HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » klook » Journal
Page: 1

klook

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: GA
Home country: USA
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 8,561

About Me

[link:https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights|https://supporters.eff.org/sites/supporters.eff.org/files/styles/large/public/I-do-not-consent-stickerB.jpg] http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5888d178ee14b61b008b9aed-2000/ap17025550597918.jpg https://i.upworthy.com/nugget/58d279863be53a0016000033/attachments/WomensMarch-3ad19d78f472536a5bb697ad2e5047a9.jpg

Journal Archives

202-225-3121 -- light an Impeachment fire under your rep!

That's the phone number for the U.S. Congress switchboard. Call and ask for your representative's office, even if you're cursed with Republican representation -- but especially if your rep is a Democrat. They need to all feel the heat and get moving on impeachment!

Apologies if this is redundant information -- I know this number has been posted many times on DU. But we are truly at a crossroads. With the All Hands Dem caucus meeting tomorrow, this is the time to raise hell.

I'll be calling early Tuesday. Please join me.

NYT Steers Dems Away From the Obvious Formula for Defeating Trump

- FAIR, AUGUST 29, 2019
- JIM NAURECKAS

Thomas Edsall’s demographic analysis is almost always misleading (FAIR.org, 2/10/15, 10/9/15, 6/5/16, 3/30/18, 7/24/19)—and his latest column for the New York Times (8/28/19) is no exception.

“We Aren’t Seeing White Support for Trump for What It Is,” the headline complains—with the subhead explaining, “A crucial part of his coalition is made up of better-off white people who did not graduate from college.”

Why does this matter? Edsall’s column is largely a write-up of a paper by two political scientists, Herbert Kitschelt and Philipp Rehm, who note that better-off whites without college degrees “tend to endorse authoritarian noneconomic policies and tend to oppose progressive economic policies,” and are therefore “a constituency that is now decisively committed to the Republican Party.” (By “authoritarian policies,” the researchers are mainly talking about racism and xenophobia.) Low-income, low-education whites, by contrast, “tend to support progressive economic policies and tend to endorse authoritarian policies on the noneconomic dimension,” and are therefore “conflicted in their partisan allegiance.”

What’s at stake in presenting one of these constituencies as “crucial” is how you approach the task of defeating Trump: If he’s turning out his key supporters through race-baiting and immigrant-bashing, the argument goes, then Democrats need to take care not to be too outspoken on issues of race and immigration. And so Edsall confidently concludes:

The 2020 election will be fought over the current loss of certainty—the absolute lack of consensus—on the issue of “race.”… Democrats are convinced of the justness of the liberal, humanistic, enlightenment tradition of expanding rights for racial and ethnic minorities. Republicans, less so…. If Democrats want to give themselves the best shot of getting Trump out of the White House…they must make concerted efforts at pragmatic diplomacy and persuasion—and show a new level of empathy.

(This is an argument Edsall has made before—see “What’s a Non-Racist Way to Appeal to Working-Class Whites? NYT’s Edsall Can’t Think of Any,” FAIR.org, 3/30/18.)


As Naureckas goes on to point out:
So the supposedly “crucial” better-off white non–college grads are about half as plentiful as their poorer counterparts—and they have been voting Republican fairly consistently since 1972, through good years for Republicans and bad. What was actually crucial to Trump’s 2016 success is that the larger group of poorer less-educated whites, which traditionally leans Democratic or splits its vote, went decisively Republican.

- more at link
Go to Page: 1