New Democratic Coalition is Complete Inversion of New Deal Coalition

[Frodo]

Vice-President Joe Biden is fighting a losing rear-guard battle when it comes to the white working class, methinks:

The Great Democratic Inversion

Thomas B. Edsall
OCT. 27, 2016

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Intell]

It doesn't matter if it's a losing matter, it's an argument and fight on morality and principle.

[hopper]

Vice-President Joe Biden is fighting a losing rear-guard battle when it comes to the white working class, methinks:

The Great Democratic Inversion

Thomas B. Edsall
OCT. 27, 2016

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No Trump would have won college educated white women if not for his antics(ranting about Mexicans, and maybe Alicia Machado) and the matter of "The Billy Bush Tapes" and the 13 sexual allegations against him currently.

[Figueira]

I don't think it's safe to assume that Trump is a sign of things to come, although he might be.

[RINO Tom]

Kind of odd some Democrats and liberals (really stop and consider the historic connotations and political legacies that go with identifying with those terms, the true principles that tie FDR to JFK to Obama) seem near overjoyous at this development...

[Ban my account ffs!]

Kind of odd some Democrats and liberals (really stop and consider the historic connotations and political legacies that go with identifying with those terms, the true principles that tie FDR to JFK to Obama) seem near overjoyous at this development...

It is what it is.  I'll note that in MN people with incomes under $50k solidly support Clinton while those over $50k slightly support Trump.

[IceSpear]

Kind of odd some Democrats and liberals (really stop and consider the historic connotations and political legacies that go with identifying with those terms, the true principles that tie FDR to JFK to Obama) seem near overjoyous at this development...

We get it, you don't want Racist WV Hicks in your coalition. But they're now your main base, so just deal with it.

[RINO Tom]

Kind of odd some Democrats and liberals (really stop and consider the historic connotations and political legacies that go with identifying with those terms, the true principles that tie FDR to JFK to Obama) seem near overjoyous at this development...

We get it, you don't want Racist WV Hicks in your coalition. But they're now your main base, so just deal with it.

Way to respond to what I said.

EDIT: Democrats can't constantly claim moral superiority over Republicans when they gleefully identify certain people as not being good enough for their coalition.  That is the antithesis of what they claim their party is founded on and stands for.

[IceSpear]

Kind of odd some Democrats and liberals (really stop and consider the historic connotations and political legacies that go with identifying with those terms, the true principles that tie FDR to JFK to Obama) seem near overjoyous at this development...

We get it, you don't want Racist WV Hicks in your coalition. But they're now your main base, so just deal with it.

Way to respond to what I said.

EDIT: Democrats can't constantly claim moral superiority over Republicans when they gleefully identify certain people as not being good enough for their coalition.  That is the antithesis of what they claim their party is founded on and stands for.

Well, if we're going to talk about the antithesis of what a party was founded on...

[Antonio the Sixth]

No it's not. What a load of crap.

[Ebsy]

I mean, some of the major segments of the New Deal Coalition are still with the Democratic Party, so this doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

[DINGO Joe]

Not exactly the same economy either.  What constituted a farm then and a farm now are radically different.

[JA]

Coalitions change and adapt to developments, which are constantly ongoing. What was one party's coalition 50 years prior, likely won't be yhe identical coalition anymore. Personally, I don't object to the changes in the Democratic coalition, which had really begun to slowly shift starting in the late 1960s with the rise of liberals like McGovern. If anything, Democrats today are essentially a more liberal version of Rockfeller Republicans and their coalition (friendly to labor interests, allied with big business, focused on education, environmentalism, and efficiency, supportive of immigration and civil rights reforms, internationalist in foreign affairs, and centered in the Northeast and urban areas among college educated and minorities). Sound familiar? I would generally consider myself a supporter of the Rockefeller wing of the GOP (which has long been dead) and gladly welcome a coalition of white educated and minority voters. This shouldn't be a terribly surprising development either considering the white working class and minorities have typically been at odds politically.

[RFayette]

Coalitions change and adapt to developments, which are constantly ongoing. What was one party's coalition 50 years prior, likely won't be yhe identical coalition anymore. Personally, I don't object to the changes in the Democratic coalition, which had really begun to slowly shift starting in the late 1960s with the rise of liberals like McGovern. If anything, Democrats today are essentially a more liberal version of Rockfeller Republicans and their coalition (friendly to labor interests, allied with big business, focused on education, environmentalism, and efficiency, supportive of immigration and civil rights reforms, internationalist in foreign affairs, and centered in the Northeast and urban areas among college educated and minorities). Sound familiar? I would generally consider myself a supporter of the Rockefeller wing of the GOP (which has long been dead) and gladly welcome a coalition of white educated and minority voters. This shouldn't be a terribly surprising development either considering the white working class and minorities have typically been at odds politically.

Wait, is your username ironic then?  It'd be pretty surprising for someone who reads The Jacobin to support Rockefeller Republicans.

[JA]

Coalitions change and adapt to developments, which are constantly ongoing. What was one party's coalition 50 years prior, likely won't be yhe identical coalition anymore. Personally, I don't object to the changes in the Democratic coalition, which had really begun to slowly shift starting in the late 1960s with the rise of liberals like McGovern. If anything, Democrats today are essentially a more liberal version of Rockfeller Republicans and their coalition (friendly to labor interests, allied with big business, focused on education, environmentalism, and efficiency, supportive of immigration and civil rights reforms, internationalist in foreign affairs, and centered in the Northeast and urban areas among college educated and minorities). Sound familiar? I would generally consider myself a supporter of the Rockefeller wing of the GOP (which has long been dead) and gladly welcome a coalition of white educated and minority voters. This shouldn't be a terribly surprising development either considering the white working class and minorities have typically been at odds politically.

Wait, is your username ironic then?  It'd be pretty surprising for someone who reads The Jacobin to support Rockefeller Republicans.

That's not why I choose this username. It was more in reference to the radicals of the French Revolution for their ardent support of egalitarianism and early endorsement of radical liberalism (some could argue early Socialism, but I disagree). But also, I said I generally support that former wing of the GOP (which often had Senators and Congressmen more liberal than then liberal Democrats), which means there are certain aspects of it with which I disagree. Had I been alive 50 years ago with the views I hold today, I would definitely have supported Rockefeller Republicans. I'm very liberal, but I'm not hostile to big business. I just like efficiency and, like Prescott Bush, would support raising taxes if it meant cutting the deficit and assuring efficiency in social programs.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

So... Which would you prefer? The Rockefeller Drug Laws, or his response to the Attica prison riots? Both strike me as sensible and good government .

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

So... Which would you prefer? The Rockefeller Drug Laws, or his response to the Attica prison riots? Both strike me as sensible and good government .

Once again amazes me that one of the most racist people of his time is given a free pass. Disgusting.

[RINO Tom]

Coalitions change and adapt to developments, which are constantly ongoing. What was one party's coalition 50 years prior, likely won't be yhe identical coalition anymore. Personally, I don't object to the changes in the Democratic coalition, which had really begun to slowly shift starting in the late 1960s with the rise of liberals like McGovern. If anything, Democrats today are essentially a more liberal version of Rockfeller Republicans and their coalition (friendly to labor interests, allied with big business, focused on education, environmentalism, and efficiency, supportive of immigration and civil rights reforms, internationalist in foreign affairs, and centered in the Northeast and urban areas among college educated and minorities). Sound familiar? I would generally consider myself a supporter of the Rockefeller wing of the GOP (which has long been dead) and gladly welcome a coalition of white educated and minority voters. This shouldn't be a terribly surprising development either considering the white working class and minorities have typically been at odds politically.

Wait, is your username ironic then?  It'd be pretty surprising for someone who reads The Jacobin to support Rockefeller Republicans.

That's not why I choose this username. It was more in reference to the radicals of the French Revolution for their ardent support of egalitarianism and early endorsement of radical liberalism (some could argue early Socialism, but I disagree). But also, I said I generally support that former wing of the GOP (which often had Senators and Congressmen more liberal than then liberal Democrats), which means there are certain aspects of it with which I disagree. Had I been alive 50 years ago with the views I hold today, I would definitely have supported Rockefeller Republicans. I'm very liberal, but I'm not hostile to big business. I just like efficiency and, like Prescott Bush, would support raising taxes if it meant cutting the deficit and assuring efficiency in social programs.

This is astonishingly false.

First of all, you could VERY coherently argue that support for business is INHERENTLY more conservative than opposition to it.  That alone makes you not "very liberal."

Second, it would be news to these romanticized Rockefeller Republicans (if you seriously think Rockefeller Republicans were way to the left of someone like Susan Collins, well, you're wrong) that they had a coalition of minorities supporting them...  LOL

Third, Democrats today are a less White version of, well, Democrats then.  They share very few characteristics with the GOP of the mid-20th Century, in fact I challenge you to name any.  Winning White college graduates?  Uh, Romney destroyed Obama with this group, and I'll bet anything that these White college grads that are flocking to Clinton go solidly for the GOP in the national House exit poll.  Support for big business??  Have you heard of Bernie Sanders, and are you aware that he won over 40% of the party's voters, causing the candidate who bested him to adopt a very liberal platform?  There is all this talk about Trump turning off affluent and educated voters, yet is Hillary trying to capitalize on that?  No.  She's running ads about how Donald Trump outsourced all throughout his business career, accusing him of secretly being for free trade, LOL.  The Democratic Party has always, does and will always rely on riling up disadvantaged voters and convincing them that Republicans do not care about them and only the Democrats can lift them up.  Period.  Who cares if those voters are Black, White or purple?  The message is the same, and the Dems simply aren't going to become ANYWHERE near as conservative on economic or class issues as the Rockefeller Republicans were, simply because they'd be betraying their entire voting base.  Even "upscale" (having a PhD does NOT mean you're affluent, and many PhD holders have very, very modest incomes) liberals are by and large fundamentally committed to the cause of economic redistributionism.  Why do you red avatars think there is some type of "cool" dignity associated with having poor minorities vote for you rather than poor White people?  The point is the same, your party gets millions and millions of votes (and did in the '30s, '60s and '90s, too) as a reward to being committed to liberal economic ideas, one of which is the reigning in of "big business."

[White Trash]

Kind of odd some Democrats and liberals (really stop and consider the historic connotations and political legacies that go with identifying with those terms, the true principles that tie FDR to JFK to Obama) seem near overjoyous at this development...

Is it really that surprising? Suburbanites and the urban elite have always resented rural and working class Americans. Now that the yuppies are crossing over to the Democratic Party because it's "progressive" and "modern", you'll see the party to start to mirror their feelings about the working class. It is quickly becoming true that both sides will be willing to sell out the underclass in favor of the privileged elite.

The working class have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies. Just permanent interests.

[Indy Texas]

Coalitions change and adapt to developments, which are constantly ongoing. What was one party's coalition 50 years prior, likely won't be yhe identical coalition anymore. Personally, I don't object to the changes in the Democratic coalition, which had really begun to slowly shift starting in the late 1960s with the rise of liberals like McGovern. If anything, Democrats today are essentially a more liberal version of Rockfeller Republicans and their coalition (friendly to labor interests, allied with big business, focused on education, environmentalism, and efficiency, supportive of immigration and civil rights reforms, internationalist in foreign affairs, and centered in the Northeast and urban areas among college educated and minorities). Sound familiar? I would generally consider myself a supporter of the Rockefeller wing of the GOP (which has long been dead) and gladly welcome a coalition of white educated and minority voters. This shouldn't be a terribly surprising development either considering the white working class and minorities have typically been at odds politically.

Wait, is your username ironic then?  It'd be pretty surprising for someone who reads The Jacobin to support Rockefeller Republicans.

That's not why I choose this username. It was more in reference to the radicals of the French Revolution for their ardent support of egalitarianism and early endorsement of radical liberalism (some could argue early Socialism, but I disagree). But also, I said I generally support that former wing of the GOP (which often had Senators and Congressmen more liberal than then liberal Democrats), which means there are certain aspects of it with which I disagree. Had I been alive 50 years ago with the views I hold today, I would definitely have supported Rockefeller Republicans. I'm very liberal, but I'm not hostile to big business. I just like efficiency and, like Prescott Bush, would support raising taxes if it meant cutting the deficit and assuring efficiency in social programs.

This is astonishingly false.

First of all, you could VERY coherently argue that support for business is INHERENTLY more conservative than opposition to it.  That alone makes you not "very liberal."

Second, it would be news to these romanticized Rockefeller Republicans (if you seriously think Rockefeller Republicans were way to the left of someone like Susan Collins, well, you're wrong) that they had a coalition of minorities supporting them...  LOL

Third, Democrats today are a less White version of, well, Democrats then.  They share very few characteristics with the GOP of the mid-20th Century, in fact I challenge you to name any.  Winning White college graduates?  Uh, Romney destroyed Obama with this group, and I'll bet anything that these White college grads that are flocking to Clinton go solidly for the GOP in the national House exit poll.  Support for big business??  Have you heard of Bernie Sanders, and are you aware that he won over 40% of the party's voters, causing the candidate who bested him to adopt a very liberal platform?  There is all this talk about Trump turning off affluent and educated voters, yet is Hillary trying to capitalize on that?  No.  She's running ads about how Donald Trump outsourced all throughout his business career, accusing him of secretly being for free trade, LOL.  The Democratic Party has always, does and will always rely on riling up disadvantaged voters and convincing them that Republicans do not care about them and only the Democrats can lift them up.  Period.  Who cares if those voters are Black, White or purple?  The message is the same, and the Dems simply aren't going to become ANYWHERE near as conservative on economic or class issues as the Rockefeller Republicans were, simply because they'd be betraying their entire voting base.  Even "upscale" (having a PhD does NOT mean you're affluent, and many PhD holders have very, very modest incomes) liberals are by and large fundamentally committed to the cause of economic redistributionism.  Why do you red avatars think there is some type of "cool" dignity associated with having poor minorities vote for you rather than poor White people?  The point is the same, your party gets millions and millions of votes (and did in the '30s, '60s and '90s, too) as a reward to being committed to liberal economic ideas, one of which is the reigning in of "big business."

Maybe if you actually read any conservative philosophers' writings, you'd realize how retarded that sounds. Conservatism is not just a whiteboard that the Chamber of Commerce writes its wishlist on.

In 19th century Britain, the Liberals were the party of industry and business; the Conservatives were not.

[DC Al Fine]

Kind of odd some Democrats and liberals (really stop and consider the historic connotations and political legacies that go with identifying with those terms, the true principles that tie FDR to JFK to Obama) seem near overjoyous at this development...

Is it really that surprising? Suburbanites and the urban elite have always resented rural and working class Americans. Now that the yuppies are crossing over to the Democratic Party because it's "progressive" and "modern", you'll see the party to start to mirror their feelings about the working class.

Most partisans' preferences and petty bigotries about groups change with their coalition. This is why you get Democratic writers and bloggers expressing opinions about say, coal miners in West Virginia that would never fly in 1966.

If Hispanics and White Evangelicals suddenly switched parties, you'd see partisans on both sides developing 'strange new respect' for the new members of their coalition. Meanwhile Democrats would suddenly become concerned about 'fence hoppers' and Republicans would ruefully complain about 'Bible thumpers'.

[White Trash]

Kind of odd some Democrats and liberals (really stop and consider the historic connotations and political legacies that go with identifying with those terms, the true principles that tie FDR to JFK to Obama) seem near overjoyous at this development...

Is it really that surprising? Suburbanites and the urban elite have always resented rural and working class Americans. Now that the yuppies are crossing over to the Democratic Party because it's "progressive" and "modern", you'll see the party to start to mirror their feelings about the working class.

Most partisans' preferences and petty bigotries about groups change with their coalition. This is why you get Democratic writers and bloggers expressing opinions about say, coal miners in West Virginia that would never fly in 1966.

If Hispanics and White Evangelicals suddenly switched parties, you'd see partisans on both sides developing 'strange new respect' for the new members of their coalition. Meanwhile Democrats would suddenly become concerned about 'fence hoppers' and Republicans would ruefully complain about 'Bible thumpers'.

How can we make this happen?

[Хahar 🤔]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Super cool that people who aren't white don't matter.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

these sort of arguments are getting really tedious.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

EVERY SINGLE minority population outside of the Mormons are solidly in my party because they feel the Democrats do more for the less-advantaged.  I'm supposed to be ashamed because old racists are continuing their decades-long temper tantrum?