Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[TomUS]

I'll believe American intelligence agencies before I'll believe Trump or Putin. Trump Jong-un is used to being surrounded by yes men. He's pissed when told what he doesn't want to hear.

 

[J Ed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/style/privilege-middle-class-family-childhood.html

With all the talk of the white working class having catapulted our incoming president to power, I’ve been pondering my own status, past and present, on the socioeconomic ladder. Admittedly now a card-carrying member of the liberal and coastal elite so despised by Donald J. Trump’s core constituency, I didn’t always see myself this way. But then, whether you consider yourself lower, middle or upper has a good deal to do with whom you’re standing next to.

Attending public school in the late ’70s and early ’80s in suburban New Jersey, I don’t think the subject of social class ever really occurred to me, except in the context of the BBC productions (“Upstairs Downstairs,” “Brideshead Revisited”) that my mother liked to watch on PBS. The town I grew up in was made up of what was once known as White Ethnics (Irish-, Italian- and Jewish Americans), and pretty much everyone I knew was middle class. There were a handful of families who were less than that, and I remember classmates whispering in the hall that so-and-so’s family was “on welfare.” But even the poor kids hung out at the same recreation center as we did, played on the same softball teams and appeared at the same roller-disco and pizza birthday parties.

That all changed when, in the mid-’80s, I began attending a private high school in a nearby town, with the help of financial aid. On the event of their 17th birthdays, my classmates would appear in the school parking lot in brand-new Audis and Mercedes coups, Yaz’s “Upstairs at Eric’s” blasting from their state-of-the-art sound systems. Though my best friend at the time drove a black Chrysler LeBaron convertible with a butterscotch leather interior, she also lived in a beautiful limestone mansion from the 1920s that, not unlike Castle Howard — the real-life setting for the “Brideshead” adaptation — sat at the end of a long white-gravel driveway behind elaborately rococo iron gates. I’ll never forget the time I struggled to back out of her cul-de-sac in my parents’ beat-up Ford Fairmont station wagon, nearly knocking over one of the giant topiary-filled urns that flanked the entrance.

The incident didn’t simply make me feel incompetent; on some more primal level, it confirmed for me some confused sense of myself as a hapless intruder and perpetual outsider who would never be fully embraced by the people who mattered.

It was true that my family possessed a fraction of the wealth that my best friend had. But although my freelance classical musician and writer-collagist parents made a modest income, they were far from destitute. For one thing, they owned their own home. For another, after my paternal grandparents died, they inherited a 1760 Guadagnini violin — unwisely sold for a song soon after, but still. We also made multiple house-swapping trips to Europe during my childhood and were part-owners of a summer house in Vermont

What I failed to recognize was that, to a certain extent, my parents’ low-budget artistic lifestyle was a choice. Both of them looked down on the unabashed conspicuous consumption that came to signify the Reagan era. Yet their apparent need to purchase the cheapest cars/televisions/sneakers/even cuts of meat filled me with resentment, shame and longing. For a while, it even convinced me that I hailed from the lower end of the middle class.

At the same time, I was aware that my parents were huge snobs, albeit of the cultural variety. My father regularly used the term “good music” to differentiate classical music from popular forms of the art. My mother exhibited disdain for people who mispronounced the names of great artists and composers; for instance, omitting the middle-T sound from Mozart. I was almost as embarrassed about my parents’ arcane snobbery as I was about the fact that they owned one car and a dilapidated one at that.

My perspective changed in college, when I discovered the work of a French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu. In his groundbreaking book, “Distinction,” Bourdieu argued that class status was not merely a measure of money in the bank, but an accumulation of signs. Although my parents ate generic-brand potato chips, they possessed what Bourdieu called “cultural capital” — both what he termed the institutional kind (degrees from elite colleges) and the embodied type (they spoke English with the “correct” accent).

Yet, living in New York in the first years after college, where I worked as a temp secretary and wrote half-realized novels, I again migrated toward the fiction that I was going it alone in the big city. It was both true and untrue. Unlike most of my friends, I got almost no financial help from my parents. But they never would have left me to starve. Perhaps most significant, my family and education had provided me with a wealth of pre-existing connections to the media establishment and, no less important, the social acumen to make use of them. Even so, in my mid-20s, when a handful of my city friends began buying two-bedroom apartments in the West Village — despite making just $24,000 a year as editorial and production assistants — it confirmed my sense of myself as everyone’s “poor relation.”

It was the man who became my husband, who writes about economics and politics and who grew up in an indisputably working-class family in the north of England, who hammered home for me that all along I had been a bona fide member of the bourgeoisie. It was a classification that was even harder to dispute when, 13 years ago, true to the Brooklyn cliché, we took our accumulated savings and bought a dilapidated brownstone, marking us as certified gentrifiers as well.

My relative privilege came into even starker relief seven years ago — and I began to appreciate the extent to which privilege and deprivation are passed down from generation to generation — when our older daughter began attending a rare mixed-race-and-income public elementary school in the neighborhood. At classroom celebrations, in addition to lawyers and literature professors, I found myself in the company of transit workers and security guards. Some lived in housing projects, a few in homeless shelters.

I’ve been disheartened to discover the extent to which, in a mixed environment, the children themselves seem to self-segregate by socioeconomic status. Even at a young age, the fields of reference between the haves and have-nots are apparently too different. Conversely, children from similar backgrounds, even similarly employed parents, somehow sniff one another out. My younger daughter had been in kindergarten only three weeks when she announced she had made a new best friend and asked me to schedule a play date. To my never-ending amazement, she’d managed to home in on the only other child in her class of 25 whose parents worked in book publishing.

Of course, the most privileged segment of society does not use the public schools at all, a fact I learned as a teenager and then all over again when a good 50 percent of my parent-friends in the city began enrolling their children in private schools where, thanks to exorbitant tuition costs and selection processes built in part on pre-existing connections, the children of the well-off are guaranteed to interact almost exclusively with other members of the lucky in birth. (Even those who receive financial aid, as my family once did, tend to pay in the thousands, an impossibility for most families.)

Not that reproducing one’s social access and class advantage is an oft-stated goal by those who send their children to such places. Instead, one tends to hear about the “small class sizes” or “amazing theater program.” But these perks constitute only half the equation. The other half goes unmentioned. For if there’s one taboo subject left in the United States, it may be the existence of a class system as closed and inflexible as the one my husband left across the Atlantic.

I thought that this piece might be informative and interesting, given that we have had a few people on this thread though one in particular who argues that somehow class functions differently in America.

 

[maomao]

I'll believe American intelligence agencies before I'll believe Trump or Putin.

Why would you believe any of them?

But yeah. CIA. Great bunch of guys.

 

[TomUS]

Why would you believe any of them?

But yeah. CIA. Great bunch of guys.

Why wouldn't I?

And I expect US intelligence are a great bunch of guys (& gals) in that they often do their jobs quite well.

 

[maomao]

Why wouldn't I?

And I expect US intelligence are a great bunch of guys (& gals) in that they often do their jobs quite well.

I was going to start Googling CIA atrocities but if you're starting from that position I don't think we share enough common ground to have a reasonable conversation on the subject.

 

[J Ed]

Why wouldn't I?

And I expect US intelligence are a great bunch of guys (& gals) in that they often do their jobs quite well.

Genuine Q, would you like it if the CIA intervened and got rid of Trump?

 

[Casually Red]

Why wouldn't I?

And I expect US intelligence are a great bunch of guys (& gals) in that they often do their jobs quite well.

Is that a trump wig that star spangled pimpernell has on his noggin ?

 

[maomao]

Is that a trump wig that star spangled pimpernell has on his noggin ?

The Ryan Fogle thing was about the least troubling thing the CIA have been involved in ever. I was thinking more of millions dead in Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan etc. and governments toppled everywhere from Bolivia to Australia at the hands of this 'great bunch of guys that often do their jobs quite well'.

 

[J Ed]

The Ryan Fogle thing was about the least troubling thing the CIA have been involved in ever. I was thinking more of millions dead in Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan etc. and governments toppled everywhere from Bolivia to Australia at the hands of this 'great bunch of guys that often do their jobs quite well'.

Besides actual atrocities, there is a lot of just lying for political reasons. The case for intervening in Iraq on the basis of the presence of WMD being a very recent and obvious one.

 

[rekil]

The Ryan Fogle thing was about the least troubling thing the CIA have been involved in ever. I was thinking more of millions dead in Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan etc. and governments toppled everywhere from Bolivia to Australia at the hands of this 'great bunch of guys that often do their jobs quite well'.

Casually fash approves of their work with the dictatorship in Argentina.

Not to mention their torture biz collaboration with his precious Assad and Gaddafi. Stupid fascist cunt.

 

[J Ed]

I honestly did think that on balance the FSB probably did have something to do with the DNC leaks and Podesta e-mails until the most recent release of 'evidence' of Russian interference in the US elections, that release was so scant that I no longer think they had anything to do with it.

 

[Casually Red]

The Ryan Fogle thing was about the least troubling thing the CIA have been involved in ever. I was thinking more of millions dead in Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan etc. and governments toppled everywhere from Bolivia to Australia at the hands of this 'great bunch of guys that often do their jobs quite well'.

I wasn't alluding to any troubling aspect to it . I was pointing to the comical , amateurish and pretty damn crap aspects of US intelligence gathering as regards Russia .

TomUS Is happy to take the uncooroborated word of the people responsible for not only that debacle but this one too .



Eta

Note she actually says " we worked quite hard to get the correct word in Russian " . Go ahead and trust the experts when it comes to Russia . What could possibly go wrong .

 

[maomao]

Besides actual atrocities, there is a lot of just lying for political reasons. The case for intervening in Iraq on the basis of the presence of WMD being a very recent and obvious one.

I know that I just found it shocking that a US poster that describes himself as progressive could talk about the CIA like that. I know he's a Clinton loving liberal but I had sort of thought of it in terms of 'heart in the right place, wrong about the details'.

 

[Casually Red]

I know that I just found it shocking that a US poster that describes himself as progressive could talk about the CIA like that. I know he's a Clinton loving liberal but I had sort of thought of it in terms of 'heart in the right place, wrong about the details'.

I think you've a lot more to learn about these liberal types . It doesn't shock me in the slightest . And it's not just the US ones . The British ones can be e ery bit as bad when it comes to this type of thing .

 

[TomUS]

I was going to start Googling CIA atrocities but if you're starting from that position I don't think we share enough common ground to have a reasonable conversation on the subject.

Those atrocities were ordered by their superiors.

 

[TomUS]

Genuine Q, would you like it if the CIA intervened and got rid of Trump?

No.

 

[Casually Red]

Those atrocities were ordered by their superiors.

 

[maomao]

Those atrocities were ordered by their superiors.

And so are the lies they tell.

ignoring the basic morality of your position that it's okay to torture and murder people, in many cases breaking international law, if your fucking boss tells you to

 

[TomUS]

I know that I just found it shocking that a US poster that describes himself as progressive could talk about the CIA like that. I know he's a Clinton loving liberal but I had sort of thought of it in terms of 'heart in the right place, wrong about the details'.

I'm not a Clinton loving liberal. I'm a PROUD Clinton loving liberal.

I doubt it was the idea of Brit & American intelligence to overthrow Mosaddegh. They followed orders.

 

[redsquirrel]

Those atrocities were ordered by their superiors.

Really, this is the line you're going with "Just following orders". And people are screaming about Trump's fascism.

 

[maomao]

I'm not a Clinton loving liberal. I'm a PROUD Clinton loving liberal.

I doubt it was the idea of Brit & American intelligence to overthrow Mosaddegh. They followed orders.

Whatever. I really don't think it matters whose idea it was. At least you've clarified what side your on.

 

[Casually Red]

Clarified he's a massive dumbass too

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The CIA has committed many atrocities in the past.
The CIA has been incorrect about intelligence matters in the past.
Therefore, the CIA cannot be correct when it says the Russians were involved in hacking the election process.

#3 doesn't follow from #1 and #2.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

UK intelligence gave US key tipoff about Russian hacking, report says

UK intelligence gave US key tipoff about Russian hacking, report says

 

[ViolentPanda]

*sigh*

I didn't know you were expecting me to "offer you something," and to be honest, I don't know what you are expecting. I've tried to describe why I don't believe only a class analysis of oppression is sufficient. Although so many keep labeling me as a proponent of "identity politics" (which the way it's being used, is starting to sound like a slur, like when it used to be popular to dismiss people for being "politically correct.")

You say "class is not an identity, it's a condition." Does that mean you think say, being African American is only an identity (something you can pick and choose) and not a condition? How about disability? Gender?

Obfuscatory bollocks. No-one has laid claim to the primacy of social condition over social identity. It's fairly obvious that with regard to the examples you give, both fields pertain - identity and condition.

Is the idea that being a working class person is pretty much the same whether you are white or Black, just if you're the latter there's the extra layer of racism?

Well, that's the argument black feminists have been making for 5 decades, that class, race and gender are accumulative disadvantagous social conditions.

You also said, "From what I have seen of intersectionalism in practice, it's well-off and very middle-class."

No. It's origins are in the African American feminist/womanist movement and it's working class women of colour worldwide who remain the strongest proponents of it. I first came across the term when I read "Mapping the Margins" from Kimberle Williams Crenshaw over 20 years ago. Her description was an eye opener for me. It was some time after that, I was put on to writings from bell hooks. If you're genuinely interested in understanding the concept, I'd recommend "Feminist Theory - From Margins to Centre," where she describes the interplay between race, class and gender in America. There's plenty of stuff out there on the net. I'm aware that there are campaigns and movements around the world, particularly of young people, based on an understanding of intersectionality.

Going back probably 15 years ago, I used to be active in some online discussion groups that also valued this approach. Funnily enough, despite the wide range of folks involved (although it leaned towards North America just because at that time perhaps fewer people in the US had home internet) and different opinions, the dialogue was constructive, thought provoking, civil. My mistake in thinking something like that might be possible here, but hey ho.

Interesting, the boast that you're versed in Crenshaw's writings.
Also interesting that you don't appear to have noticed that Crenshaw has disowned the use of her terminology by followers of identity politics as meaning pretty much the reverse of her original intention.

 

[maomao]

The CIA has committed many atrocities in the past.
The CIA has been incorrect about intelligence matters in the past.
Therefore, the CIA cannot be correct when it says the Russians were involved in hacking the election process.

#3 doesn't follow from #1 and #2.

That isn't the argument anyone is making.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And I thought cream puff was rhyming slang for 'huff'.

I thought it was rhyming slang for " DotCommunist 's mum's chuff".

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That isn't the argument anyone is making.

Looking at posts 12993 - 95, it appears that you think past CIA atrocities are somehow relevant to the issue being discussed.

I'm glad to hear that to your knowledge, though, no one is making that argument; because the logic behind it is pretty obviously deficient.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nobody here has a class-exclusive view of oppression...

Nope, I think that most posters have made it very clear that they see class as something interwoven through all other oppressions.

so why continue it with me this time? Also, what's with the deliberate misinterpretation of what I posted and, yet again, the implication that I am either downplaying racism or actually being so (This Does that mean? nonsense. You know very well what is meant by class and have had it explained to you numerous times over this thread). I don't think the ordering of people according to the supposed attributes of essentialised identities should be treated so flippantly.

It's probably the most intellectually-corrupt set of ideas to come out of academe in the last 30 years, that identity politics as a practice should be able to posit some kind of order or "hierarchy of suffering" whereby the collection of "identities" realised in one individual sets them higher in this "hierarchy" than the collection of "identities" realised in another individual.

The sixth bullet is a proletarian woman of colour from the 'global south' and she's never heard of intersectionalism. Would you like to 'whitesplain' her all about it? Maybe link to an article on an elitist and racist website because you googled 'US white working class poor suck it up.'

Intersectionalism as currently understood, is just another way to divide and conquer the working class. That people can't see this, is a source of great puzzlement and annoyance to me.

 

[Nylock]

Those atrocities were ordered by their superiors.

Did you read that back to yourself before posting it?

"I was only following orders"....

For. Fuck's. Sake.