mrkelley23 wrote:We had a, um, spirited discussion related to this topic in a class I'm taking about politics last month.
The thesis was that the U.S. Democratic party took a deliberate turn toward identity politics with Bill Clinton, and how that policy now seems to be failing them.
The consensus was that the Dems would be much better served by re-focusing on issues, rather than identity. Hillary doesn't seem to grasp that.
That being said, the notion that this country would be in more danger under a Clinton presidency than the current one is so far disconnected from my view of reality that it scares me just a little.
Let's look at the issues:
Deficit/Debt: Far worse under this presidency.
Identity politics: racial/neo-Nazi attacks up 60% in 2017
Corruption in the White House: Don't know if HRC could be worse, but she would at least be attempting to cover it up.
Foreign policy: Right now, we're attacking allies, defending tinpot dictators, and actively encouraging Russia and China.
I guess you could make a case that immigration issues are better. Other than that, I have a hard time seeing it.
This pretty much aligns with a recent conversation I had with a couple of friends. Granted - we didn't spend MUCH time talking about it - we had people stuff to catch up on but it was a bit of our conversation.
All of us grew up in Dem/union households.
One is a former GOP moderate who is now an independent (I
think she voted or Johnson but am not sure). The other is a registered Dem who still votes Dem most of the time but was willing to give Trump a chance and is beginning to regret it (split ticket - voted Trump, Katie McGinty for Senate and her Dem Congressman). And me, who held her nose to vote for Hillary because I dislike Trump more (and the more she says stupid crap like above, the less I like her).
One of the Trump voter's concerns was the seeming inability of Trump to stay consistent on anything. His changing his mind so often, sometimes in the same day.
For the independent, it was tactical -- she (like I) thought Trump should have started with infrastructure because, unlike so many issues, most people agree we need investment in infrastructure. It's the wheres and the how much that splits people - but both of us felt an honest dialogue might have benefited everyone.
Hillary Clinton has this unfortunate tendency to stick her foot up her mouth, up to about mid-pantleg. Just be quiet. There is that air of noblesse oblige without the sense of real responsibility that comes with that. And, flock is right, that IS a prejudice.
(Unlike flock, however, I DO think Trump's bigotry is real. His long-standing practice of treating local glaziers and woodworking businesses as personal servants and not craftsmen working at his casinos - by either not paying them or refusing to pay in full - smacked of a contempt for blue-collar workers that equals anything Hillary Clinton has said/done. We are talking three/four generation family businesses - not some fly-nights. And there's the Fair Housing stuff from the 1970s and 1980s. So please don't tell this janitor's daughter that Donald Trump loves the working man.)
Of course, as a Tom Harkin delegate in 1992, I was never a fan of the DLC wing of the party. I did meet the man once - he shook the hands of about 50 aides and said something good/nice about a piece of legislation or the boss or the committee. That kind of memory is a talent - I am sorry it came with someone who couldn't live up to the promise.
As far as issues vs identity - I think the results of the PA 18th special election will be interesting. Conor Lamb has specifically stayed away from the media darling crap that really ended up hurting Jon Ossoff. He's an issues guy in an issues district.
Glad to see you back, flock.