Democrats and Republicans both don't care about poor people.

[paralleluniverse]

While this may seem controversial, I swear it is absolutely the case that as a general rule people adhering to either party, or more generically Liberals and Conservatives, do not care about poor people. Poor people here means the economically distressed, the lower classes, and in general the victims of economic changes. When I say that they do not care for poor people I am not suggesting EVERY individual is careless, but that culturally both communities of political thought do not care about poor people outside of a very selective set of circumstances.

Tell me if this line would sound familiar....


Now if you said that in the context of a discussion of urban poverty, you would most likely be approximating the position held by most Republicans about those people. And by those people we almost inevitably are talking about the Black Urban population. Obviously every pious Liberal would foam at the mouth at the mere suggestions of these words applying to the Urban Poor. It is pointed out as a gross, bigoted characterization, and rightly so one would be correct in assuming that this characterization exists to negate the more Republican loyal people from any perceived obligation to have solidarity with their fellow countryman in economic distress. One might also accuse the Republicans of applying a "I got mine jack!" mentality.

However, ask the general Liberal public about the Rural poor, or the Rust belt poor and you will inevitably hear a shrugging away of their plight. That population is mostly of White-European ethnic background and is often characterized as rednecks or hicks. Such a person will likely say more or less the same thing, perhaps in nicer words, maybe something more like "If people refuse to learn, refuse to go to school, and expect their jobs to remain static, they are deluded... I do not care if you think that is "arrogant" that is the truth." The equation remains the same, the fundamental perception of the more Democratically aligned is that THAT community of poor people deserve their fate, much as Republican aligned people will argue is the case for the Urban poor. References may also arise to the book Whats the Matter with Kansas even if the person making the reference has never read the book. In general the Democrat will say "They cling to the God and Guns!" or some other dispersing comment, but in the end he or she to is just saying "... Well we can't help them, their stupid and inferior and cannot be helped!"

Both political tribes will of course never acknowledge this. Both will pledge that they do care for the poor, but in terms of solidarity with those whom suffer economic distress their solidarity is largely contingent upon tribal loyalties or a transactional relationship with solidarity. As in "I will help you but only if you do <x>." Both engage in rationalizations, the exact SAME rationalization, for why they feel no obligation to do anything about poverty. Or they selectively chose to only care about poverty in the context of tribalistic political allegiances. Democrats focus almost exclusively on the Urban poor and Republicans often try and attack any attempts to help that population. Here though Democrats get more of the label of Hypocrite since in theory the Left is supposed to be IN GENERAL in Solidarity with the poor, Conservatives get a degree of a pass because they have not made it a point to campaign on such an idea.

In this, Liberals and Lefties deserve much HARSHER criticism for their slights against poor peoples because in theory they are the ones whom claim to be looking out for the poor, yet in America the political party is not interested in general in poverty and is fairly hostile to the rural poor. As are its members and individual meat space dwelling voters and adherents. Conservatives to a degree get a pass because they have never pledged solidarity with the poor, they have not made a promise and then broken it. In conclusion, both political camps engage in a critical lack of empathy but I would say it is worse when Liberals do it because it is them not living up to their claims about themselves in general.

This is a screed of Ignorant nonsense.

Democrats created the welfare state, which has helped the poor and relieved poverty, Republicans want to destroy the welfare state and cut taxes on the rich.

Also this: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...ild-tax-credit

[Theodarzna]

This is a screed of Ignorant nonsense.

Democrats created the welfare state, which has helped the poor and relieved poverty, Republicans want to destroy the welfare state and cut taxes on the rich.

Also this: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...ild-tax-credit

Democrats, namely Bill Clinton also ended the Welfare State, AND created NAFTA.

In political terms both parties now willfully embrace neo-Liberalism.

HOWEVER this wasn't the point of my OP. I am not actually talking about political parties..... I am talking about the average person who identifies as Liberal/Democrat and what their mindset/prejudice/bias is.

[paralleluniverse]

Democrats, namely Bill Clinton also ended the Welfare State, AND created NAFTA.

In political terms both parties now willfully embrace neo-Liberalism.

HOWEVER this wasn't the point of my OP. I am not actually talking about political parties..... I am talking about the average person who identifies as Liberal/Democrat and what their mindset/prejudice/bias is.

No, Clinton cut welfare because of Republicans, he did not destroy the welfare state. Obama expanded the welfare state with the Affordable Care Act, payroll tax cuts for workers, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and Hillary will expand it further with paid parental leave, child care, a public option, more tax hikes on the rich.

And NAFTA did nothing. It was created under H.W Bush. It has been extensively studied, it's impact on jobs is minimal to non-existent.

Look at GOP policy priorities or the Ryan budget, it is all about cuts on the poor and destroying the welfare state.

[Theodarzna]

No, Clinton cut welfare because of Republicans, he did not destroy the welfare state. Obama expanded the welfare state with the Affordable Care Act cuts for the poor, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and Hillary will expand it further with paid parental leave, child care, a public option, more tax hikes on the rich.

And NAFTA did nothing. It has been extensively studied, it's impact on jobs is minimal to non-existent.

-_-

........ "It was the Republicans!"

Alright, lets say it is, what does that change about my OP? Like at all?

If anything, lets say you are correct, the Democratic Party has been these Radiant Angles, A Light unto the World, building a figurative New Jerusalem, then of course the framing that "Rural poor and White Working Class poverty is deserved because they have rejected the 'New Jerusalem'"

The problem with your mentality is its akin to say Republicans you respond to news about police abuses against Black people with "But Blacks commit most of the Crime!" Their mentality requires them to believe that one ethnic group is just UNIQUELY criminal.

Your mentality requires one Ethnic group to be just uniquely evil. Do you not see how problematic that framing is? In order for your beliefs about the Democratic Party to be as you say they are, you have to believe that a vast amount of the US population is simply evil. Much as for example Conservatives, in order to maintain the facade of their beliefs, must maintain a core conviction that Black Americans are uniquely criminal.

Do you not see the inherent problem your partisanship creates?

[paralleluniverse]

-_-

........ "It was the Republicans!"

Alright, lets say it is, what does that change about my OP? Like at all?

If anything, lets say you are correct, the Democratic Party has been these Radiant Angles, A Light unto the World, building a figurative New Jerusalem, then of course the framing that "Rural poor and White Working Class poverty is deserved because they have rejected the 'New Jerusalem'"

The problem with your mentality is its akin to say Republicans you respond to news about police abuses against Black people with "But Blacks commit most of the Crime!" Their mentality requires them to believe that one ethnic group is just UNIQUELY criminal.

Your mentality requires one Ethnic group to be just uniquely evil. Do you not see how problematic that framing is? In order for your beliefs about the Democratic Party to be as you say they are, you have to believe that a vast amount of the US population is simply evil. Much as for example Conservatives, in order to maintain the facade of their beliefs, must maintain a core conviction that Black Americans are uniquely criminal.

Do you not see the inherent problem your partisanship creates?

Incoherent nonsense.

Rural people can get welfare too.

[Theodarzna]

Incoherent nonsense.

Rural people can get welfare too.

.... Are you even reading my post?

I said nothing about Welfare.

[Slybak]

You have stated repeatedly what your framing is of those people, you've merely refused to critically examine it and how it effects your treatment of such people.

Your framing, it's just a mirror image of the other framing:

-A: how am I supposed to help these people if they don't want to help themselves: they keep trashing their neighborhoods, they keep selling drugs, they keep disrespecting the authority. They're irredeemable thugs.
-B: well, we could start with being less racist
-A: I'm not racist, you're putting words in my mouth.

If you think I'll take accusations of unexamined racism from seriously from someone who pines for the halcyon days when the Democratic Party embraced lynching as a tool of political organizing and expression because that's when it was closest to whatever god-awful, morally-diseased political ideal is floating around your head, the very least that you are is woefully mistaken.

"Poor whites who vote Republican" is a discrete category that aligns with the political outcome in question; Republican politicians are not likely to support policies that reduce economic inequality, poor whites who vote for Republicans are choosing that political outcome, ergo poor whites who vote Republican are weighing the reduction of economic inequality against other political considerations and choosing those other considerations. If you need further elaboration on why "the reason black communities are suffering is because all black people are drug-dependent criminals" is not a "mirror image" of this, then you'll have to get it from someone else.

-like that video you posted-

What video? I didn't post a video.

the Ferguson riots look exactly like your video

Christ... you don't even know who you're talking to, do you?

Offering help is one such hideous framing.

And not one I'm making...

Charity is condescending as fuck.

Never spoke about charity either.

But I think you should also stop considering that as something that just so happens; as something in the natural order of things.

I don't actually consider that, but hey, that hasn't stopped you before.

[Theodarzna]

If you think I'll take accusations of unexamined racism from seriously from someone who pines for the halcyon days when the Democratic Party embraced lynching as a tool of political organizing and expression because that's when it was closest to whatever god-awful, morally-diseased political ideal is floating around your head, the very least that you are is woefully mistaken.

"Poor whites who vote Republican" is a discrete category that aligns with the political outcome in question; Republican politicians are not likely to support policies that reduce economic inequality, poor whites who vote for Republicans are choosing that political outcome, ergo poor whites who vote Republican are weighing the reduction of economic inequality against other political considerations and choosing those other considerations. If you need further elaboration on why "the reason black communities are suffering is because all black people are drug-dependent criminals" is not a "mirror image" of this, then you'll have to get it from someone else.

.... Let us try this again,

See, what you are engaged in is a type of framing that I am discussing. In order for you to defend the Democratic Party and your pretense of being a righteous defender of the poor whilst simultaneously punching down upon them, you must create an ever more elaborate explanations for why your bias' are justified.

Your explanation posits a few things,

1) The Democratic Party IS absolutely the shining light unto the masses and a radiant beacon of hope building some figurative secular new Jerusalem! They are absolutely working in the interests of the poor in general, a point that is debatable considering even Liberal authors will point out that largely the Democrats haven't lived up to that reputation.

2) With the first point being absolutely true in your mind, the people who forsake this absolutely purely good dispensation must be irredeemably corrupt, wicked or perniciously degenerate in some way. Seriously, consider what your logic implies. For your view to be true then you must have an absolutely Manichean dualistic view of our political system, with the Democrats being radiant angels and the Republicans being absolute devils.

3) Because of your belief in the first point, the peoples rejection of this dispensation that you believe to be absolutely and unquestionably true, you have conjectured this rather elaborate explanation for the masses rejection of it. This is absolutely akin to a Republican voter simply writing off the Black Community as being totally corrupt and criminal as a way to handwave away police brutality.

[Slybak]

.... Let us try this again,

See, what you are engaged in is a type of framing that I am discussing. In order for you to defend the Democratic Party and your pretense of being a righteous defender of the poor whilst simultaneously punching down upon them, you must create an ever more elaborate explanations for why your bias' are justified.

Plainly stating that poor white voters choose to elect Republicans is punching down on them?

I've repeatedly said that they do not do this because they are stupid - rather, they do it because they have different ideological demands - or that they somehow do not deserve economic security because they do this. If you want to persist in this delusion, and keep crying "BUT YOU REALLY DO NO SERIOUSLY LOOK AT THE VIDEOS YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY POST," then this conversation will continue to go nowhere. I'm done repeating myself.

Your explanation posits a few things,

1) The Democratic Party IS absolutely the shining light unto the masses and a radiant beacon of hope building some figurative secular new Jerusalem! They are absolutely working in the interests of the poor in general, a point that is debatable considering even Liberal authors will point out that largely the Democrats haven't lived up to that reputation.

No it does't. It posits that the Democratic Party is superior on issues of economic security than the Republican Party and, due to structural limitations of American representative democracy, is thus only game in town when it comes to actually increasing economic security.

2) With the first point being absolutely true in your mind, the people who forsake this absolutely purely good dispensation must be irredeemably corrupt, wicked or perniciously degenerate in some way.

No, it simply means that, at the very least, they do not prioritize economic security as much as they prioritize other political demands. The extent that they are corrupt, wicked, and/or degenerate is the extent to which those other demands are corrupt, wicked, and/or degenerate. Some are, some are not.

[Theodarzna]

Plainly stating that poor white voters choose to elect Republicans is punching down on them?

I've repeatedly said that they do not do this because they are stupid - rather, they do it because they have different ideological demands - or that they somehow do not deserve economic security because they do this. If you want to persist in this delusion, and keep crying "BUT YOU REALLY DO NO SERIOUSLY LOOK AT THE VIDEOS YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY POST," then this conversation will continue to go nowhere. I'm done repeating myself.

No it does't. It posits that the Democratic Party is superior on issues of economic security than the Republican Party and, due to structural limitations of American representative democracy, is thus only game in town when it comes to actually increasing economic security.

No, it simply means that, at the very least, they do not prioritize economic security as much as they prioritize other political demands. The extent that they are corrupt, wicked, and/or degenerate is the extent to which those other demands are corrupt, wicked, and/or degenerate. Some are, some are not.

No, your reason for why they do it is some belief in an inherent evil or malignant nature. So actually your chosen explanation depends heavily on a vast swathe of the country being literally evil by nature.

I am actually pointing out that your own framing of the political divide actually comes to some rather bizarre and strange conclusions. In order for the Democratic party to be what you say it is you have to believe fundamentally that MILLIONS of people are both irrational or evil and simply do not know what is best for them or cannot decide or are blinded by an evil nature.

You are either denying the effects Neo-Liberalism (The economic laissez faire capitalist ideology) has on much of the country, or you are claiming those effects are just universally good, or you deny the Democratic Parties complicit participation in that political project.

[Slybak]

No, your reason for why they do it is some belief in an inherent evil or malignant nature.

And we're done.

[Theodarzna]

We're done.

Then by all means go forth and proclaim the good news!

There is an excellent thread for you to proclaim the righteousness of the DNC and condemn the vileness of those pernicious unbelievers.

[Theodarzna]

As I digest the general arguments thrown back at me by a lot of people I actually would like to point out that a lot of Liberals seem to be engaging in a contradiction when it comes to the rural poor or white working classes.

1) That Globalization is a net benefit, thus its individual costs should not matter, and the price paid by large amounts of individuals are outweighed by the net benefits to the world. This is a Utilitarian argument that "Well sacrifices must be made, and really they should just adapt to this world we are building!"

2) They should vote their self interest!

BUT! Is it not in their self interest to resist Globalization and annihilation that it entails for them?