The Trump presidency

[Johnny Canuck3]

It would be interesting to know if those panning the Forbes article, have actually read it. Leaving the labelling aside, what is the flaw in the basic premise of the article?

In the years after World War II, the western democracies that had not already done so adopted universal social safety net programs. These included health care, retirement and other benefits. President Truman introduced his plan for universal health coverage in 1945. It would have worked much like Social Security, imposing a tax to fund a universal insurance pool. His plan went nowhere.

Instead, nine years later Congress laid the foundations of the social welfare system we enjoy today. They rejected Truman’s idea of universal private coverage in favor of a program controlled by employers while publicly funded through tax breaks. This plan gave corporations new leverage in negotiating with unions, handing the companies a publicly-financed benefit they could distribute at their discretion.

No one stated their intention to create a social welfare program for white people, specifically white men, but they didn’t need to. By handing control to employers at a time when virtually every good paying job was reserved for white men the program silently accomplished that goal.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Can't see much wrong with his concluding thoughts:

We may one day recognize that we are all “in it together” and find ways to build a more stable, sensible welfare system. That will not happen unless we acknowledge the painful and sometimes embarrassing legacy that brought us to this place. Absent that reckoning, unspoken realities will continue to warp our political calculations, frustrating our best hopes and stunting our potential.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

There is no serious definition of socialism that means 'tax subsidies for health insurance for employees of corporations within a wider capitalist economy'. This is just crap cobbled together by neoliberals to legitimate further rollbacks on the last vestiges of decent society by portraying their opponents as being racist.

You're not seriously suggesting that the average Trump voter is a critic of neoliberalism? Trump is the epitome of someone who wants to rollback the "last vestiges of decent society", to borrow your melodramatic phrase. When I talk to Trump voters, they are terrified that they are being taken advantage of by "moochers", "welfare queens", and "refugees." (Keep in mind that I live in a red state.) But, if you look at where the real subsidies go, its mostly to states that voted for Trump. Red states get more from the government than they ever pay in.

'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share of federal dollars

On that note, I'm outta here for the weekend. Have a good weekend.

 

[gosub]

Journalists in mainstream media in the US, with a few exceptions, are cowardly custards. More concerned with kissing ass than kicking it.

yeah, but no. I don't think anyone in the US public eye would last 5minutes under the British system. But even here in the UK lobby journalists are tamed with threats of loss of access

 

[J Ed]

It would be interesting to know if those panning the Forbes article, have actually read it. Leaving the labelling aside, what is the flaw in the basic premise of the article?

It's an incoherent mess, which draws upon CATO and fellow travellers' critiques of FDR, cobbled together to come up with a non-existent ideology in order to smear opponents of neoliberalism. The premise that the New Deal favoured in many respects white workers and has racist aspects is true, but the idea that it only benefited white workers is a massive simplification. Many supporters of the New Deal were black, and in any case that does not mean that neoliberalism has disadvantaged white workers disproportionately, in fact the opposite is true.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

draws upon CATO and fellow travellers' critiques of FDR,

FDR is not mentioned. Truman, and his attempt to introduce universal health coverage is mentioned, with apparent approval.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

come up with a non-existent ideology

It doesn't attempt to posit an ideology; it is an attempt at explaining the relationship between race in the US, and the availability of certain social welfare benefits, with a brief look at the history of such benefits in the US.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

it only benefited white workers is a massive simplification.

I believe the argument to be that white workers disproportionately benefited.

Two thirds of white children are covered by private health insurance, while barely over one third of black children enjoy this benefit.

He, at least, cites some facts to support his contentions.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Many supporters of the New Deal were black, .

Not sure why you're bringing the New Deal into this, when the discussion is about the promulgation of universal social welfare benefits in the United States after WW2.

 

[J Ed]

Not sure why you're bringing the New Deal into this, when the discussion is about the promulgation of universal social welfare benefits in the United States after WW2.

...because it fits into the narrative of critique by American neoliberals of the welfare state, it usually starts there.

 

[CRI]

Yeah yeah twitter, but the expression on Merkel's face, also, when has the White House press core mockingly laughed at a President.

Was it the press corps laughing, or did he have his troop of paid clappers and laughers in the room?

Even if it was the press, was it mocking, or more the kind of laughing along to Grandad's stupid jokes because they don't want to piss him off and get cut out of his will?

 

[J Ed]

I believe the argument to be that white workers disproportionately benefited.



He, at least, cites some facts to support his contentions.

So what does this 'fact' which concerns private health insurance have to do with 'white socialism'?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

supporters of the New Deal were black,

...because it fits into the narrative of critique by American neoliberals of the welfare state, it usually starts there.

The article you've cited from the Jacobin mag deals with integration of the CIO in the Thirties, and the role it played in the transformation of the Democratic Party, as well as more generally, beginnings of influence by black Americans, on American political institutions.

It doesn't deal with the topic here under consideration: the rise of universal social welfare benefits.

 

[J Ed]

The article you've cited from the Jacobin mag deals with integration of the CIO in the Thirties, and the role it played in the transformation of the Democratic Party, as well as more generally, beginnings of influence by black Americans, on American political institutions.

It doesn't deal with the topic here under consideration: the rise of universal social welfare benefits.

Surely the topic is actually calling the people who want universal social welfare benefits racist.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Surely the topic is actually calling the people who want universal social welfare benefits racist.

You've got what the article says, exactly backward.

The article says that to the extent the US has anything approaching social welfare benefit programs, they disproportionately favor white people. It says that those same people, who enjoy those benefits, aren't interested in seeing such benefits programs become truly universal, ie, benefitting rich and poor, white and black.

They are content with the status quo, and are concerned that 'universalizing' the programs, will either mean more money coming out if their pockets; or a degradation of the social welfare benefits - or both.

 

[J Ed]

You've got what the article says, exactly backward.

No I haven't, the article is an incoherent mess without a clear message beyond poor white people being bad. It's written by someone who is still a member of a party dedicated unmitigated neoliberal

That fact helps explain how this welfare system took shape sixty years ago, why it was originally (and still overwhelmingly) white, and why Trump voters backed their candidate instead of Bernie Sanders. Blue collar voters are not interested in democratic socialism. They want to restore their access to a more generous and dignified program of white socialism.

None of this makes any sense whatsoever. White socialism doesn't exist, what that person is describing is a system under capitalism, an economic system which the party he is a member of supports. We have no idea whether the US working-class would have voted Sanders over Trump, though polling indicates that they would have, because the candidate which Ladd voted for rigged the primary against him. That candidate of course was the only one who was actually offering a universal healthcare system, that wasn't an option with Obama or Clinton, it wasn't on the ballot.

 

[J Ed]

Burying the White Working Class | Jacobin

After decades of being told white workers would never support socialism because they’re racist, we’re now told that they support the socialist candidate because they are racist

 

[coley]

There is no serious definition of socialism that means 'tax subsidies for health insurance for employees of corporations within a wider capitalist economy'. This is just crap cobbled together by neoliberals to legitimate further rollbacks on the last vestiges of decent society by portraying their opponents as being racist.



Is a truly vile and profoundly dishonest characterisation of millions of good people, most of whom are not racist.

"White voters are not interested in democratic socialism. They want to restore their access to a more generous and dignified program of white socialism"
Mebbes using the word 'socialism' is wrong? more the few people who have benefitted from the 'trickle down' Neo liberalism ideals are desperate to keep their meagre gains?
At the expense of those who never even got a look in at the trickle?

 

[coley]

So, at the traditional moment when US Presidents shake the hands of visiting foreign leaders, Trump sits ignoring his guest, like a sulking kindergartener who didn't get a second cookie at milk break.

He really, really does hate women, doesn't he?

No, he loves women who bend to his misogynistic behaviour, intelligent, powerful women, however seem to annoy him.

 

[CRI]

I'd say that bio shows precisely why he's not someone to expect to talk intelligently about socialism, white or otherwise.

The article isn't about socialism. The term is being used as hyperbole here. It's like when people here sometimes talk about "corporate welfare." They don't mean that corporations literally sign on down the Job Centre. It means corporations get tax breaks that result in more money in directors and shareholders pockets - as if they'd been given a "handout" from the public purse.

THAT is what this article is about - the system in the US that gives massive tax breaks to people employed in roles and sectors traditionally occupied by white people because the system was set up to favour white people. No, it's not "socialism," but it IS a redistribution of tax dollars - mostly from poorer, browner and blacker people to richer, white ones.

Blue collar men like the one in this piece would never vote Sanders. They don't care about, or even oppose expanding social welfare. To them, being on welfare is a shame and they look down on those who are as lazy, greedy and undeserving.

They voted Trump because he promised good jobs that would get them back into the system of tax breaks - the "invisible" welfare benefits they can claim they've earned through hard graft.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We have no idea whether the US working-class would have voted Sanders over Trump,.

People keep promulgating the fallacy that it was the hard-up working class that elected Trump.

It was described, over and over, as a movement made up of blue-collar victims of a faltering economy whose lives have been changed by trade and immigration. But when it came to the crunch, it turned out that Donald Trump’s backers were something else entirely: Both far more numerous and much less economically marginal than believed.

Americans who voted for Mr. Trump appear to have higher incomes than average. One analysis earlier this year found that Trump voters have a median household income of $72,000 (U.S.), more than the $62,000 average U.S. household income and more than Clinton voters earn. Even among his low-education white voters, only 14 per cent earn less than $50,000 a year, according to one survey.

Economic victims didn't elect Trump. The well-off and segregated did

 

[J Ed]

People keep promulgating the fallacy that it was the hard-up working class that elected Trump.

....

I was quoting the article you are defending that said exactly that, while disagreeing with it.

Blue collar voters are not interested in democratic socialism. They want to restore their access to a more generous and dignified program of white socialism.

 

[coley]

So, at the traditional moment when US Presidents shake the hands of visiting foreign leaders, Trump sits ignoring his guest, like a sulking kindergartener who didn't get a second cookie at milk break.

He really, really does hate women, doesn't he?

Sulky, stupid, dumb, every negative thing that has been said about TTT was verified beyond question in these few minutes, even rubbing his tiny hands.

 

[J Ed]

-Hey this article that says that the white working-class is racist is good

-OK there are a few problems with that view...

-How DARE you say that the white working-class voted for Trump, that is a total myth!

 

[coley]

yeah, but no. I don't think anyone in the US public eye would last 5minutes under the British system. But even here in the UK lobby journalists are tamed with threats of loss of access

You got a link proving that? Have to admit since Paxman they seem to get an easier ride, but on the whole they are regularly roasted.
Trump and his cronies would be cinders here in the U.K. Or even Europe.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

....

I was quoting the article you are defending that said exactly that, while disagreeing with it.

As is so often the case in these discussions, people use terminology at cross-purposes.

Here, we have 'socialist', 'white socialist', 'working class', 'blue collar workers'.

I suspect that there isn't much common ground here about what any of those terms mean.

 

[coley]

As is so often the case in these discussions, people use terminology at cross-purposes.

Here, we have 'socialist', 'white socialist', 'working class', 'blue collar workers'.

I suspect that there isn't much common ground here about what any of those terms mean.

The only 'common ground' is an acceptance that neoliberalism has effectively destroyed what solidarity the WC once briefly enjoyed.
Socialism blossomed in the days when every bugger was a total slave to capital, once some of the 'slaves' were given a small stake in the capitalist prosperity then it was 'fuck you comrade'

 

[J Ed]

As is so often the case in these discussions, people use terminology at cross-purposes.

Here, we have 'socialist', 'white socialist', 'working class', 'blue collar workers'.

I suspect that there isn't much common ground here about what any of those terms mean.

Yes, it is particularly difficult when people use those terms in confusing and deliberately misleading ways in order to legitimate the status quo and smear opponents of it.

 

[CRI]

Sulky, stupid, dumb, every negative thing that has been said about TTT was verified beyond question in these few minutes, even rubbing his tiny hands.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

deliberately misleading.

I think that's looking for boogeymen where there aren't any. Confusion in communications, terminology, definitions, is very common, and needn't take place for nefarious purposes.