Writes Farai Chideya at FiveThirtyEight.
As Donald Trump likes to say: "You've got to be willing to walk away."
There's also Saul Alinsky: "No one can negotiate without the power to compel negotiation."
And look at the extent of the power that is not being used: There is very good reason to believe that black people will determine the outcome of the election.
September 11, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
63 comments:
There is very good reason to believe that black people will determine the outcome of the election.
Hence, the importance to the Clinto campaign of hyping racism allegations in order to herd the vote.
Here's a good read about Democratic loyalty, or not so much today.
Make that "Democratic Party" loyalty
Change "loyal" to "stupid." Still works.
I mean they've had a black POTUS for almost eight years, and their lot got worse, and still lining up to pull the D handle.
Black vote counters may decide the election. Voters? Not so much.
Democrats are unequivocally better than the Republicans on a whole range of issues that a majority of black Americans care about.
And that one issue is money, keeping lots of it, flowing into the black community.
The black middle class is heavily over-represented in all aspects of the government bureaucracy --- federal, state & local. Indeed, Government employment is the backbone of the black middle class. It is this class which dives black politics. The black underclass is as clueless in politics as it is in most other things, & it takes its lead from the black leadership that comes out of the black civil service.
The Democrats are the party of the bureaucrat, at all levels of government. They see the "state as employer" economic model as a good thing, & wish to expand it. So do the blacks. In this way, the monolithic support of the blacks for the Democratic Party makes perfect economic sense. It is the side their bread is buttered on.
The social damage done to the black community by their over-reliance on government employment is another matter. But, as a matter of maintaining the status quo, it makes perfect sense. Unlike, for example, Jewish support for the Democrats....
September 11 2001 As It Happened - CNN Live 8.40am - 10am
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2016/09/september-11-2001-as-it-happened-cnn.html
Black voters would have had a lot more political power, but for abortion, welfare and the war on drugs.
"Rae said...
Black voters would have had a lot more political power, but for abortion, welfare and the war on drugs."
And 16 million illegal immigrants.
For the Left, the only way to improve the lives of the poor is via government. Somehow it is acceptable for the Democrats to stereotype and demean Blacks. Democrats underlying belief is that under normal circumstances Black citizens need government to give them success. Is there one set of Black interests, are all Blacks the same and are the majority inepy? The data shows increased government programs have proven to be ineffective or probably detrimental for the poor. Democrats believe that Blacks are unable to fend for themselves, that the basic requirements for a thriving, successful society do not apply for Blacks. And that an environment which allows non-black working people to be successful is at odds with Black interests.
Blacks are the biggest victims of elite paternalism and the Democrats whole hearted faith in government. "Yes, something very ugly has surfaced in contemporary American liberalism, as evidenced by the irrational and sometimes infantile abuse directed toward anyone who strays from a strict party line. Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power." Camille Paglia
Farai Chideya is a government worshiper, he thinks government is the key for Blacks. He wrote, "The key to long-term change for captured demographics may be politicians becoming willing to risk alienating white voters while failing, at first, to reach black and nonwhite ones.". Are the interests of Blacks and Whites at odds?
He also wrotes, "Bill Clinton’s welfare and 1994 crime bills, for example, had a disproportionately negative effect on black communities." Are Blacks inherently criminal and poor?
The non Left must engage minority communities and make the case for freedom, individual rights, capitalism and success for all.
Very interesting discussion. Trump didn't get this far without having many positive qualities to go with his less attractive qualities (some of which are conscious ploys on his part). The Alinsky piece mentioned some. Scott Adams mentions others. I have known many farmers and builders in my life. Many were not highly educated but they knew things that the people in Cipriani don't know and don't know they don't know. I learned a lot spending time with these men and their employees. I read recently an anecdote by a minority woman who sometimes traveled with Trump in his car in New York. When people in the neighborhoods in New York recognized The Donald and his car they would always give him a big cheer and a high sign. They liked him. The Donald is now connecting in other neighborhoods.
Because something is happening here and we don't know what it is.
Two important components of the New Deal coalition were northern blacks and southern segregationists.......There are lots of pieces in the current Democratic coalition that seem to be more antagonistic than cohesive, but maybe they fit together under the pressing need to oppose white oppression. Whites are in the vanguard of the struggle against white oppression, but there's room for everybody......Gays, Muslims, Jewish socialists, Hispanic immigrants, blacks and single women may not have much in common, but they can all rest assured that the cause of all their problems is Trump and people like him.
Lamar Gonna Set You Straight....
It's an Election Year, so I gotta hear all these White Liars lie their lies about what they're gonna do for Black People. Again. Fuck that...
You ain't done shit, and you ain't gonna do shit. Forever...
I know you all think we're like children -- and we do got some stupid niggas around, I give you that -- but we see what you're doing, and we heard it all before...
Know what's sad? If there really was a White Politician that Really Wanted to Help Black People, we wouldn't know the difference, because all the damned words are the same...
That's what's known as hypothetical, because we all know there ain't no White Politician like that. Just so we understand each other...
I got a friend, Toby, who likes Election Day because they give him a free pack of cigarettes to get on the Van to the Voting Place.
I ask Toby, "Brother, don't you find it demeaning to be bought so cheaply?"
Toby says "If they don't buy us cheaply they don't buy us at all."
I agree with Toby on that, but not in the way HE thinks it means...
You think you got Problems? Fuck You.
I am Laslo.
Progressivism is the surrogation of government in the place of God.
Free stuff is the opiate of the people.
They have gone from slaves to bondservants.
“If the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life”
"Black Voters Are So Loyal That Their Issues Get Ignored." If by issues you mean the actual structure of their families, the safety of their communities, or the quality of their schools, maybe. But "their issues" are really money, money, and money. That's never ignored. Hypothesis: blacks are the biggest net beneficiaries of government transfers, other than Social Security (which favors white women). Include employment as a variable, as YH does, and the skew will be even clearer.
That old Althouse reliable, concern trolling for black folks. The Republican party ignored the economic interests of working class whites for forty years - globalization, cheap foreign labor, anti-union, tax cuts for the rich. They kept on voting R.
95 Year-old Black Trump Supporter Walks Several Blocks to See Donald Trump in St. Louis
It's ignorance, not loyalty.
rhhardin said...
It's ignorance, not loyalty.
To some degree this is true. No one with any knowledge of human nature, much less economics, could have bought into the 'trickle-down' economics BS.
When was this ever not obvious?
ARM: "To some degree this is true. No one with any knowledge of human nature, much less economics, could have bought into the 'trickle-down' economics BS."
Whenever someone uses the term "trickle-down economics", you can rest assured that individual is an economic and human nature illiterate and their every utterance on the subject can be safely ignored.
The outcomes of close elections are usually "over-determined" (i.e., those outcomes can be attributed to many different groups of voters, not any single one). If Clinton-Trump is close enough, it will be hard to find any group that cannot be said to have determined the final result.
Lamar has set us straight. Again.
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
"That old Althouse reliable, concern trolling for black folks. The Republican party ignored the economic interests of working class whites for forty years - globalization, cheap foreign labor, anti-union, tax cuts for the rich. They kept on voting R."
Who's been in control of congress for the last 40 years? And you're just pissed 'cause Laffer was right.
I've been saying that for virtually my entire adult life--anyone who guarantees their vote to one party ensures neither party will care about their issues.
Drago said...
Whenever someone uses the term "trickle-down economics", you can rest assured that individual is an economic and human nature illiterate and their every utterance on the subject can be safely ignored.
Drago retreats to his 'safe-space'.
And the GOP establishment took their primary voters for granted in the same way.
There is not much we can do about black voters? The old saying, "...you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it to drink..." comes to mind. Everyone has a constitutional right to throw their votes toward a person they like.
Well then fuck 'em. Idiots.
What country do they think this is? One where blind loyalty is rewarded? Get the fuck out of here!
Man, that is some stupid shit.
"Drago said...
Whenever someone uses the term "trickle-down economics", you can rest assured that individual is an economic and human nature illiterate and their every utterance on the subject can be safely ignored."
Drago retreats to his 'safe-space'.
Probably the zoo in the reptile exhibit.
People can be horrible and selfish and ruthless and hierarchical but they also are altruistic, communal, generous and kind.
It's good to be aware which of our many "natures" a certain political faction remains intent on indulging.
ARM teaches economics and is an expert and the economy is doing GREAT because stock market so shut up Drago you doodyhead.
Blacks are so loyal the Democrats have to at least sometimes pretend to care about whites to win elections.
The social damage done to the black community by their over-reliance on government employment is another matter. But, as a matter of maintaining the status quo, it makes perfect sense. Unlike, for example, Jewish support for the Democrats....
Oh that actually makes perfect sense. Jews see themselves and the good society as a community where the downtrodden aren't pissed upon. They have not spent centuries killing themselves as the good Christian Protestants (and the Catholics who now emulate them) have done. Nor in rendering unto the feudal business lord all that the economic superior demands - especially when it comes to the king's favors. Catholics used to be better at upholding the importance of community and communal values, and therefore voted Democrat, all the way through Reagan. But they are now undergoing a process of trying to become more WASP-like. It's interesting, to say the least.
R&B, your analysis is interesting. Communal thinking is, in fact, very Jewish and has been historically a Catholic emphasis, as well. Our nation was founded upon Protestant values that hold individual rights above the common good. While this concept is hard for many to understand it is, I believe, the better concept.
I think people can have both.
Israel probably still has both.
mockturtle:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Notwithstanding past and present compromises, our nation was established on the basis of reconciling moral, natural, and personal imperatives. The Christian religion.
Drago said...Whenever someone uses the term "trickle-down economics", you can rest assured that individual is an economic and human nature illiterate and their every utterance on the subject can be safely ignored.
ARM snarked in response: "Drago retreats to his 'safe-space'".
I am amused at people who mock trickle down economics. They obviously are proponents of trickle up economics. You know, working for a poverty stricken executive who is dirt poor. Amazingly, these penniless executives can afford to pay a workforce while on food stamps. If we only had more poor people, the economy would just take off like a rocket ship.
Amazingly, these penniless executives can afford to pay a workforce while on food stamps. If we only had more poor people, the economy would just take off like a rocket ship.
That seems to be Walmart's vision (and that of their defenders). A workforce on food stamps.
Balls said: "That seems to be Walmart's vision (and that of their defenders). A workforce on food stamps."
Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit, but then we knew that Balls. Cute response, but opposite my point.
Hey Humperdink. As long as you do their owners'/CEO's bidding, right?
Obviously a realistic economics accounts for the success of both worker and owner. Why are people who argue like you do so anti-worker? What is so great about being the boss? Lots of bosses can be horrible. What makes our country so great to give them so much more power than they're doing any good with?
This goes beyond mere ownership rights. This is part of what is fucking up our country. You guys abstract everything until you see the results. Sure, Citizens United makes sense in the abstract, and then you see what Hillary Clinton does with it for her donors. Same thing here. Eventually there's a balance that must be struck.
Rhythm and Balls said...
I think people can have both.
Israel probably still has both.
We used to have both. Communities coming ogether to do things government couldn't or wouldn't do.
ARM: "Drago retreats to his 'safe-space'."
Note to self: leftists believe that making note of their knowledge gaps is akin to retreating to a safe space.
Unexpectedly!
@R&B,
Jews see themselves and the good society as a community where the downtrodden aren't pissed upon.
Riiiiiight... There's this thing called the Old Testament. You should read it sometime.
The fact that the Jews have been out of power from the fall of the Maccabees until 1948 makes any historical analysis of how they compare to Christendom or Islam rather a moot point. Without power, a group can be innocent, but it gives no indication of their behavior in power.
I know that the Jews wish to portray their bizarre affinity for the Democrats as a marker of their communal virtue. My greatest problem with Jewish autonomic liberalism is that it is in no way a reflection of Jewish history as described by the rabbinic writings. A concern for a broad notion of social justice? Not there. A proto-feminist understanding of gender relations? Not there. Support for abortion? The rabbis are as hard ass as the Catholic casuists on the question. Homosexuality? You've got to be kidding!
Here are the two foundational documents of American Reform Judaism: the 1885 Pittsburgh platform, & the 1937 Columbus platform. Notice, how the 1885 platform seeks to work for social justice in "In full accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic legislation", that's because the letter ain't exactly too helpful. The Columbus platform just drops any pretense at rabbinic grounding and just asserts what it wishes to assert. That the rabbinic tradition kept the faith alive for 2000 years through the depth of human misery is not even mentioned, nor are they thanked for their witness or service to God & the Law.
Essentially, Reform Judaism supplanted the rabbinic tradition with 19th C German rationalistic Protestantism in 1885. They then moved, as rationalistic Protestants tend to do, to full-bore squish-leftism in 1937.
If an American believing or agnostic Jew wants to tell me that "we believe what we do because we pulled it out of our asses 100 years ago, because it really seemed like the right thing to do at the time", well, okay, & more power to them. But to sit around the Seder table & sing "Go down Moses" as I have done many times & pretend that there's some sort of historical congruence & continuity there, well, it just ain't so.
The fact that the Jews have been out of power from the fall of the Maccabees until 1948 makes any historical analysis of how they compare to Christendom or Islam rather a moot point. Without power, a group can be innocent, but it gives no indication of their behavior in power.
You don't need to. The most basic fact is that unlike Islam or Christendom they had virtually no imperial pretensions and therefore kept their funny religion to themselves. They left it to others to decide what to take from or modify from it.
Empires are always autocratic. Islam and Christianity were ways to unify conquered peoples in the Age of Empire around singular standards of conscience and control. And whatever good you think they did they were necessarily more powerful. For better or worse, power always corrupts. And simply by virtue of size of the realm alone, popes and caliphs always had a hell of a lot more of it than any head priest.
I will read the rest of your comment later but I think this fact is usually the one that is always missing in any near-eastern comparative religion analyses. If you love freedom and the idea of leaving people alone to their own devices then you should love, if nothing about the Jews, the way they didn't go around conquering huge swathes of surrounding countries and an empire to enlarge. They subdued the natives (supposedly) of one land itself and then left their political existence to figuring out how to govern themselves. That's why the founders loved them and that's why "Israel" became Western shorthand whenever people imagined how to build a better nation.
@R&B,
The most basic fact is that unlike Islam or Christendom they had virtually no imperial pretensions and therefore kept their funny religion to themselves.
No, R&B. There are no historical counterfactuals. History is history & the Jews never got the chance since the Davidic Kingdom to be an imperial power. If they were some font of political wisdom, they never got the chance to show it.
There are no historical counterfactuals. History is history & the Jews never got the chance since the Davidic Kingdom to be an imperial power.
Nor did they choose to.
If they were some font of political wisdom, they never got the chance to show it.
See above.
You're the one who's being ahistorical here. It's like you don't know who Constantine was. Christianity with all its early papal offices was basically a way of grafting something else onto the religion and politics of the Roman empire. You can try to keep trying to clumsily inject religion into anthropology, but you fail to see the anthropology in religion. The differences between them reflect political realities and if you think empire is a morally wonderful project to undertake then you can go tell Rand Paul and Ron Paul and half the Democrats that they're wrong and that every abuse that's ever been committed in its much bloodstained name (and there are many) are just under appreciated. Were there parts of Africa you'd like to go claim now, also? Many converts to win. Even still. Go save those souls. With a sword, if need be.
My greatest problem with Jewish autonomic liberalism is that it is in no way a reflection of Jewish history as described by the rabbinic writings. A concern for a broad notion of social justice? Not there.
What are you even talking about? Stop drinking.
No, R&B. There are no historical counterfactuals. History is history & the Jews never got the chance since the Davidic Kingdom to be an imperial power.
If you think there's any damn thing in the OT that discourages Israel from being a single nation instead of just another empire like any of the many of the day then you really have been drinking. I know you're not ignorant enough to actually think that.
You're just being stubborn. Stop drinking.
...full-bore squish-leftism...
Lol. Sophisticated language the must somehow reflect the deep thoughts, insights and empirical observations of a true theologian or political observer.
Stop ranting and propagandizing and put some actual, useful empirical observation to use for once.
Clear critical thinking might not serve the empire well, Sir. But it might help your soul and your mind.
I take it YH believes that empire was simply just one of Christianity's (and I guess Islam's) "original sins." He is demanding that I offer it salvation from that. Or forgiveness. Or something.
Just one question. Why did it then seek to perpetuate this sin for a thousand some-odd more years or so? I thought the whole point of coming clean was to not do it any more?
Hard to see the case for that if the majority of your history consists of the same sin. Over and over again. In so many different ways.
Christianity was simply a better fit for an empire, but probably not simply because it was universalist. All politics need creeds. Whatever Christianity's benefits or blessings, perpetuating empire seems to have been among them. But not everyone considers empire to be a good thing.
YH: How does traditionalist Catholicism separate empire from its Christianity? That's what I'd like for you to explain to me. Or maybe you'd prefer not to.
R&B,
What are you even talking about? Stop drinking.
In all those comments, you have not come to grips with my primary point: modern liberal Judaism is a mess, disconnected from the previous 2000 years of its history. The history of Christianity or Islam is irrelevant to the matter at hand. This is an internal critique.
I proposed that the rabbinic tradition is not kind to modern "liberal" notions of social justice. I gave you two Reform prooftexts and gave you my criticisms of them. If the rabbinic tradition is kind to these modern notions, then go find the texts & quote them. If you read the two declarations I linked as being more conciliatory to the rabbinic tradition, then tell me what those readings might be from the texts.
Basically, what I read your comments as is "It ain't so! Nyah!". I'm not trying to be a pisshead here, but I'm not sure what to engage with here. Maybe some other readers have some idea.
You know what's a mess? Your projection onto Judaism of this idealized catechism of definitions, that sounds like the way your previous leaders through the centuries wanted to control it. It is not just what makes sense to the Catholic mind. Judaism is a nation, with a peculiar spiritual dimension, that morphed into an existence where religion was more strongly emphasized, and back again. If that is messy to you, then you need to talk to someone more knowledgeable. You can't just marry someone and pretend they're a professional/academic guide on the topic. You must admit that your interest in Judaism is amateurish at best, politicized pabulum for you at worst, and definitely sprinkled with generous helpings what you project on it through a mode of thinking or even religious preference that I must suppose never had anything to with it.
As far as what I can help you with, I perceive that you are attempting to "canonize" this idealized, utopian project you call "rabbinic tradition", or whatever. If you're talking about halakhah, that might come closer to what you mean. But I have no idea. I also have no idea of whether you idealize what you refer to as "rabbinic tradition" out of a need to cherry pick the practice that seems most orthodox or conservative to your politics, and proceed to uphold it as the best thing. But it certainly seems so. If you want to idealize what is advocated by guys in black coats with furry hats then you should know that they are recent (in the grand scheme of things) innovations modeling their dress (if nothing else) off of 16th c. Polish nobility. Not all innovations are "left-wing". And how ironic that you project Napoleonic senate seating arrangements onto what is and is not authentic about a 2,000-year long tradition. It kind of proves my point.
But I'll help you out here, and let you in on the fact that your biggest hole seems to be this emphasis on "writings, traditions" and not what is fundamental. Modern orthodox instruction in halakhah is grounded in the debates between Hillel and Shammai, where the more lenient adversary's teachings won out. Maybe he wasn't conservative enough for you, though. If you want further examples, try comparing Jews to their Samaritan brethren where strict interpretation of "the law" is concerned. Even through today a Samaritan will not break the sabbath for the sake of saving a life. To a Jew this is unthinkable - perhaps due to the "liberal", or innovative or "messy" loophole known as pikuah nefesh. To them, any commandment can be broken to save a life. It is so intrinsic to them as to be what you might call, in your uptight vernacular "autonomic liberal".
1/2
Or perhaps you were aware of the designation of a Sanhedrin that would carry out a death sentence more than once in a generation as particularly bloody. Maybe not. But I do know that the Beit Hillel tradition became more or less authoritative, and was contemporary with the same lenient liberalism of Mr. Jesus - a guy who probably claimed about a third of the Jews at the time as adherents. And what a messy guy he was... with his whole lack of emphasis on literal interpretations and strictures. You would have had a really tough time with him, I can tell.
Your history is shoddy. Quit trying to simplify your canonization of "rabbinic tradition" and learn some of what of demonstrating what you know about the oral law. The stages of development of the mishnah, gemarah, midrashim and how each chazal built upon the other would probably help you.
But nowhere do any of them have this fixation on some puritan, reformist, go-back-to-a-more-stringent-history-that-no-longer-exists bent that you have. That's just your own projection - probably in coming to terms with a meaningful spiritual life in a Protestant political society.
As for the other comments, I'm happy if you think other commenters would "grip" my point on the inherent authoritarianism of empires, or how they require creeds and bureaucracies and superiority complexes much different from those preferred by free people. But this idea that ancient Israel's lack of imperial history was accidental is stupendously hilarious. Your blind spots really are quite glaring.
The rest is commentary. Now go learn.
2/2
Jews were always so conservative that they respected their role as Egyptian slaves and never would have revolted against it. What a messy people they are. Who ever told them that they could be liberal?
They were always very conservative and believed that their disenfranchisement under Catholic regimes was only proper and right. When did they start getting so uppity! Demanding rights, etc. Naughty Jews!
Who taught these authentic Jews to become so progressive? This bad influence on them must be identified and expelled.
Jews changed their circumstances, not their principles. They are neither liberal nor "progressive". They are certainly not Pro-Choice or selective.
But to sit around the Seder table & sing "Go down Moses" as I have done many times & pretend that there's some sort of historical congruence & continuity there, well, it just ain't so.
Of course not, Young Pharaonic Hegelian! And that Abraham guy... very conservative and obedient to the structures of the existing social order! Smashing idols was a very conservative thing to do. Obviously. It's amazing that Jews today can look at behavior like that and identify with a culture of protest and progress whatsoever.
Humperdink @ 2:55
all economics is trickledown to a certain degree. Unless we own our own business our paychecks are the trickledown from the companys' profits. Yacht builder rely on the trickledown from someone elses good fortune.
Jewish liberalism is a product of the emigration from Europe, specifically who came over, when, and what they were fleeing or leaving behind.
I 19th Century western Europe Jews tended to be liberals and republicans, bourgeois and skeptical of monarchy because monarchs had so often screwed with them.
The early wave of German Jews fled the counter-revolutions after 1848--they became the core of American Reform Judaism.
Eastern European Jews (Poland, Russai, Belorussia, Ukraine, Romania) tended to be less literate in the vernacular and less political, but faced rising waves of persecution esp in Russian Empire after the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, and which Nicholas II made even worse around the time of the 1905 Revolution, as a way of improving his support from the Orthodox Church and its believers. The grat waves of Eastern European Jewish immigrants were fleeing monarchical persecution.
They Germans were classical European liberals, but they all were fleeing oppressive monarchies. That is why they tried so hard to assimilate here, and why their politics lean liberal, bourgeois and anti-monarchical and have always been skeptical of fundamentalist Christians even when those Christians are very sympathetic, as with Israel. They made the transition from "classical liberal" to "big government liberal" along with the rest of the progressive/liberal movement in the 1930s.
Don't bother looking for obscure citations from the Old Testament or the Babylonian Talmud, to explain American Jewish politics in 2016, you're wasting your time.
Jewish liberalism is a product of the emigration from Europe, specifically who came over, when, and what they were fleeing or leaving behind.
Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus: All conservatives very intent on showing their obedience to the existing social order.
Post a Comment