Trump's strong support / Democrats' lack of support, by white women

[Subduction Zone]

Ever consider cutting some of the government imposed
costs & restrictions? Eg, cutting permit fees, allowing higher
density housing (which is also greener than low density).

Sie of units is a factor too that is at times unreasonably limited. There are some very efficient living spaces that are quite small by even the studio apartment standard that could half housing cost but yet they cannot be made in some cities that need affordable housing the most.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sie of units is a factor too that is at times unreasonably limited. There are some very efficient living spaces that are quite small by even the studio apartment standard that could half housing cost but yet they cannot be made in some cities that need affordable housing the most.

In my town occupancy limits are based upon size, zoning,
family relationship, room shape, room size, variance board
granted exceptions, fraternal organization status, & perhaps
other things I've yet to run across.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I certainly noticed it at the time. I can only assume the DNC looked the other way, as per usual.

I don't remember hearing about any scandals, unlike Clinton.

 

[Kooky]

Rent control....remove profit incentive, & there are
problems....
- Disinventive to maintain units.
- Disincentive to build new housing.
- Corruption becomes common, eg, tenants renting units
for only occasional occupancy because artificially low cost
is cheaper than hotels. (I have relatives doing this.)

What's better?
UBI & a free market.

Sure, if you want to disproportionally profit off peope's inelastic needs and offload all costs as externalities to the government, a free market & UBI is the way to go. Maybe make it a hattrick and abolish taxes for landlords, as well.

Alternatively, you could instead lower housing prices by requiring all new units to have a portion allotted to the poor and destitute, and ban people from renting out regular apartments as AirBnBs (and/or slap them with extra taxes on top of it).

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe make it a hattrick and abolish taxes for landlords, as well.

Brilliant suggestions like this say so much about you.

 

[Stevicus]

Triangulation - the idea that the deciding political factor was the middle-class political center, which had been captured by Reagan's anti-government rhetoric and anti-labor policies, and therefore, the DP's success would lie in chasing after that elusive center with strongly centrist pro-corporate policies, as the left was already securely in their camp and so no longer needed to be courted.

(Of course, another important factor here was the apparent collapse of socialism as a viable political alternative, creating the possibly correct impression that leaning into anti-labor rhetoric and anti-labor policies would not lose support among the working class any more. We know that this still holds true, as fascism and xenophobia have superseded socialist pro-labor rhetoric as the dominant political rhetorical strategy to garner working class support, and leftist rhetoric has now become the domain of educated Bildungsbürger middle class and the White urban precariat)

Yes, this is a reasonably accurate assessment of what went wrong with the Democrats. My observation was that, by the 1980s, they lost much of the fire and passion for justice that they once had. Carter's administration was characterized by ineffectiveness and malaise, and Mondale and Dukakis were no better as candidates. Reagan was called the "Teflon President" because no one had the backbone to stand up to him.

Reagan was also backed by the so-called "Moral Majority," which led to a resurgence in evangelism and a religious-inspired backlash against what they perceived as "permissiveness" and "immorality" of the 60s and 70s. Some conservative economists and Reagan Democrats seemed to oppose the religious right, but by supporting Reagan, they had jumped into bed with them.

 

[Kooky]

Yes, this is a reasonably accurate assessment of what went wrong with the Democrats. My observation was that, by the 1980s, they lost much of the fire and passion for justice that they once had. Carter's administration was characterized by ineffectiveness and malaise, and Mondale and Dukakis were no better as candidates. Reagan was called the "Teflon President" because no one had the backbone to stand up to him.

Reagan was also backed by the so-called "Moral Majority," which led to a resurgence in evangelism and a religious-inspired backlash against what they perceived as "permissiveness" and "immorality" of the 60s and 70s. Some conservative economists and Reagan Democrats seemed to oppose the religious right, but by supporting Reagan, they had jumped into bed with them.

I think Reagan stood atop a serious sea change in US political discourse and political sentiments. On his watch, conservative propaganda pioneered many of the canards and conspiracy theories that are still in currency these days, such as "welfare queens" and general anti-welfare sentiment, anti-unionism, the idea that taxation is inherently bad, resurgence of racism in the guise of moral panics against "inner city crime", and the general focus on the fears and needs of White middle class suburban units as the average American voters.

I think the spread of suburban housing influenced a lot of it, as did the decline of manufacturing, and the associated prominence of labor unions. We also shouldn't discount the influence the counter culture had on elite self perception - a lot of the Reagan and Clinton era rhetoric can also be seen as a conservative backlash against the social change brought by the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s.

 

[Stevicus]

For what it's worth, I don't believe either of these policies would bring down capitalism or even put much of a dent into it, not when so many jobs can be either automated or trivially outsourced to countries with much worse wage levels than the US, and the largest and wealthiest corporations and billionaires can trivially circumvent most tax laws at leisure.

I agree that neither policy would bring down capitalism, although the capitalists and imperialists of the United States seem reckless enough that they'll probably bring themselves down. They've been advocating for a predatory economic system based in social Darwinism. I think this has led to an ideological impasse in America where people want to have their cake and eat it, too. I've noticed this as a common element to most of the political rifts and dissension we've been seeing lately.

It's also true that many jobs continue to be outsourced to countries with much lower wages, a process which I would liken to colonialism and imperialism. Even liberals ostensibly support policies which have led to Americans benefiting from sweatshop labor overseas. It reminds me of a line from Apocalypse Now: "It was the way we had over here of living with ourselves. We'd cut them in half with a machine gun and give them a Band-Aid."

 

[Stevicus]

I think Reagan stood atop a serious sea change in US political discourse and political sentiments. On his watch, conservative propaganda pioneered many of the canards and conspiracy theories that are still in currency these days, such as "welfare queens" and general anti-welfare sentiment, anti-unionism, the idea that taxation is inherently bad, resurgence of racism in the guise of moral panics against "inner city crime", and the general focus on the fears and needs of White middle class suburban units as the average American voters.

I think the spread of suburban housing influenced a lot of it, as did the decline of manufacturing, and the associated prominence of labor unions. We also shouldn't discount the influence the counter culture had on elite self perception - a lot of the Reagan and Clinton era rhetoric can also be seen as a conservative backlash against the social change brought by the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s.

I agree with most of this, although I would add that Reagan was also a Cold Warrior who thought he was dealing with an "Evil Empire." They all had a certain McCarthyesque aspect to their overall mindset and worldview, even if they knew enough to refrain from the wild accusations and reckless character assassination associated with McCarthy.

And yes, there was definitely a backlash against the social change brought about by the civil rights and anti-war movements. I think there was also a fair bit of "activist fatigue," you might say. By the mid to late 70s, most of the hippies had either grown up, burned out, or just weren't into the whole protest thing anymore. There was a certain level of cynicism and nihilism which pervaded the culture, as well as a certain defeatist attitude of "there's nothing we can do." The ensuing political apathy, coupled with a resurgence in consumerism, made it all the more easy for the Reaganites to control the direction.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Is it concerning that statistically, about as many white women tend to vote for Trump in elections as the Democrat candidates who ran against him? And could this be the result of Democrat runners ignoring the needs of white women? If so, how are they doing so?

It was 45/47 in the 2020 election. Which seems to be about even.

Perhaps I shall have to read the thread since there is no way the question hasn't been asked. But what are the "needs of white women" that aren't being addressed that was addressed by Trump? On women's issues its 0/10 for Trump at the very least. Is the Karen population growing?

 

[Friend of Mara]

It's really simple.

Trump had accomplished more promises than Democrat's did, so naturally people are going to the person that keeps more promises in their interests than those that break them.

Ah great promises like *checks list* Keeping Guantamo Bay open, limit legal immigration, refusing to say "happy holidays" in a multicultural nation, defund planned parenthood and pull the US from the Parris Climate Accord.

Yup. Sounds about right.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ah great promises like *checks list* Keeping Guantamo Bay open, limit legal immigration, refusing to say "happy holidays" in a multicultural nation, defund planned parenthood and pull the US from the Parris Climate Accord.

Yup. Sounds about right.

It is for people who don't share your views.

 

[Friend of Mara]

It is for people who don't share your views.

Well obviously. However some of these feel a little hard to defend even if its just a difference of opinion.

 

[Kooky]

It is for people who don't share your views.

Did you at one point claim to be in favor of legal immigration and against torture, or am I seriously mistaken?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Is it concerning that statistically, about as many white women tend to vote for Trump in elections as the Democrat candidates who ran against him? And could this be the result of Democrat runners ignoring the needs of white women? If so, how are they doing so?

It could be that white women recognize and appreciate strong men.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It could be that white women recognize and appreciate strong men.

Well Trump ain't one of 'em.
He's the whiniest man-baby I've ever seen.

 

[Kooky]

It could be that white women recognize and appreciate strong men.

That doesn't seem to be born out by observable facts.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Well Trump ain't one of 'em.
He's the whiniest man-baby I've ever seen.

He's just pointing out corruption and injustice when he sees it.

You wouldn't see it as whining if you agreed with him.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

That doesn't seem to be born out by observable facts.

Perspective is everything.

 

[metis]

He's just pointing out corruption and injustice when he sees it.

Then he should actually do a LOT of introspection!