future. Granted, they already win a majority of it, but I'm talking about 2/3rds of it, which may very well doom the Democratic Party to another four decades in opposition, as was the case between the 1970s and now. Barring the re-emergence of a left committed to class politics, we will continue to slide down the identitarian rabbit hole, where politics is less about who should be commanding and controlling the economy (capitalists or the rest of us) and more about things like whether or not video games are anti-feminist, or whether or not the Democrats are planning 'white genocide' or whatever the lunatic far-right identitarians are going off on these days.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2015, 01:31:28 PM »

TNF, class warfare politics (I mean real class warfare politics, rather than cosmetic or lip service class warfare politics), just doesn't work in a global economy.

I disagree. A genuine politics of class struggle is an internationalist politics, because the working classes of every country have more in common with one another than they do the respective ruling classes of their countries. Past approaches will not work, that I will concede to you. We cannot, for example, think that we have any shot of restoring the 'Great Compromise' of the 1940s-1970s, because we never will. The only solution for a genuine class politics is to reach across national borders and construct a truly international working class party that can combat Capital anywhere and everywhere. Capital is mobile and organized on an international basis, and so must be the working class.

I don't think that's impossible, either. Liberals might because they don't believe in the agency of the working class, but the historical record proves them wrong. Time after time, workers from many different countries, speaking many different languages, of many different colors and religions and ethnic backgrounds, have come together and influenced politics in a big way. What was the CIO but a miniature version of what I'm proposing here? If a group of half-literate, half-starved immigrants from every corner of the globe (along with the native born) could get together and bring corporations like General Motors to the bargaining table 80 years ago, who's to say that we, in our more connected society, with fewer international barriers between us, couldn't do the same to Google, Microsoft, etc?

The identitarian struggle benefits no one but the ruling classes of each country. They have a vested interest in the division of the population on racial, ethnic, or religious lines because it helps them maintain their rule over the mass of people. In the old days, they did that with Jim Crow and the exclusion of non-white immigrants. Today, they do it by manipulating our better impulses, our inclinations toward anti-racism. They tell us that whites and blacks and browns and everyone else and in between cannot ever understand one another, because the experience of that particular group overrides any universality the human experience might bring. And because of that, they tell us that any struggles we engage in must be the struggle of the oppressed or marginalized 'community' or individual, who cannot hope to ever really form lasting bonds with others who may be from a different background than they, because they're too racist or too sexist or just don't get it.

And all the while they do that, they also deliberately stoke resentment among other segments of the population. Deprived of full-time employment, living wages, and basic access to the fundamentals of life, is it any surprise that many white Americans would turn to racist or sexist or other kinds of conspiratorial forms of thinking to help them understand why they're making less than their parents did, why they're losing their home, why they're children are growing up as poor as the children of black and brown parents? Combine this with the fact that you have  hyper-segregated society, in which when most white people say they 'have black friends' they're literally meaning one or two people, and you have a recipe for unmitigated hatred, misunderstanding, and the very kind of inability to understand the other that the ruling class tells us already exists.

This is exactly how they want it. They don't want us to go to the same movie theaters, to visit the same shopping malls, to go to the same schools, to eat at the same places, to fall in love with one another and have children together. Because if we do, they know that every barrier that they have thrown up to keep us apart, to confuse us, and to rule over us, begins to shake at its foundations, and they know what that means for them.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2015, 01:37:11 PM »

TNF, class warfare politics (I mean real class warfare politics, rather than cosmetic or lip service class warfare politics), just doesn't work in a global economy.

Yes, businesses and middle class jobs can easily "go where they are wanted" today in a way that they just couldn't from 1930-1970.  And US policy really has very little to do with why things have changed.

That's not entirely true. Capital became more or less mobile after World War II, with every subsequent administration making it easier for American corporations to do business abroad. The Kennedy administration was probably a leader in this field, and even as early as the 1960s you started to see a lot of job losses in the manufacturing sector as a result of some early offshoring combined with technological change. That said, most of it was masked by an influx in federal spending on armaments throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s. When spending was cut back and capital controls dismantled, it became easier to accelerate the process, which really hit home during the Carter years.

I don't think it's fair to say that US policy has nothing to do with it, given that since the end of World War II, the role of the United States has been that as international protector of the capitalist system. Every move the United States made to rebuild the economies of Western Europe and Japan, to push for greater liberalization of trade, etc. has been a calculated move to restore the waning power of Capital during the 'Great Compromise' and weaken the international working class movement. That's always been the end game, and it went ahead big time when the USSR and the 'people's democracies' of Eastern Europe collapsed in the late 80s/early 90s. If you think that neoliberalism is anything but a project by the ruling class to reassert the class power it lost to labor between the 1940s and 1970s, you need to do more reading on it, because that's exactly what it was.

The 'Great Compromise' was not the norm and everything else the aberration, it was the aberration. We cannot go back to where we were, but we can build something even better.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 12 queries.