Basically, the author maintains that many key matrixes showed the country actually trending conservative since 2000. GOPers managed to avoid reaping the full benefits of that trend by their embrace of the predatory crony capitalists fueled by Clinton's anti-labor policies--NAFTA in particular. Dems, OTOH, were able to create a "buzz" surrounding Obama that distracted independents from the fact that Obama continued to support that same class of crony capitalists. It was a Uniparty thing. Trump, of course, changed all that, by creating a "buzz" around his policies that went right to the concerns of the disenfranchised working class.
So now we come to Impeachment Theater. Impeachment Theater was intended to appeal to the left, college educated, low-info boomers who watch Rachel Maddow. That appeal was necessary because that's a key part of the Dem base, but in making that appeal through Impeachment Theater the Dems inevitably alienated another key part of their base--labor. And that part of the base is the key part that actually does the get-out-the-vote work of walking the precincts and generating the necessary "buzz" that allows the Dems to win elections in a basically conservative country.
As a result, Pelosi found herself in the position of having to do Impeachment Theater while at the same time trying to hitch a ride on Trump's USMCA band wagon that's hugely popular. But the voters aren't fooled any more, nor are the labor precinct walkers likely to gin up the type of "buzz" that can reverse what Trump started in 2016.
Here's a key passage:
Looking at Pelosi’s statements and methods, it would appear that the process [of Impeachment Theater] left Democrats looking extremely partisan to the detriment of getting the business of the country done. That business included the USMCA, the Mexico-Canada Agreement that redefines a host of matters previously mishandled by Bill Clinton’s tremendously unpopular NAFTA. Why this seems to be the case – Trump was in the process of getting his USMCA through congress, and with high support from organized labor. As we consistently explain, Democrats rely on organized labor not only for votes, but more critically for their entire ground campaigns, especially making phone calls to other voters, and precinct walking during the campaign and on Election Day. That labor always opposed NAFTA and generally supports the USMCA is critical. The key line in Pelosi’s post impeachment charade statement, regarding why they were not actually going to send the articles to the Senate and therefore complete the process of impeaching the president, was that she said specifically that they needed instead to prioritize passing the USMCA.
Imagine that for a moment. Because of the relationship between labor and the Democrat Party, it was necessary for Democrats to appear as its champion, even that it was their idea in the first place. This means that Democrats had the practical wisdom to understand that their impeachment charade did not appeal to blue collar Democrat voters, but in fact would work against them. What they needed in part in the impeachment, apart from implementing their strategy of a thousand cuts, was to energize college educated upper middle-class boomers, which form the bulk of the Rachel Maddow, and Democrat leaning mainstream media consumer demographic. While these people control work-place politics and effectively police water-cooler talk, this back-fires. Voting in the US is secret ballot – and so with this class in control of people’s ability to remain employed, unenthusiastic, rehearsed, regurgitated, manufactured ‘orange man bad’ utterances are more commonly heard than they are truly believed. People say one thing at work to keep their job, and then vote another way on Election Day.
But the USMCA fiasco surrounding the impeachment tells us a lot. Eight years of Bill Clinton and decades of his NAFTA has been symptomatic of the Democrat’s anti-labor politics. Democrats from that time onward invested their political capital into developing socialism. However, they didn’t develop this in the US, but in China – while in the US a crony class grew up and lined their own pockets from it all. This is something which is perhaps, in a strange turn of events, quite good for China and many other developing parts of the world including Africa. But that has come at the expense not of America’s wealthy ‘bourgeoisie’, but rather its own ‘working class’. Bill Clinton was supposed to work to reverse 12 years of Reagan-Bush, whose anti-labor policies amounted to one of the single greatest austerity campaigns in US history. And yet this was only to be outdone by Clinton’s outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs, and deregulation of the financial sector.
Mark, your favorite wise blogger Don Surber has a great piece on Soleimani:ReplyDelete
Trump helped save Iran from Iran
The alternate headline is Iran reacts to Trump killing General قاسم سلیمانی (no one can spell his name in English).
Instead of mourning the death of General قاسم سلیمانی, Iranians should rejoice. He is the Hue Jackson of military leaders.
Jackson went 1-31 as head coach of the Cleveland Browns. Being the Browns, they did not fire him until he won a couple of games the next season.
General قاسم سلیمانی was so bad that even Tommy Friedman at the New York Times noticed.
I think people are way underestimating the demographic changes of the country. And good whites are doing terrific economically and do not want to be associated with any concerns of working class whites.ReplyDelete
Look at how the mainstream has beaten Trump on immigration. No talk of ending birth right citizenship. Sanctuary cities are not even discussed. Nothing on keeping Muslims out.
It was wonderful that Trump spoke about the drug deaths of some many working class younger people. But there has been no progress on curbing drug use. We need drug users to be arrested and punished, but in ways that do not affect their employment, does not expose them to actual criminals in jail. Something has to be done to save/help people. But as with some much with Trump, there is no one on his team who has picked up the policy ball and is running with it.
My prediction is Warren moderates herself and wins in a landslide.
Well, Steve, no landslide for any Dem, but millions of illegals' votes could make DJT lose.Delete
And, you're on the right track about the GoodWhites vs. working class whites, who the former outright hate.
If DJT manages to win, his 2nd term must see the power of the GoodWhites broken, in places such as higher ed, and the MSM.
The Black Swan gets a vote. I don't think there was/is anything that anyone in the Dem clown car could do to win in November. but it is Trump's to lose. I think the next 72 to 96 hours will make or break him just as the decisions of August 1964 determined the fate of LBJ's Presidency.ReplyDelete
Early reports, no US casualties.Delete