Hey Frank, it's good to see you back. I've been a fan of you since you first released your book.
As for working class, I see the realignment splitting both the working class and the management. The divide seems to be based on if the industry is involved in the global metropolitan cities or more national based. It seems clear that the Democrats are the party of the metropolitan economy and the Republicans are the non-metro economy. Thus Democrats who have the management of Starbucks and many of their workers who have different views on economic questions which were central in the 20th century. The Republican equivalent would be the car wash owner in rural Alabama and their employees who have different economic interests.
Great to be back! I definitely think that is part of what is happening, although I'm not a fan of that sort of national dividing line for a ton of reasons. I don't think its sustainable in keeping majorities without a lot of other pieces, and I think it's bad for politics. I don't think it leads to a productive era of actually solving problems at a critical time in which America has a lot of real challenges and competitors and can't afford to stumble about.
I don't like zero sum political divisions over interests. They make politics about me getting mine and you getting yours. I prefer clashes over ideologies and ideas. They make politics a fight over how we're going to achieve some goal, your way or my way.
Some interest based politics is always going to be a thing, and should be, but I would prefer that the major dividing line separating the country into two camps wasn't about who is going to win and get more of what we want, us or them.
I'm a Boomer typing on my phone...take it as a complement, man; these hyouge meathooks are waaay more comfortable on a keyboard.
Anyway...
Damn you're a good writer. No, you don't have the Hunter S Thompson zing like Taibbi, but then Grisham ain't no King, OK? It's always a pleasure to read your work.
Yeah, I disagree w the earlier poster too re Union membership. I THINK in the ÚSA, once you extract civil service, membership in private industry is extremely low.
I have other thoughts, but they're keyboard worthy; if I try to peck them out here I'll be up all night! 😂
I think you're right that many voters feel disregarded and cast aside by political and economic elitists within both parties. This is what has led to the reemergence of populism in America.
But I have to quibble about your views on the working class dynamic. The "working class" refers to those who work jobs that often involve unions. It's the workers as opposed to management. Democrats were the ones who represented those people. Republicans represented business interests. The working class naturally wants more labor protections from the government to rein in corporate excesses. In contrast, the business owners and managers want less so they can run a more profitable enterprise. The great shift in what represents who is concerning to more principled Republicans because it likely means bowing to pressure from the working class to pass more regulations on businesses, which is contrary to laissez-faire capitalism theory.
I think that's a very twentieth century view of the working class. It's certainly a description analysis of the types of people who we considered workers in the industrial twentieth century. But I'm coming to think it was never really the correct functional analysis of what made them different from professionals and management. Either way, I don't think it really captures the people we consider workers now--and what it is that separates them from elites.
For classical conservatives, I think this means it's possible to be both. To support markets, not tie down firms with red tape to be burdensome, inefficient, and slow, and make sure workers are represented and respected in the democracy!
You're right, it is a 20th century view, and you're also right that it doesn't translate well into the 21st century. We're shifting now to accommodate a new political reality.
Hey Frank, it's good to see you back. I've been a fan of you since you first released your book.
As for working class, I see the realignment splitting both the working class and the management. The divide seems to be based on if the industry is involved in the global metropolitan cities or more national based. It seems clear that the Democrats are the party of the metropolitan economy and the Republicans are the non-metro economy. Thus Democrats who have the management of Starbucks and many of their workers who have different views on economic questions which were central in the 20th century. The Republican equivalent would be the car wash owner in rural Alabama and their employees who have different economic interests.
Great to be back! I definitely think that is part of what is happening, although I'm not a fan of that sort of national dividing line for a ton of reasons. I don't think its sustainable in keeping majorities without a lot of other pieces, and I think it's bad for politics. I don't think it leads to a productive era of actually solving problems at a critical time in which America has a lot of real challenges and competitors and can't afford to stumble about.
Curious why are you not a fan of this dividing line?
I don't like zero sum political divisions over interests. They make politics about me getting mine and you getting yours. I prefer clashes over ideologies and ideas. They make politics a fight over how we're going to achieve some goal, your way or my way.
Some interest based politics is always going to be a thing, and should be, but I would prefer that the major dividing line separating the country into two camps wasn't about who is going to win and get more of what we want, us or them.
I'm a Boomer typing on my phone...take it as a complement, man; these hyouge meathooks are waaay more comfortable on a keyboard.
Anyway...
Damn you're a good writer. No, you don't have the Hunter S Thompson zing like Taibbi, but then Grisham ain't no King, OK? It's always a pleasure to read your work.
Yeah, I disagree w the earlier poster too re Union membership. I THINK in the ÚSA, once you extract civil service, membership in private industry is extremely low.
I have other thoughts, but they're keyboard worthy; if I try to peck them out here I'll be up all night! 😂
I think you're right that many voters feel disregarded and cast aside by political and economic elitists within both parties. This is what has led to the reemergence of populism in America.
But I have to quibble about your views on the working class dynamic. The "working class" refers to those who work jobs that often involve unions. It's the workers as opposed to management. Democrats were the ones who represented those people. Republicans represented business interests. The working class naturally wants more labor protections from the government to rein in corporate excesses. In contrast, the business owners and managers want less so they can run a more profitable enterprise. The great shift in what represents who is concerning to more principled Republicans because it likely means bowing to pressure from the working class to pass more regulations on businesses, which is contrary to laissez-faire capitalism theory.
I think that's a very twentieth century view of the working class. It's certainly a description analysis of the types of people who we considered workers in the industrial twentieth century. But I'm coming to think it was never really the correct functional analysis of what made them different from professionals and management. Either way, I don't think it really captures the people we consider workers now--and what it is that separates them from elites.
For classical conservatives, I think this means it's possible to be both. To support markets, not tie down firms with red tape to be burdensome, inefficient, and slow, and make sure workers are represented and respected in the democracy!
You're right, it is a 20th century view, and you're also right that it doesn't translate well into the 21st century. We're shifting now to accommodate a new political reality.