[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-May-24, 08:44, said:

This is true, and it is so *&*&^* unnecessary. I have a Ph.D., my father finished 8th grade, we got along fine.

I do not think the issue is getting along but being able to understand that people complaining about European travel being closed cannot seem to grasp that others are trying to decide between eating and keeping the lights on this month, and even if true it must be their own fault for being lazy or not trying hard enough.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2021-May-24, 10:45, said:

I do not think the issue is getting along but being able to understand that people complaining about European travel being closed cannot seem to grasp that others are trying to decide between eating and keeping the lights on this month, and even if true it must be their own fault for being lazy or not trying hard enough.

Yes, but perhaps also part of the problem, part of the reason that the Ds have lost support among people I grew up with, is the underlying insinuation that my father has no right to be satisfied with his life, after all he is white male, or a White Male, and we all know that makes him the problem, not the solution.

There has to be some reason that the Dems have lost so much support from the working class, and if there is any hope of partially recovering that support it could start by re-thinking through whether the loss of support could at least a little bit be due to how they are portrayed.
As to European travel, I once asked my father if he wanted to go back and visit where he had come from. Well, he didn't know where he had come from and he could not imagine why on earth he would want to do such a thing.

[Winstonm]

For Pilowsky:

Quote

The Scottish government is facing a new legal challenge over its February rejection of a motion to investigate former U.S. President Donald Trump’s all-cash purchases of two golf courses, reviving an effort to force Trump to disclose how he financed the deals.

Note the date on this Reuters article: May 24, 2021

[y66]

For the silver lining files:

Quote

https://www.nytimes....896ed87b2d9c72a

Over the last year, multiple stimulus measures from the federal government have helped families buy groceries, pay rent and build a financial cushion. This aid might have also helped start a new era of entrepreneurship.

There has been a surge in start-ups in America that experts have yet to fully explain. But a new study — using data that allows researchers to more precisely track new businesses across time and place — finds that the surge coincides with federal stimulus, and is strongest in Black communities.

Quote

The pandemic might mark the end of a slump in entrepreneurship that has lasted for several decades. Steep job losses, a widespread shift in how people work and a big influx of federal spending could prompt the kind of disruption that changes how people think about work and what they want to do with their lives.

“The idea that the pandemic has kind of restarted America’s start-up engine is a real thing,” said Scott Stern, an economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the research. “Sometimes you need to turn off the car in order to turn it back on.”

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2021-May-24, 12:16, said:

For the silver lining files:

I liked this story from that article.

Quote

Last summer, Pilar Donnelly started making playhouses in Houston for her two 6-year-old boys. She had been laid off from her job in sports marketing and wanted to give them something for their birthday. With no background in woodworking, she started off with a design she liked online and watched YouTube to learn woodworking techniques. After making a number of playhouses for her friends and family, she realized it could be a business. That business, which she registered in June, is called Wish You Wood Custom Creations.

She said it was her personal savings and the unemployment benefits that really helped give her peace of mind last summer; the stimulus check wasn't enough by itself to make a huge difference in her decision to start a business.

"I did buy a saw with some of that money," she said. "That did help a little bit."

If this is where we are going, I say let's go. Notice that no college degree is required. She can, for example, read War and Peace. Or not.

[shyams]

 y66, on 2021-May-24, 12:16, said:

For the silver lining files:

Quote

The pandemic might mark the end of a slump in entrepreneurship that has lasted for several decades. Steep job losses, a widespread shift in how people work and a big influx of federal spending could prompt the kind of disruption that changes how people think about work and what they want to do with their lives.

“The idea that the pandemic has kind of restarted America’s start-up engine is a real thing,” said Scott Stern, an economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the research. “Sometimes you need to turn off the car in order to turn it back on.”

 kenberg, on 2021-May-24, 13:19, said:

I liked this story from that article.

Quote

Last summer, Pilar Donnelly started making playhouses in Houston for her two 6-year-old boys. She had been laid off from her job in sports marketing and wanted to give them something for their birthday. With no background in woodworking, she started off with a design she liked online and watched YouTube to learn woodworking techniques. After making a number of playhouses for her friends and family, she realized it could be a business. That business, which she registered in June, is called Wish You Wood Custom Creations.

She said it was her personal savings and the unemployment benefits that really helped give her peace of mind last summer; the stimulus check wasn't enough by itself to make a huge difference in her decision to start a business.

"I did buy a saw with some of that money," she said. "That did help a little bit."

If this is where we are going, I say let's go. Notice that no college degree is required. She can, for example, read War and Peace. Or not. [/size]

How dare these poor people start their own businesses and escape the yoke of their min-wage jobs? This is absolutely not what the cash was for.

This is exactly why the GOP has been protesting hard about handing over hard-earned cash of the billionaires back to those in need! Imagine these poor people receiving freebies from the Federal Government, then having the temerity to set up their own businesses! If they are rich enough to start their business with stimulus money, they were rich enough not to deserve the stimulus in the first place.

What exactly are the Democrats doing here? Are they trying to hamper the wealth-growing potential of the donor-class this great nation and instead allow these small, inefficient businesses to pop up everywhere? Such inefficiencies are bad for the United States. An inefficient US will eventually be attacked by our enemies -- this could soon turn into a national security issue.

This has to stop! The establishment must not be allowed to lose control over resources like cheap, captive labour, not even an iota.

So what should the establishment do to stem this rebellion? Oh, I know! Let's get the Fed to allow a spike in inflation -- maybe lasting 12 to 18 months(?). It should be enough to quell the resistance and restore the "natural" order back in the Great American system.


Please don't read the spoiler

Spoiler

Sarcasm, obviously.

However, the prediction within my post is logical/rational. Inflation is likely to rear its ugly head; maybe by early 2022 (?). By then, the speculators and the billionaires would have had enough time to deleverage, reduce their market positions, and effectively shield themselves from the market tumult that follows.

[y66]

Paul Krugman said:

Cowardice, not craziness, is the reason government by the people may soon perish from the earth.

https://www.nytimes....mp-loyalty.html

[mycroft]

 kenberg, on 2021-May-24, 11:13, said:

Yes, but perhaps also part of the problem, part of the reason that the Ds have lost support among people I grew up with, is the underlying insinuation that my father has no right to be satisfied with his life, after all he is white male, or a White Male, and we all know that makes him the problem, not the solution.

This is not a dichotomy, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate" notwithstanding.

Absolutely he is part of the problem, as are you, me, Karen, John Scalzi, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. That does not mean we are not, and especially that we can not be, part of the solution. That depends on whether he, or I, or you, or they, are willing to recognize the situation, acknowledge that however hard their life, or impressive their success was, it would have been that much harder, or that much less successful, if they weren't the acceptable colour for the job, or paid "to raise a family" instead of "for pin money", or had the right kind of "+1" for the social networking, or even "felt like they were the way they looked"; and *use* those advantages to change society so that it's a bit more fair for 2021 people. Or alternatively decide "I got mine; everything else (including the damage caused by "getting mine") is Not My Problem" and, in fact, remain solely not Part of The Solution. Absolutely his choice, and mine, and yours, and theirs. It's just now there are enough people willing to call us on it if we decide "wrong", and "how dare you talk to me like that" doesn't work (as well) any more.

Or even note that however hard it was for them, harder still it would be if their university education wasn't on the GI bill/400h at minimum wage instead of 3 000h, and a house was 7y/median starting salary instead of 30, and work to return America to *those* times, instead of just the "hide your gays/pregnant unmarried teens, and make sure the 'unworthy' can't vote or live in our areas."

Quote

There has to be some reason that the Dems have lost so much support from the working class, and if there is any hope of partially recovering that support it could start by re-thinking through whether the loss of support could at least a little bit be due to how they are portrayed.

What "working class" are you talking about here? Surely it's not the massive proportion of "working class" and "small entrepreneurs" that happen to be Black (and vote Dem) or Latino (and vote Dem unless they still have their social conservative upbringing that trumps the damage the "social conservative party" does to them, or unless they're Cuban refugees) or Asian, or Queens natives? Or are you talking about the "working class" that the newspapers always find when they bring up this story - white, rural, farmer or trucker or owner of the diner that the farmers and truckers go to, in non-coastal states, and 75% male?

Do you see the power of the unmarked here? That when you think "working class" you think 1950s suburban white nuclear family, even though that isn't what working class means (any more, but it wasn't true in the 1950s either)? Note, so do I (I promise that even though I lived two blocks from "International Avenue" for five years, and currently winter in blanking México, the image in my head, until my rational brain pulls out the rolled-up newspaper, looks like me). And this happens all the time, and it's "normal" when you happen to fit the view of "unmarked", and "incongruous" when you don't. Hundreds of times a day as a viewer, hundreds of times a day as the object of view. And each time, it's just that tiny bit easier if you're "normal" rather than "oh really?"...

The question to ask is "should the Dems care about the newspaper's idea of 'working class'?" And yes, sure; but they should also work to ensure the newspapers also cover the real working class that does vote Dem so the next generation of voters don't automatically think the way you, and I, and your father do when they hear "working class family".

And that's really hard, because the media, "leftie" (centre-right, anywhere else in the world) or "rightie" (no comment) or anywhere in between, are run and owned by people who, if they have acknowledged that it's easier for them in the current world (and many of them won't, they "did it all by themselves", cheap education, first house cosigned/bought by parents (and not redlined into nonexistence), able to be with their love in public and all), are quite happy with the way the world works right now, and want it to continue.

[Winstonm]

When 25% of the American population believes Donald Trump is the true president, is that disfunction only crippling or is it fatal?

[johnu]

 Winstonm, on 2021-May-25, 14:32, said:

When 25% of the American population believes Donald Trump is the true president, is that disfunction only crippling or is it fatal?

It could be transformational if we can get the part of America associated with the Confederate States of America, aka Red America, to secede from the USA a 2nd time. They can reinstate twice impeached one term Manchurian President and Grifter in Chief Trump as king/emperor/chancellor/dear leader for life. Then they can live happily forever with their no taxes on the rich, no benefits for the poor FAKE religious oligarchy and progress smoothly back to the pre Civil War days.

Blue America can then get on with moving into the 21st century and keeping all (Blue) Americans afloat and thriving.

[shyams]

 johnu, on 2021-May-25, 15:56, said:

It could be transformational if we can get the part of America associated with the Confederate States of America, aka Red America, to secede from the USA a 2nd time. They can reinstate twice impeached one term Manchurian President and Grifter in Chief Trump as king/emperor/chancellor/dear leader for life. Then they can live happily forever with their no taxes on the rich, no benefits for the poor FAKE religious oligarchy and progress smoothly back to the pre Civil War days.

Blue America can then get on with moving into the 21st century and keeping all (Blue) Americans afloat and thriving.

“Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.”
https://en.wikipedia...er_and_violence

[kenberg]

 mycroft, on 2021-May-25, 13:46, said:

This is not a dichotomy, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate" notwithstanding.

Absolutely he is part of the problem, as are you, me, Karen, John Scalzi, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. That does not mean we are not, and especially that we can not be, part of the solution. That depends on whether he, or I, or you, or they, are willing to recognize the situation, acknowledge that however hard their life, or impressive their success was, it would have been that much harder, or that much less successful, if they weren't the acceptable colour for the job, or paid "to raise a family" instead of "for pin money", or had the right kind of "+1" for the social networking, or even "felt like they were the way they looked"; and *use* those advantages to change society so that it's a bit more fair for 2021 people. Or alternatively decide "I got mine; everything else (including the damage caused by "getting mine") is Not My Problem" and, in fact, remain solely not Part of The Solution. Absolutely his choice, and mine, and yours, and theirs. It's just now there are enough people willing to call us on it if we decide "wrong", and "how dare you talk to me like that" doesn't work (as well) any more.

Or even note that however hard it was for them, harder still it would be if their university education wasn't on the GI bill/400h at minimum wage instead of 3 000h, and a house was 7y/median starting salary instead of 30, and work to return America to *those* times, instead of just the "hide your gays/pregnant unmarried teens, and make sure the 'unworthy' can't vote or live in our areas."

What "working class" are you talking about here? Surely it's not the massive proportion of "working class" and "small entrepreneurs" that happen to be Black (and vote Dem) or Latino (and vote Dem unless they still have their social conservative upbringing that trumps the damage the "social conservative party" does to them, or unless they're Cuban refugees) or Asian, or Queens natives? Or are you talking about the "working class" that the newspapers always find when they bring up this story - white, rural, farmer or trucker or owner of the diner that the farmers and truckers go to, in non-coastal states, and 75% male?

Do you see the power of the unmarked here? That when you think "working class" you think 1950s suburban white nuclear family, even though that isn't what working class means (any more, but it wasn't true in the 1950s either)? Note, so do I (I promise that even though I lived two blocks from "International Avenue" for five years, and currently winter in blanking México, the image in my head, until my rational brain pulls out the rolled-up newspaper, looks like me). And this happens all the time, and it's "normal" when you happen to fit the view of "unmarked", and "incongruous" when you don't. Hundreds of times a day as a viewer, hundreds of times a day as the object of view.

The question to ask is "should the Dems care about the newspaper's idea of 'working class'?" And yes, sure; but they should also work to ensure the newspapers also cover the real working class that does vote Dem so the next generation of voters don't automatically think the way you, and I, and your father do when they hear "working class family".

And that's really hard, because the media, "leftie" (centre-right, anywhere else in the world) or "rightie" (no comment) or anywhere in between, are run and owned by people who, if they have acknowledged that it's easier for them in the current world (and many of them won't, they "did it all by themselves", cheap education, first house cosigned/bought by parents (and not redlined into nonexistence), able to be with their love in public and all), are quite happy with the way the world works right now, and want it to continue.

I am going to at least try, below, to clarify a bit. I think that if it had not been for the pandemic Trump probably would have won re-election. So it is important to understand as much as we can as to why this is so, and whether we can do anything about it.

I suppose when I speak of "losing the working class" I mean "losing the people that I grew up with". So who is that? Well, to put it mildly, my father's parents did not co-sign on a house for him. His mother died not long after he was born, his father died when he was 12, his older brother watched out for him until he finished 8th grade, then he was on his own. Now the point here is not "Oh my, look at what a tough life he had". No, that's not the point at all. Also we did not live in the suburbs, but that doesn't matter. Here is how to understand my father and others like him. He kept things very simple. He had close friends throughout his life. He was trusted, both for his honesty and for his ability. As to his social/political views, mostly he didn't have any. But I will give an example. He contracted with homeowners and with builders to install weatherstripping, mostly working on his own but at busy times would hire help. Often the help was unreliable, showing up late or not fully awake. He found this incomprehensible. I chose the right word. It made no sense to him that a person would accept a job and then blow it.
He came to the US in 1910 and took out citizenship in 1938. Why then. I am embarrassed by how long it took me to figure that out. I was born on Jan1, 1939 to an unwed mother, put in an orphanage, taken home by my to be adoptive parents in march of 1939. My parents aso joined a church. I guess they wanted the adoption to go through.

So here is the point. This is not a guy who will be charging into the Capitol with a club in hand. But if you tell him that he owes his success to being white, I think that's not the way to get his vote. He might acknowledge that there is some truth to the statement, but still, it is not the way to get his vote. now saying that it is a good thing to provide an opportunity to everyone, yes, that I think he would buy into. I never heard him say a bad word about anyone based on race or religion or such things. There is a huge difference between saying "We need to provide opportunity" and saying "Your success is just because you are white, nothing to be proud of at all".

I think my parents, both of them, voted for Eisenhower in 1952 but returned to the Democratic fold in 1956 along with most of the neighborhood. But Jerry, a kid who grew up across the street from me, was a Nixon supporter in 1968.

I am trying in my own way to get Democratic strategists to think about why this was so and what might help. Some people are out of reach so don't reach them Others? Maybe it depends on the approach.

[Winstonm]

Quote

But if you tell him that he owes his success to being white, I think that's not the way to get his vote.

I don't think this is the Democratic message at all. It is discussed in house, sure, but it is not a plank of the party.

The question to solve is why is there such a positive response to being told that America's problems are caused by non-whites.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2021-May-25, 18:54, said:

I don't think this is the Democratic message at all. It is discussed in house, sure, but it is not a plank of the party.

The question to solve is why is there such a positive response to being told that America's problems are caused by non-whites.

I see. It's just discussed in-house, not written up as a plank.

If you think that through, it's a pretty clear summary of the problem.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-May-25, 19:52, said:

I see. It's just discussed in-house, not written up as a plank.

If you think that through, it's a pretty clear summary of the problem.

A lot of people are beginning to acknowledge the reality of white privilege and thinking, hey, that's not fair. That should not cause anyone a problem.

[mycroft]

I wrote a long response to KenBerg's response, but it was *way* too touchy even in the tempered version.

All I'll say is "being able to 'not be political' is both very political and a mark of privilege" - think about who can't afford to 'not be political' if this doesn't make sense.

And the Democrats aren't saying "you owe your success to being white" or "your success is just because you are white, nothing to be proud of at all." Fox News *says* the Democrats are saying that - but they have an agenda. They are saying "your success is an accomplishment you should be proud of! It would have been harder yet if you weren't white; let's try to fix it so that more of this generation of success-runners get the same start you did."

[kenberg]

 mycroft, on 2021-May-25, 22:28, said:

I wrote a long response to KenBerg's response, but it was *way* too touchy even in the tempered version.

All I'll say is "being able to 'not be political' is both very political and a mark of privilege" - think about who can't afford to 'not be political' if this doesn't make sense.

And the Democrats aren't saying "you owe your success to being white" or "your success is just because you are white, nothing to be proud of at all." Fox News *says* the Democrats are saying that - but they have an agenda. They are saying "your success is an accomplishment you should be proud of! It would have been harder yet if you weren't white; let's try to fix it so that more of this generation of success-runners get the same start you did."

Oh, I just can't help myself. I don't watch Fox News. I have never watched Fox News. And I don't watch CBS News for that matter.


I am concerned, seriously worried actually, about the loss of support for Dems among those whose circumstances are similar to the circumstances I grew up in. Rightly or wrongly, I was trying to say a bit about what I think has happened. The loss of support is widely acknowledged. I believe I have some understanding of how that happened. I cannot prove it so I guess it's just my opinion.

I am thinking that the Dems, if they wished, might be able to recover some of that lost support. Biden is perhaps doing some of that. I think there is a lot to be done.


I will use your response to illustrate what I have in mind.
A. "your success is an accomplishment you should be proud of". I am trying to think of when I heard a progressive say something that my father would have taken with that meaning.
B. "more of this generation of success-runners get the same start you did." I have often said, on this thread and in conversation with others, that my hope is that young people can have the opportunities I had. But that is subtly different. When I say that I hope people can have the same opportunities I had, I am expressing gratitude for my good fortune and hope even a feeling of obligation, to see to it that others have this opportunity. If I speak not of gratitude for my opportunity but rather of the opportunity of someone else, I am being presumptuous and aggressive.
C. Fox News: A comment that amounts to "Oh, you are just repeating what Fox News says" is dismissive.


The upshot is this: If the intended message is "Oh, we just want good things for everyone" then the Dems might want to work on their presentation.


We often hear that white males without college are the Trump base. My father was from a different era, so he was a white male that did not go to high school. Many of the adults I knew in my early years fit that description. They mostly voted Dem. It would be nice if they did again.


Winston said about my comments: "<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">I don't think this is the Democratic message at all. It is discussed in house, sure, but it is not a plank of the party." Exactly. Of course it isn't a plank. But in house discussion represents an attitude, and attidudes come across, even if they are not written up as planks.


The white males I grew up with mostly voted D, now they often don't. I am attempting to see what can be done about that.

[pilowsky]

You are probably right.
The approach of the Republican party is to establish an "other" which is bad and which is trying to take away "your" hard-earned (in most cases) not in others gains.
When times are hard, instead of trying to make the cake bigger, or share equitably so that all can survive, some people attempt to grab more than they need.
Even the slime mould displays more altruism than people.

or, as Shakespeare put it:
"No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity.
But I know none, and therefore am no beast."
Richard III
Sadly I just heard that William Shakespeare - the first recipient of the vaccine in the UK has died. Of an unrelated illness.

[Winstonm]

Ken,
Why the Democrats have lost those voters is a big question that would take multiple volumes to address. But a large part is structural - the Republicans operate in lockstep so they have a self re-enforcing message while Democrats are a conglomerate who often disagree among themselves. Lies and misinformation are most effective when repeated continually.

My point? Change requires a kernel of truth to penetrate denial. How to pierce the right wing bubble to plant those seeds is the question.

One final thought: Ta Nihisi Coates showed in The Atlantic that Trump support came from whites across all education and economic strata.

It's a start:

Quote

Mike Lindell—the pillow tycoon who, sadly, still can’t seem to let go of wholly discredited 2020 election-fraud conspiracy theories—has reportedly been thrown out of the Republican Governors Association conference.

This post has been edited by Winstonm: 2021-May-26, 09:17

[mycroft]

I was trying to avoid discussing the failures of the Democratic Party, which are legion and mostly based on "avoiding offending anyone, even the people that will *never* be on their side".

I also am not aiming this at you. But one of the reasons that your generation of white people vote R in large numbers is that R is saying, repeatedly and always-on-message, that they're okay, everything they did was fine, and is still fine, and the progressives are saying "you know, it's not fair that you can hold hands with your wife, but others can't; it's not fair that you got access to housing because you're white that others didn't; it's not fair that you got promotions when 'only here until she gets her Mrs. degree' didn't; oh, and you could get a job right out of high school that you could keep for 30 years and would pay for a family of four to live and buy a house; look, your generation climbed the ladder and pulled it up after you, and still think 'I did it then, so those that can't are just crybabies/not good enough/trying to steal from me'." In other words, doing "normal things" did hurt other people, wasn't fine then, and isn't fine now, and can you please admit it and help us change it? Admitting that you routinely did bad things in the past (and are likely still doing some) is hard, and a lot of people don't want to. And they have a nice welcoming place where they're told they don't have to, it was and is all okay.

Sure, that *sounds* like "you're only there because you got lucky" - and hell, you *are* only there because you got lucky. *And* were smart, and honest, and hard-working, but you got lucky, too (especially if you got your university education on the GI bill in the late '40s or '50s, or early '70s). I got lucky - 20 years before and my upper-middle-class career didn't exist. 20 years before that, my grandfather took a job with a 5%/working day loss rate because it was better than the alternative, and survived his 30 working days. And because afterward, the option was between leaving everything he'd ever known and the mines - and he took the "leave everything but wife and kids" option - so I grew up in rich oil-boom Alberta rather than Thatcherite "oop north". And I found the medical treatment I needed before it killed me. And it didn't cost me everything I and my family ever had - in fact, it cost me nothing but higher taxes. And... That doesn't take away from my achievements, it just would have been harder or impossible in different circumstances.

Of course, there are many in that generation that voted D then for the exact same reason they vote R now, and the move started around LBJ and took off with St. Ronnie. Again, not you, not your father, but there's a lot of them out there.

"You've never heard a progressive say..." in response to a progressive saying just that is - interesting. I wonder how many times this was said before and didn't register (this isn't intended as sarcasm. A large part of the problem is that people really do hear what they want to hear). And I mean, this essay is almost 10 years old now, and isn't exactly obscure. But if you're not looking for it, because it's not affecting you, then sure, you don't hear it. Also, "I don't watch Fox News, or CBS for that matter" - but you don't say where you *do* hear these things. Twice. It's just "people say". And you probably don't know. And maybe, finding out - and finding out where *they* heard these things - would be enlightening.