[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Affection for the poorly educated

[C G Estabrook]

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Affection for the poorly educated
> Date: September 1, 2019 at 2:00:08 PM CDT
> To: Ron Szoke <r-szoke at illinois.edu>
> Cc: "peace-discuss at anti-war.net" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>, peace-discuss <peace-discusss at lists.chambana.net>
> Reply-To: C G Estabrook <cgestabrook at gmail.com>
> 
> <https://fair.org/home/nyt-steers-dems-away-from-the-obvious-formula-for-defeating-trump/>
> 
> ...What was actually crucial to Trump’s 2016 success is that the larger group of poorer less-educated whites, which traditionally leans Democratic or splits its vote, went decisively Republican.
> 
> And while this group was susceptible to Trump’s racist appeals, equally important (according to Edsall’s political scientist sources) was his “repeated campaign promise to protect Medicare and Social Security.” The false impression that Trump was a moderate Republican on economic issues “removed cognitive dissonance and inhibitions” that might deter such voters from supporting an economic conservative, leaving them free to be swayed by Trump’s appeal to a white racial identity.
> 
> If that’s the truly crucial group, then Democrats will not win the 2020 election by embracing, as Edsall seems to suggest, an agnosticism on the issue of race (or “the issue of ‘race,'” as he puts it), but rather by advancing a strongly progressive, redistributionist economic message. It’s political common sense that if the voters who are up for grabs are those who are socially conservative and economically progressive, then Democrats should emphasize left-wing economics and Republicans should stress right-wing social policies—while crucially reassuring their bases that they maintain their commitments to a progressive social agenda or a conservative economic program, respectively. (See FAIR.org, 6/20/17.)
> 
> But this common sense runs against the New York Times‘ historic role of guiding the Democratic Party away from positions that threaten the wealthy. This is why Adolph Ochs, great-great-grandfather of the current Times publisher, was bankrolled by bankers to buy the paper in 1896 (FAIR.org, 10/28/17), and it’s why the paper today has an editorial page editor who proudly declares, “The New York Times is in favor of capitalism” (FAIR.org, 3/1/18). Edsall, it seems, has the task of providing the intellectual arguments for why the Democrats should not adopt the progressive economic agenda that would benefit them electorally—a job that necessarily involves a great deal of doubletalk and hand-waving.
> 
> ###
> 
>> On Aug 28, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>> 
>> <Edsall 0828.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20190901/14aa031f/attachment.html>