freeman3 wrote:RJ: "The reason that the Democrats are out of power in the US federal government and over 30 of the states is because they are so callous to the real interests of businesses and laborers. Those of us who work in those businesses know how tough it is and how disastrous some of these socalled progressive policies can be."
First, this minimizes the identity politics that Republicans play. Who do evangelical Christians vote for? They vote for Republicans and that's due to social issues, not economic ones. The Southern culture also has an anti-government core that makes the Republican Party more appealing. There is the subtle and not so subtle racial politics Republicans have played since racist Southern Democrats switched parties in 1964 due to the role the Democratic Party played in championing civil rights. Republicans also use various means in suppressing voting by minority groups. Part (most?)) of the recent anti-immigration policies has to do with fear that Mexican immigrants will eventually become Democrats. And of course their policies are supported by business interests, Wall Street and the wealthy--whose influence vastly outweighs the average voter.
First of all, thanks for the very reasonable reply. Yes, I agree with the vast majority of the above except for one quibble. My only quibble is that I don't think anti-immigration is supported by business interest, Wall Street, and the wealthy. Most business people want more hard working laborers and most business people want the best and the brightest from around the world to settle here to create businesses and prosperity.
But I do agree that Trump won the Republican primaries partially because he shamelessly played racial differences and most Republicans went for it. The fact that this disgusting man won the Republican primaries is a black spot on the GOP for ever. The fact that he won the general election serves as a condemnation of the methods and ideology of the Democratic Party.
So I highly doubt that Republicans are more popular than Democrats because their economic policies are more popular. That would certainly make no economic sense as the majority of Americans did better under Democratic New Deal policies from the 30s to the 60s.
Well, we are 50 years past the 60's. If the Democrats ate running on those policies in these times, you are making my point. A lot has changed since the 60's including the international competitive landscape and the explosion of labor saving technology.
Since 1980 we have seen wealth flow flow to the top and the average worker struggle based on Republican economic policies for the most part. Granted, the Democrats at the national level seem to be Republican-lite with regard to economic policies ,
Overall, the Reagan and Clinton years were very good. It's really been since 2000 that these trends have been negative. The stats that I've seen show that the rising tide of the Reagan years really did lift all boats.
not really confronting them on tax, trade, or trying to increase unionism or worker's wages, just mainly ensuring there is some sort of safety net. Democrats cannot afford to alienate Wall Street or big business too much or they will lose elections and that is why they are so reluctant to put forth a a more liberal candidate.
I know that you are a bright and reasonable guy, and I am a bright and reasonable guy, but this sounds to me like crazy-talk.
So, no, Republicans are not winning because they have better economic policies. I have no doubt that liberal Democratic policies would benefit the average person more than Republican policies if they were implemented.
Look at the Keystone pipeline. Look at restrictions on off shore drilling or coal mining. (it may be the right policy from a climate change perspective, but you are killing the livelihoods of the people you claim to care about in the process.) Look at your attitude if Brad's friend has to reduce shifts or go out of business because of minimum wage increases to $15. Look at the fact that building anything in this country takes 10 to 20 years of government hearings and approvals. And to get back on topic, our high corporate income tax rate that is driving business to other countries. The guys who lay the pipes are often not qualified to code computers. This is their livelihood, their family, their community, their kids, and Democrats are sometimes taking it away with their policies.
They [Republicans] started to putting think tanks together in the 70s to espouse their policies that favor the wealthy and they have been successful in getting theirs views to be accepted as mainstream thought.
Nothing wrong with trying to win the free flow of ideas. Isn't that what our country is all about? I coach a middle school soccer team and whenever we lose the kids say that the other team fouled too much, or the refs were unfair, or whatever. It's very hard to say we lost because the other team played better, or even is better.
Trump got elected at least in large part because of economically discontented white voters who for some reason are not blaming Republican policies for their plight but instead are holding immigrants and other racial groups responsible
. I'd say some part, not large part
. There's also the economic stagnation of the Obama years. The US needs to grow at 3% a year. People intuitively understand that you need capitalism for that.
Democrats have to do a better job of winning the war ideologically if we want more progressive policies which will surely benefit more Americans. You can't just say tax the rich or raise the minimum wage or promote unions. You have to show this is a fair way to set up a society. You need a lot of hard thinking to show why that is so and then able be to present it in a convincing fashion. Republicans have been winning on the argument that is fair for everyone to go out and compete, the winners get as much money as they can make, it is unfair for government to take too much of that, the government shouldn't regulate business too much, unions are bad, the unemployed are lazy, etc. I think there are convincing answers to these Neo-liberal economic policies and we need to start trying to win the ideological battle there if we want a more progressive agenda.
Go for it. But listen to the reaction of the mainstream (e.g. the people of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio) as you put forth these policies, as it may be that the problem is the policies that you are recommending and not the way you are representing them.