Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

GOOD NEWS 2020: Got rid of Trump ... BAD NEWS 2021: No Trump menace to rail against

#1
C C Offline
Democrats' disastrous showing with the working class & voters of color in VA and NJ is a big warning sign for 2022
https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat...ng-2021-11

EXCERPT (Sonam Sheth & Eliza Relman): . . . Unlike the 2020 presidential race, the 2021 elections weren't a referendum on Donald Trump, and one Democratic pollster who requested anonymity to speak candidly said they showed the five-year-long trend of Democrats losing appeal among working-class voters and voters of color is only getting worse.

"Non-white voters, it seems, trended heavily against Democrats compared to 2020, which was already a very bad showing for Democrats," he said. "A lot of people wanted to wave away the fact that Republicans were doing better with non-white voters. It's very ideologically inconvenient." (MORE - missing details)


Gubernatorial elections in Virginia & New Jersey suggest that Republicans’ appeal to voters has strengthened without Trump.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colum...-democrats

EXCERPTS: . . . But what if the establishment no longer needs him [Trump] for the votes? “I’ll just say it: Glenn Youngkin should seriously consider running for president in 2024,” the anti-Trump conservative Times columnist Ross Douthat tweeted, maybe a little breathlessly, on Tuesday evening...

[...] It is beginning to seem that Biden’s Presidency is in trouble. In the course of the summer, his public approval collapsed [...] “Biden has nearly the worst approval ratings of any president on record at this stage of his presidency,” the Times election guru Nate Cohn tweeted late last night. “Just something to keep in mind if you’re struggling to understand what happened tonight.”

Exactly why what seemed a popular Presidency has lost so much support has been hard to pinpoint, even for professionals. There are mundane factors (gas prices spiked this summer) and ideological ones (the Republicans have been raising a ruckus over progressive positions on schools, crime, and homelessness). But the scale of the votes last night hinted at a simpler dynamic, in which Democrats control most political institutions but have been unable to effectively direct them.

[...] Biden’s coalition suddenly seems fragile. Without the soldering presence of the fear of Trump, it is vulnerable to being pulled apart ... Tuesday’s elections were off-year contests in just two states. But they supplied a point of skepticism.

[...] generational change may be less powerful, at least for now, than the pattern of education polarization, in which voters with a college education are trending toward the Democrats and those without one toward the Republicans... (MORE - details)
Reply
#2
C C Offline
Cynic (part one): Whites and non-whites without college education equate to the traditional proles that the Culheg ideology originally depended on as its base. Accordingly, it's suicide to perversely turn around and disparage, ridicule, and dump that broad population group -- that was an ally for so many generations -- for fringe social justice like drag queens. (Merely a facetious nod to the focus of that Italian political cartoon that sarcastically depicted the ironic climax of the evolution of European leftism over the decades.)

The Culheg membership can't consist majority wise of only the smug sainthood of internal-gazing intellectuals and still be effective. It historically needed waves of grunt crusaders recruited from the working class to advance, and still does. With the primary emphasis propaganda-wise centering on the needs of the proletariat: Returning to that. (Culhegs can still be concerned with other social justice causes, but not exclusively that, as in this current day of collectively kicking the proles to the curb as primitive "haters" and subterranean Morlocks.)
Reply
#3
C C Offline
Cynic (part two): Despite being the original motivation for social justice and the foundation of the leftist machine, the proles are ultimately exploited by the intellectual class. Just as the opportunistic nobility slash aristocracy of old did, and the later capitalistic agencies and European colonialism that leftist intellectuals (philosopher kings) targeted to implement their rise to administrative status via revolution.

Orwell illustrated this also in the speculative fiction of "1984", via how the proles eventually return to being regarded by the Party elites themselves as backward, ignorant animals (note a similar contempt expressed by coastal academics today toward the growing segment of the non-college educated or working-class population turning against their utopian promises)
:

http://george-orwell.org/1984/16.html

Diversity of the intellectual class, a necessary component for the deceptive appearance of its lofty moral facade: [...] In principle, membership of these three groups is not hereditary. The child of Inner Party parents is in theory not born into the Inner Party. Admission to either branch of the Party is by examination, taken at the age of sixteen. Nor is there any racial discrimination, or any marked domination of one province by another. Jews, Negroes, South Americans of pure Indian blood are to be found in the highest ranks of the Party, and the administrators of any area are always drawn from the inhabitants of that area. In no part of Oceania do the inhabitants have the feeling that they are a colonial population ruled from a distant capital.

[...] Below Big Brother comes the Inner Party, its numbers limited to six millions, or something less than 2 per cent of the population of Oceania.
Below the Inner Party comes the Outer Party, which, if the Inner Party is described as the brain of the State, may be justly likened to the hands.
Below that come the dumb masses whom we habitually refer to as 'the proles', numbering perhaps 85 per cent of the population.
In the terms of our earlier classification, the proles are the Low: for the slave population of the equatorial lands who pass constantly from conqueror to conqueror, are not a permanent or necessary part of the structure.


https://george-orwell.org/1984/6.html

If there is hope, wrote Winston, it lies in the proles.

If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. Its enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. [...] But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet...


And yet it doesn't happen because the proletariat is indoctrinated with the belief that the Party is their champion and liberator, their social justice benefactor. To wit:

The Party claimed, of course, to have liberated the proles from bondage. Before the Revolution they had been hideously oppressed by the capitalists, they had been starved and flogged, women had been forced to work in the coal mines (women still did work in the coal mines, as a matter of fact), children had been sold into the factories at the age of six. But simultaneously, true to the Principles of doublethink, the Party taught that the proles were natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals, by the application of a few simple rules. In reality very little was known about the proles.

In today's social-justice speak, the contemporary proles are collectively denigrated as racists, misogynists, homophobes, violent weaponists, etc ... With their non-white constituents berated as race and ethnic traitors, sexist malefactors, LGBT traitors, feminism traitors, etc.
Reply
#4
confused2 Offline
One of the problems of society (any society) is that the proles (non-party members and implicitly 'the poor') the undeserving poor have at least one thing in common with the rich and that is that however much they have they always want more. The more subtle a society is about the way it keeps the poor poor and the rich rich the more harmonious that society is likely to be.

In this sceptred isle we encapsulate rags to riches in the story of Dick Whittington and his cat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Whitt...nd_His_Cat
We learn early on that riches and the willingness to sell your cat/grandmother are so interwoven that we almost accidentally choose poverty without even considering the possibilities of (say) money laundering which does so much to keep our economy afloat.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  2021 - The Year of the Quit Leigha 1 91 Dec 8, 2021 10:42 PM
Last Post: Secular Sanity
  2020's existentialist turn, much due to pandemic C C 0 141 Sep 6, 2020 01:27 AM
Last Post: C C
  Trump lashes out at Fox News over latest poll Leigha 41 2,639 Aug 7, 2019 11:02 PM
Last Post: Syne
  How Google Maps Almost Got Me Killed Secular Sanity 51 7,941 Oct 9, 2018 02:16 PM
Last Post: Secular Sanity
  Things that got me thru my childhood Magical Realist 13 1,077 Jul 11, 2018 10:21 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)