I think I’m spending too much time paying attention to national politics. Following the day-to-day goings on in Washington is like a psychic toxin. I’m not sure if it’s the same as it ever was, but with the hype machine dialed up to eleven or if our country is having some significant convulsions. (The fact of inconsistent wave elections in 2006, 2008, and 2010 suggest the latter.) Nationally, I have little use for anyone. The Congressional Republicans are nuts, and the Democrats are largely spineless. On the state level, it’s better; though the Republicans are moving quickly in the wrong direction and the Democrats continue to select Pat Bauer as their leader. And, on the local level, I like my politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike); they are focused on making sure the cities and county function fairly well — getting precious little assistance from state and local politicians in the process.
Anyway, contemplating the support the national parties have currently, Digby had a post up that I can only find in my reader now – not on the actual site. But, he she noted how the racial divide had played out in the past few years. The Republicans have increased their support among poor, young whites substantially. Digby offers an explanation:
Suppose you’re a 28-year-old straight white guy who graduated high school as a D student, and now work a blue or pink collar dead-end job private sector job somewhere. You’re vaguely Christian, but not a fervent believer. You’ve got a live-in girlfriend, and maybe a kid on the way. What does the Democratic Party offer you?
Not much. The entire Party is obsessed right now with defending Medicare and Social Security, two programs that you don’t think you’ll ever see anyway, and age 65 seems like it might as well be 300 years from now–not that you figure you’ll be able to retire regardless. The only unions the Party seems to care much about are in the public sector: people who make way more money and have better job security than you do for about equivalent labor. That makes you resentful and wonder why your tax dollars are supporting them. The Democrats keep saying that a college education and universal Pre-K are the golden bullets to solve our economic problems. You don’t believe that and for very good reason, but it doesn’t help you anyway: you have neither the time nor money nor interest to go back to school. And your kid? You’re too worried about keeping her fed to bother about Pre-K. And besides, your school district sucks, and just seems to a huge money sinkhole that never gets better. You have no problem with the Latinos you went to school with, and you know some really nice undocumented families, but you’re also afraid for your job security. The wars overseas seem to keep going no matter who is in power, which makes the military less than attractive as an option. You’ve got nothing in common with the crazy evangelicals you know, and you have no problem with gay people, but your liberal friends who went to college seem pretty condescending and know-it-all to you, which makes you less than thrilled to be associated with them.
Why should you vote for a Democrat? Good question.
He She goes on to explain that, back in the 30s – 60s, the Democrats had a solid economic message for a guy like that. Come with us, and we’ll do something for the workers; don’t support the other guys, they’re heartless corporate toadies. Now, the economic message is more like, come with us and things will still get worse, just more slowly. And, we’re also corporate toadies, but less so.
The national Democrats seem to be back to the Tom Daschle era of the early 2000s, caught in a perpetual cringe, probably having at least something to do with a desire to make out like Evan Bayh after you retire. That’s why I found Howard Dean to be so inspiring back in 2003-2004; not because his policies were especially liberal — they weren’t — but because he was unapologetic and clear when he spoke about those policies.
What did you think about the President’s message last night? I hope he doesn’t give away the store. And I need him and other Dems getting more clear in their message as you stated. That’s a really attractive part of Dean. And part of why the corporate toadies destroyed him.
He has it all backward. You start talking tough, demanding the moon up front; then you slow walk it toward a deal. He bids against himself from the beginning.
“Digby” is a female…
Thanks for the correction, Wilson.
while we’re on the subject of corrections, the post doug’s quoting was written by thereisnospoon, not by digby herself.
It is sad to say, but a person like that is probably not very into or aware of politics.
More importantly, I don’t think either party, or any possible party, offers anything for someone like that.
We are in the middle of a huge worldwide economic trend. Communism is over, socialism is over, and countries across the world are quickly integrating themselves into world markets.
What does this mythical 28 year old blue collar dude have that, say, the equivalent 28 year old in China or India doesn’t? Believe it or not, he’s probably better educated, but not enough to make up the difference in wages.
People want to know why US corporations are sitting on so much cash but won’t hire. That’s the reason: the future is not in the US, and corporations can hire in developing countries for less than in the US. The loss in productivity is made up for in lower wages.
This also explains why college educated folks are doing well. If you can move up the value chain and NOT have to compete directly with employees in developing countries, you can do very well. If nothing else, worldwide markets provide larger economies of scale than every before. And China and Indian still have awful education systems.
Like I said, I don’t think either political party has the answer for how to compete with low wage countries without lowering US wages. I don’t think there is an answer. Wages need to fall.
With that being said, Democrats are slightly less realistic that Republicans. At least Republicans pay lip service to lowering costs and making it easier for Americans to compete.
If it’s the need to compete with foreigners that is depressing wages, why not throw up trade barriers? Do we all get more out of free trade than we lose or is it just the folks with sufficient capital on the plus side of that equation?
A problem with trade barriers is that they work both ways – and part of our standard of living is based on imported goods.
I think you have a good point about paying too much attention to national politics – or maybe the wrong kind of attention. There seems to be a tendency to view politics as a team-based spectator sport, with winners and losers, rather than as a mechanism to maximize the common good.
That is, many folks just want their side to “win”, without considering things like long term effects and unintended consequences. One example would be the luxury tax on yacht construction – the side that wanted it “won” – but they probably didn’t mean to cripple the boat yards that were affected.
I think this explains why we see the charming tactics of modern politics – if you view it as a zero-sum game for high stakes, there’s not much that our political class won’t do. In that area, what I’m seeing (and not seeing) about the DOJ and ‘Fast and Furious’, et. al., kind of disturbs me.
Enough rambling – enjoy your weekend, and work to do good and do well where you are.
I do get that about the trade barriers. I just wonder if we can have a notion of whether we would lose more than we gained by throwing them up. And some of that depends on what the definition of “we” is.
I’ll be honest, I don’t know the answer to your question, Doug. Everything you read is economics about trade barriers is negative. However, historically, during the last world trade explosion, in the 19th Century, the US had trade barriers, and we did well economically.
On the other hand, if there is job growth in “nontradable” sectors, how can we increase job growth in these sectors? Perhaps we should be trying to take down artificial barriers to job growth like professional licensing and educational credentialism.
Personally, I go back to the idea that statistics show that income is highly correlated with work and education. Thus, if the mythical 28 year old is not happy with his income, he should know what he needs to do: get more education, work more, and get his wife a job.
The law of comparative advantage does work unless there is interference. There is a whole lot of reasons for fair and equal international trade. There is also a problem with wages and living standards as to equity around the world, thus developing nations (and those wishing to be such) do have low wages (even including virtural slave labor). Technology is a huge factor in lose of many what have been good paying jobs in that often when improved efficiency through use of technology is allowed, that is absent inhibiting union rules, when business do reduce people they both delay and replace worker employment. Whatever it may ultimately be, the U.S. will need to specialize in whatever goods and services they may produce that there is a world market to develop.
The discussion on need for education (and this covers many facets) will need to a continuing thing for most people as the world is simply not a static thing (as it seems some would like it to be.)