This is an interesting take on this election. It is also interesting to read about your former loyalty to the democrats because they have historically been the party who represents black and brown people - despite its recent takeover by the white, liberal capitalists.
I would challenge you from an historical perspective to ascribe either …
This is an interesting take on this election. It is also interesting to read about your former loyalty to the democrats because they have historically been the party who represents black and brown people - despite its recent takeover by the white, liberal capitalists.
I would challenge you from an historical perspective to ascribe either pure motives or give the mantle of 'the party of black and brown people' to either side. Both parties seek power and throughout the course of history their policies have appealed to different races and classes at different times. There have been many black and brown Americans who have been republicans or conservatives at the very least.
The example you give that you believe the democrats are still getting an electoral 'glow' from is the passage Civil Rights Act by LBJ. You're correct that it was Kennedy's department of Justice that integrated the schools and initially proposed the act prior to his assassination. But the people who fought the passage of the act (through the longest filibuster in our history) were almost entirely Southern democrats with only one republican from Texas (LBJ's home state). Most of them were LBJ's friends and it was well documented that his rationale for getting his friends in congress to finally pass the law was stated clearly at the time, "We'll get those (n-word - plural) voting for us for the next X number of years." The act had near universal support among republicans.
Similar for the opening up of immigration. The motives ascribed to the democrats as the party 'wanting to help people' is mostly for power (permanent loyalty of a voting bloc) and economic gain (cheap labor) which creates a permanent underclass of people who will work for less than working class Americans. To be sure the latter has benefitted the republicans as well.
What now matters to everyone - both class and race alike - appear to be results. Since the parties seem to be shape-shifting, what's next for the working class?
Thanks very much for this post. I enjoy your writing and your perspective.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful comment and for reading! I agree, you’re right that I glossed over the fact that racial groups have realigned around the parties multiple times, and great point about the civil rights act actually being opposed by democrats who passed it rather than republicans, though those republicans aren’t the same as today’s. Totally agree about immigration, hence the qualification “less racist” because it was less out of the goodness of our hearts and more for capitalism. Which is why liberals arguing for a koch brothers (as Bernie said) proposal is maddening, bc they do it from the moralizing perspective.
Your writing makes me think and, while I appear to want to help the working class in a different way than you, I would be the poorer without your perspective. Thank you.
This is an interesting take on this election. It is also interesting to read about your former loyalty to the democrats because they have historically been the party who represents black and brown people - despite its recent takeover by the white, liberal capitalists.
I would challenge you from an historical perspective to ascribe either pure motives or give the mantle of 'the party of black and brown people' to either side. Both parties seek power and throughout the course of history their policies have appealed to different races and classes at different times. There have been many black and brown Americans who have been republicans or conservatives at the very least.
The example you give that you believe the democrats are still getting an electoral 'glow' from is the passage Civil Rights Act by LBJ. You're correct that it was Kennedy's department of Justice that integrated the schools and initially proposed the act prior to his assassination. But the people who fought the passage of the act (through the longest filibuster in our history) were almost entirely Southern democrats with only one republican from Texas (LBJ's home state). Most of them were LBJ's friends and it was well documented that his rationale for getting his friends in congress to finally pass the law was stated clearly at the time, "We'll get those (n-word - plural) voting for us for the next X number of years." The act had near universal support among republicans.
Similar for the opening up of immigration. The motives ascribed to the democrats as the party 'wanting to help people' is mostly for power (permanent loyalty of a voting bloc) and economic gain (cheap labor) which creates a permanent underclass of people who will work for less than working class Americans. To be sure the latter has benefitted the republicans as well.
What now matters to everyone - both class and race alike - appear to be results. Since the parties seem to be shape-shifting, what's next for the working class?
Thanks very much for this post. I enjoy your writing and your perspective.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful comment and for reading! I agree, you’re right that I glossed over the fact that racial groups have realigned around the parties multiple times, and great point about the civil rights act actually being opposed by democrats who passed it rather than republicans, though those republicans aren’t the same as today’s. Totally agree about immigration, hence the qualification “less racist” because it was less out of the goodness of our hearts and more for capitalism. Which is why liberals arguing for a koch brothers (as Bernie said) proposal is maddening, bc they do it from the moralizing perspective.
Your writing makes me think and, while I appear to want to help the working class in a different way than you, I would be the poorer without your perspective. Thank you.