There is a very famous political book named "What's the matter with Kansas" where author Thomas Frank suggests that the rise of compassionate social conservatism in the Midwest was an exercise in large amounts of people voting against their own interests.
I would offer that we are seeing something of an even more obvious nature happening with many of your traditional core Democrats. Maybe I should write a book called "What's the matter with Massachusetts"?
The reality is that in our two Party system, the two core Parties are pretty much always evolving and changing. The classic line (originally used by Ronald Reagan) "I didn't leave my Party, my Party left me" is probably not an unusual concept to people willing to hold true to their personal convictions. The trouble is that partisanship often times makes personal convictions secondary to Party convictions. More to the point, partisanship turns people into followers. How often do you notice that the true partisan can never comment on an issue, till they have heard the talking points memo from their leadership. There is a very tangible difference between agreeing with every Party stance, and choosing to agree with every Party stance. Nearly all partisans fall into the latter category.
So how are the Parties changing? Ask any Democrat and they will tell you that the Republican Party is becoming the Party of old white people, right on the verge of dying off. They see a battle line being drawn between the aging white generation, vs a growing minority population and the emerging millennial generation. To those on the left, the baby boomer and generation Xers apparently represent everything that's wrong with our nation, while your minority and millennial represent a better future.
My question is why?
The reality is that very few (if any) generations can boost of the accomplishments and achievements of the boomer generation. They have been by far and away the most financially successful generation, came up with countless innovative changes to our society, are probably the most educated generation, and they still hold many of most prominent and important jobs and positions in both the private and public sector. They understand the value of starting at entry level, and achieving success and promotion through hard work and dedication. The Generation Xers have many of those same traits. But yet, these are the folks the left believe we should discount?
Meanwhile, the left will have you believe that we need to be following the direction of uneducated migrant workers, minorities in crime ridden urban areas, and the beautiful snowflake millennial generation. Now I can understand why someone who is a struggling immigrant, someone living in the middle of a gang war, or someone who believes Trump for President is "hate speech" that requires counseling... would want to be a Democrat.
But can anyone explain to me why any white person over the age of 40 would choose to discount the opinions of their own generation of success and accomplishment, in favor of the political demands of people who are not even citizens of the country, black lives matters, and the ultra sensitive politically correct entitlement ideals of the millennials? The only reasonable explanation available (other than white guilt or total partisan brainwashing) is that they are simply trying to jump on the bandwagon they believe will end up in power.
If you doubt me, go back to the beginning and tell me I am wrong about how Democrats describe Republicans. Their interest doesn't appear to be any particular set of convictions, but rather all about identity politics. Their interest appears to be completely and totally about putting together a coalition of voters that will keep them in power. But in order to do so, they will need to make concessions to those who vote for them. Uneducated migrant workers, minorities, and the millennials. All the while, demonizing the "older white generations" as what's apparently wrong with our society.
Funny thing is, for you're an older white Democrat, that means you are choosing to back the party that demonizes you. You are choosing to back a Party that openly has no interest in your interests. I'd have to ask... what's the matter with you?
13 comments:
As you know, Ch, Clinton and Obama were slated to begin campaigning together two weeks ago in safe-blue Wisconsin, but that got stymied by the Orlando tragedy.
This Tuesday they will appear instead in purple North Carolina.
Does that mean Clinton is beginning to think she can take that state?
Moreover, is she beginning to think in terms of a landslide?
Are she and the Dems beginning to think they can take not only the Senate, but even the House?
James - Obama won North Carolina in 2008 by one and lost in 2012 by less than two. It's a purple state with a large black population. It only makes sense that Clinton should go there with the Black President and campaign.
If anyone sees this as a sign that Democrats can win the House, then that person is under the influence of LSD.
I see it only as an indication that Dem polls are beginning to reckon with the possibility that a BIG ENOUGH landslide could MAKE the House obtainable.
And they aren't taking LSD. Snorting coke, maybe, but not taking LSD.
I rarely hear Democrats describing Republicans that way, C.H.
I rarely hear Democrats describing Republicans that way, C.H.
Then you are not reading very many Democratic pundits.
google: Republicans party of old white people
returns About 3,460,000 results (0.47 seconds)
I see it only as an indication that Dem polls are beginning to reckon with the possibility that a BIG ENOUGH landslide could MAKE the House obtainable.
Of course you do...
Indy - even the Brexit vote was caste in that light. The young, hip, Londoners vs the tired old county bigots of the baby boomer generation. The only difference is that it was more of a "generational" issue than a racial one, as they simply do not have the racial diversity that we have.
I know a number of white people over 40 who are still saddled with student loans, have health insurance only because of Obamacare, and/or are stringing together multiple jobs just to stay afloat. They would argue vehemently about whether their own generation is one of success and accomplishment.
C.H., the Republicans are the party that's been fighting Social Security off and on since its inception, and the last time they controlled Congress and the White House they floated the idea of privatizing it. They fought against Medicare. How is it that Democrats are the party that has no interests in older people's interests?
Well Indy... you and I live in entirely different situations. Most of the people I deal with are over the age of forty and most are responsible, well educated, and have been a decent life for themselves. According to the marketplace, approximately 52K used the exchanges in New Mexico (about 2.5% of the population).... and 50% of them were under the age of 35.
But either way... if your argument is that people over 40 should look to the millennials for direction, then I think it's clear that we have a significant difference of opinion on who is best to lead.
2012 exit polls
18-29 60-37 Obama
30-44 52-45 Obama
45-64 51-47 Romney
65+ 56-44 Romney
The older the voter, the more Republican they vote. I don't believe that every senior citizen feels that Social Security is a vote changing issue, and I don't believe that every senior citizen believes that the Democrats have a better plan.
Either way... if you don't see the Democratic Party moving in the direction of appealing to Minorities and Millennials (and letting go of the labor and senior voters)... then you are simply not paying close enough attention.
I know a number of white people over 40 who are still saddled with student loans" iddy
Who exactly "saddled" them with that debt?
Ike tried to get the Republicans to grow up and realize that SS is a fait accompli that is here to stay.
They should have listened.
Post a Comment