Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Republican Social Darwinism In The News, With More On The Other Kind of Liberalism

More on yesterday's first post about economic justice, the two definitions of "liberalism"  and why one isn't different from Republican social Darwinism, 2017 .

During Tuesday night’s debate for an open U.S. House seat in Georgia, Republican candidate Karen Handel said that she does not support a “livable wage.”

“This is an example of the fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative: I do not support a livable wage,” she said on Atlanta’s WSB-TV in response to a viewer question about raising the minimum wage. “What I support is making sure that we have an economy that is robust with low taxes and less regulation.”

Handel said that raising the minimum wage could “dramatically” hurt small businesses.

Handel’s opponent, Democrat Jon Ossoff, said that “the minimum wage should be a living wage.” He noted that he supports raising the minimum wage gradually so that businesses can slowly adapt to the increase.

Being against a livable wage is unamerican.  It's more Brit. It's definitely Darwinist.   I wonder how many fundamentalists will be voting for Darwinism and not even know it.   I wonder how many fundamentalists will, contrary to stereotype, vote for Jon Ossoff.  I'll bet you won't read much about them in the news.


And speaking of which, just another reminder that it wasn't the underclass that put Trump in the White House,  more middle class and rich white people many with college educations put the traitorous boob and Putin asset there.

New polling data from the American National Election Study has provided even more ammunition to finally kill off this argument. As detailed by Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu of The Washington Post, white working-class voters comprised only 25 percent of his voters.

Trump’s voters weren’t overwhelmingly poor. In the general election, like the primary, about two thirds of Trump supporters came from the better-off half of the economy. . . .

To look at it another way, among white people without college degrees who voted for Trump, nearly 60 percent were in the top half of the income distribution. In fact, one in five white Trump voters without a college degree had a household income over $100,000. . . .

In short, the narrative that attributes Trump’s victory to a “coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters” just doesn’t square with the 2016 election data. According to the election study, white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters. That’s a far cry from the working-class-fueled victory many journalists have imagined.

Having read a lot of the class snobbery of British socialists and other elite who liked to play the game of Philanthropy for the thrill of looking down on the underclass and advocating their sub-human status, I wonder if this persistent vilification, which runs counter to just about every geeky data crunch of the election I've ever seen is a current, domestic version of the same thing.  It's telling that the fans of this kind of stuff in so many more dubiously published studies are so resistant when it doesn't vilify the underclass.  

And they wonder why the people they love to insult aren't more enthusiastic for their style of leftiness.   I'm still looking at stuff from the recent Left Forum, they've posted Youtubes.  I'm taking those slowly, it's the same old crap recycled yearly since the mid 1960s that claims to be the vanguard of revolution as it sinks ever farther into counterproductive futility and impotence.  It's truly pathological.

No comments:

Post a Comment