No, I'm not suggesting that they're going to start a socialist revolution...stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 11:12 amWell, it may be true, but I don't really see how that realization is going to make a difference to either West Virginians or Mexicans. Are you suggesting that they are going to rise up and create some sort of socialist utopia where no one goes hungry? Of course, it's not going to happen. In the real world, what West Virginians need is jobs, which is the same thing that Mexicans need. Hopefully, the leader of the U.S. will do what he/she can to help West Virginians have jobs, and the leader of Mexico will do the same for Mexicans. If some Mexicans want to immigrate to the U.S., or some West Virginians want to immigrate to Mexico, then they should go through the proper procedure to see if they can make that happen, but there is no fundamental human right for a citizen of one country to become a citizen of a different country.Desert wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 8:58 amWow, that's a beautiful point. So true.moda0306 wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 8:40 am "The right," (meaning the voters in this instance), certainly are willing to explore anti-establishment rhetoric or ideas when it fits their tribal identity in the moment. But it certainly isn't a matter of principal. As soon as someone they don't identify with starts to rock the boat, their a "militant leftist," or a commie, or whathaveyou... and this isn't just a policy preference issue.
If a "leftist" had been challenging Romney on his take that Russia is a threat, every Republican I know with the exception of one or two that are truly independent would have responded with standard Republican talking points. That's really all they do. They're not "mavericks" unless it's against a liberal.
Mind-you, I'm not saying my liberal friends are really much different at all. The ones who were anti-war in 2003-2008 were all-but-silent during Obama's years. They felt (as conservatives do now) that if they yield to the left it will weaken them against "the right," which is a far bigger threat (in their minds). And so the game goes.
There are some areas where conservatives will embrace some anti-establishment ideas more consistently, but usually they're the ones that are in no way a threat to the deep state or corporatocracy...
- Self-interested total war hawkery (Trump's idea to take all the oil out of Iraq for instance)
- Anti-anti-racism, soft-to-heavy xenophobia
- Masculinity and Christianity as cultural value drivers
- Low taxes and eliminating social welfare programs
There are probably more, but these aren't a threat to corporate profits and the plutocracy. In fact, the fact that these issues are taking up so much of our time in debate and works to divide lower-to-middle class folks along cultural lines is probably the biggest tool the plutocrats have. If poor West Virginians realized they have a ton more in common with poor Mexicans than Donald Trump or Mitt Romney, and identified themselves as such, it would be a huge threat to the plutocracy.
You sort of said it... that these people could be more concerned with their governments paying more attention to what is going to benefit their economic situation the most...
Which would mean, first of all, that they would be far-less concerned with guns and cultural issues like gay marriage, as well as patriotism virtue signalling, and issues of freedom of travel of "those people" (aka, illegal immigration). Further, they'd be more concerned with things like universal healthcare, universal basic income, local environmental issues, etc, as well as upending the most nefarious aspect of trade deals, which isn't necessarily tariffs, but the "corporate and investor rights" aspects that allow owners of the means of production to better play countries' workers against each other.
I'm not saying these are all the correct opinions to have, but they're certainly more consistent and reasonable than them throwing their lot in with the ilk of (insert almost any Republican politician here including Trump) to supposedly help them retain some cultural superiority while they lose any semblance of economic footing.
But what happens instead is this form of "wage-earner nationalism" gets takes an unnecessary and massively unproductive xenophobic turn without any actual concrete material concessions to the interests of the lower/lower-middle class, which Plutocrats love, as they know as long as they can invest lucratively around the world, keeping labor from being able to move freely isn't that much of a burden to their profits.
They're rearranging deck chairs on the titanic because it feels better than embracing certain leftist ideals that include a multi-cultural element.
