KlatooBNikto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-23-05 06:00 AM
Original message |
One of the reasons that there is so much support for Bush and his |
|
policies even among those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder and who are most directly affected by his policies is that they find themselves left behind in the New Economy where education and technology are the tickets to prosperity.Having been surpassed by women, minorities and others in this race, they are using their strength in numbers to support a man they think will reign in the prosperity of these segments of our population.
Even the appeal of the Right Wing religious fundamentalists have to be seen in this light.When they invoke the wrath of God to rain down on these 'infidels' it is a message that the undeserving have taken over the economic future. When they take a stand against Evolution, they are signaling that Science in the hands of these newcomers at the party, is going to be a tool of domination.
|
emanymton
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-23-05 06:04 AM
Response to Original message |
1. What In The World Are You Going On About??? |
|
What makes you think anyone supports the shrub?
Even the rich know they are hanging on only because they can only steal from the government treasury.
Bush Lied, People Died, Media Cheered.
|
punpirate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-23-05 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. I think he's referring to... |
|
... to the people who helped Bush win, the people who have been greatly influenced by Bush and the media blitz created to help him win.
While it may seem to us that there's no one out there supporting Bush, there's a recent vote to suggest otherwise. (One can argue at length about the two-odd percent difference due to jiggering the vote, but even discounting that, Bush attracted nearly half the voters to his position.)
He's talking about the most suggestible in the country who've been convinced, somehow, to vote against their own interests. That's a conundrum--why do people vote against their economic interests in favor of social issues which have, in the main, no relation to their own lives.
I think that's what the person is addressing.
Cheers.
|
hector459
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-23-05 06:32 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Yeah, it's called racism, sexism, bigotry, and fascism. |
bklyncowgirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-23-05 06:34 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I think you've hit on something important.
While the "new economy" that began under Clinton advanced many people, those left behind were workers who did not have the advantages of education. Many of these were factory workers who had previously enjoyed a middle class existance until their plants shut down and moved overseas.
Are they pissed. You bet. Who do they blame, well let's see, who was President at the time NAFTA passed? Sure it was conservative business interests that pushed these trade agreements and I've always beleived that once Clinton signed them that they no longer needed him and the corporate media were then permitted to go for his throat but that is not something that translates easily to someone who lost his job.
Democrats now sit wondering why working class white men have deserted them. Quite frankly, Democrats deserted working class white men first.
Now of course, the Republicans are more closely allied with the business interests that are shipping these people's jobs overseas but the fact is that the Democrats--who had all along claimed to be the party of the working man--was quick to sell them down the river. The Democrats message was reduced to "Vote for us because we're pro-choice and we want to save the planet" Problem is from these people's perspective environmentalism is part of the enemy--when their bosses tell them they have to go overseas because of regulation--they believe them. As far as social issues go, I think that most working class Americans would be willing to swallow liberal positions on abortion and even gay rights if Democrats presented a strong and credible populist stand on the economic issues and presented the "lifestyle" issues in a way that did not hurt working class people.
|
KlatooBNikto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-23-05 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Absolutely. Clinton's big gamble was that NAFTA would create |
|
jobs in this country even if some jobs were exported. The problem was the jobs created in this country required higher education which left a lot of the working class people behind. After Bush took over even the jobs that required higher education are now being exported to India.So there!
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 09:09 PM
Response to Original message |