Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
But Democrats over-estimated the power and relevance of identity politics (there are still more whites without a college degree than minorities), and underestimated the breadth and depth of labour disruption. In any case, says Robert Johnson, president of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, “it was always a mistake to separate out issues of race and class, because they go hand in hand. In economically insecure times, fear of the ‘other’ increases.” It is a phenomenon exploited by Mr Trump.<ref>[https://www.ft.com/content/b34f5536-2c02-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c Economics, not identity, is key to reviving American liberalism], Financial Times,
But Democrats over-estimated the power and relevance of identity politics (there are still more whites without a college degree than minorities), and underestimated the breadth and depth of labour disruption. In any case, says Robert Johnson, president of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, “it was always a mistake to separate out issues of race and class, because they go hand in hand. In economically insecure times, fear of the ‘other’ increases.” It is a phenomenon exploited by Mr Trump.<ref>[https://www.ft.com/content/b34f5536-2c02-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c Economics, not identity, is key to reviving American liberalism], Financial Times,
2017</ref>}}
2017</ref>}}
== American liberalism and liberal elitism ==
Emmett Rensen wrote at Vox about American liberalism and [[liberal elitism]]:
{{Cquote|There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them.
In 2016, the smug style has found expression in media and in policy, in the attitudes of liberals both visible and private, providing a foundational set of assumptions above which a great number of liberals comport their understanding of the world.
It has led an American ideology hitherto responsible for a great share of the good accomplished over the past century of our political life to a posture of reaction and disrespect: a condescending, defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside of its consensus, dressed up as a monopoly on reason.
The smug style is a psychological reaction to a profound shift in American political demography.
Beginning in the middle of the 20th century, the working class, once the core of the coalition, began abandoning the Democratic Party. In 1948, in the immediate wake of Franklin Roosevelt, 66 percent of manual laborers voted for Democrats, along with 60 percent of farmers. In 1964, it was 55 percent of working-class voters. By 1980, it was 35 percent.
The white working class in particular saw even sharper declines. Despite historic advantages with both poor and middle-class white voters, by 2012 Democrats possessed only a 2-point advantage among poor white voters. Among white voters making between $30,000 and $75,000 per year, the GOP has taken a 17-point lead.
Finding comfort in the notion that their former allies were disdainful, hapless rubes, smug liberals created a culture animated by that contempt
The consequence was a shift in liberalism's intellectual center of gravity. A movement once fleshed out in union halls and little magazines shifted into universities and major press, from the center of the country to its cities and elite enclaves. Minority voters remained, but bereft of the material and social capital required to dominate elite decision-making, they were largely excluded from an agenda driven by the new Democratic core: the educated, the coastal, and the professional.
It is not that these forces captured the party so much as it fell to them. When the laborer left, they remained.<ref>[https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism The smug style in American liberalism] by Emmett Rensin at ''Vox'', April 21, 2016</ref>))
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly [[liberal]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=[[Media Research Center]]}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly [[liberal]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=[[Media Research Center]]}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>