Wednesday, October 10, 2018

The children's cultural crusade

It's said the culture wars are primarily fought boomer elites on team red and team blue. When the boomers die off, politics will get back to bread and butter issues again. Trump and Sanders, not Cruz and Clinton. One of our most appreciated regular commenters frequently argues as much.

I've long been incredulous. Clinton beat Sanders, even without the rigging, and she was about as bad a candidate as could be imagined. Trump wasn't the electoral repudiation of cultural concerns, he just came with a lot of other attributes Republican and many independent voters had desired for years.

Reuters-Ipsos polling seems to back me up. The following graph shows the percentages of registered respondents who identify "social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage" as the issue most important to them out of 17 possible mutually-exclusive choices (N = 45,135):


The cultural contentiousness isn't going to cool down when the boomers pass on--their incinerated cadavers are going to really get things cooking!

The ultimate culture warrior is a single white Democrat woman under the age of 30, with some 34.1% of them putting social issues at the very top of the list. Because a representative bar would've dwarfed the rest of the demographic groups, it is not shown above. Bill O'Reilly hangs his head in shame.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Few of the youth are Christian, and a lot of the "social issues" elderly are leftist. Maybe just 1% of population is socially conservative, which shows the absolute dominance the elite universities and media have. Economics is going to be a joke just as much for as long as those people are in power. Conscientious leftism is dead.

Passer by said...

There are gender difs on immigration too.

Sid said...

In the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, social issues generally boiled down to religion vs secularism.

In the last ten years, however, the power and influence of religion in American public life has declined precipitously. Just look at gay marriage: religious conservatism couldn't have lost harder there!

Social issues still burn hot, however. The dynamic is evolving away from religion vs secularism, however, to debates over sexuality.

As such, things like muh abortion, muh birth control, much gay marriage, muh wedding cake, etc. will probably stay with us for a long time.

Of course, the right doesn't really have the vocabulary to express its views on these matters offline. Heartiste helped shape what the right's stances and vocabulary would be online, but his languagr is not polished enough for a politician to employ. Jordan Peterson really seems to be the spokesman of the rightist take on the new social issues paradigm.

Jig Bohnson said...

It kinda makes sense that the youngest voters would be the most interested in social issues, because they are not yet facing the economic and other issues that matter to people who have houses, bills, and families - like taxes, schools, regulations and red tape, and later medicare etc. They may age out of it.


On another important note, following on from what Sid said, we've witnessed a major transformation in culture warriorism in the past few years. Until ~5-10 years ago, the leftist position on cultural issues was the libertarian one - get rid of nanny-state bans on drugs, sodomy, etc., and let people live their lives as they see fit. That's what made me identify with the left - I was appalled that, for example, there could be state laws banning two consenting adults, even hetero, from having anal or oral.

But now we've transitioned to the rightist position on cultural issues being the libertarian one. The Left is now trying to force everyone - under penalty of law and career and reputational ruin - into using invented pronouns and pretending to like it, baking cakes, pretending that criminals are sacred and not ever calling the police, and groveling before whatever they have decided that week is the doctrine, whereas the Right is now just saying leave people alone and let them do what they want. Jordan Peterson is the first person to get traction articulating the "leave me alone" strategy.

Heartiste et al. have some valid points as far as how to navigate the culture as an individual, but as far as policy it has to be the Peterson-esque individual libertarianism. 'Don't date sluts' or whatever is possibly good personal advice but it is not the basis for government policy, whereas "enforce the first amendment" is.

herfsi said...

social liberals don't always understand that by tolerating the hell out of/encouraging diseased gays, trannies, "helping" blacks, & "refugees" it creates an ever growing fiscal cost.

those claiming to be fiscally conservative & socially liberal will find that propping up socially liberal values ultimately hits them in their pocketbook. "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" may look rational at a single point in time, but over time it's an illusion that doesn't work!

IHTG said...

Feryl, check this out: http://time.com/5421576/donald-trump-trumpism/

Anonymous said...

I wonder how the 34% white female cohort corresponds with the college degree % for the same demographic?

Passer by said...

"In the last ten years, however, the power and influence of religion in American public life has declined precipitously."

@Sid

I'm sceptical if this is natural. My view is that elites generally (although not always) get what they want. In the West, elites are promoting secularism, ergo secularism is rising.

In Israel, Russia or Turkey elites are promoting religion, ergo religion is flourishing.

Look at this recent large christian march in Russia. Notice the large amount of women wearing headscarves. There is church building mania in Russia these days, supported by their authorities and Putin personally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs0qIoROOvA&t=261s

Random Dude on the Internet said...

White Christianity took a big hit with the evangelical and catholic scandals 10 or so years ago. Leftists and secularists went for the jugular and they haven't recovered since. Remember the scare-documentary Jesus Camp? About dozens of millions of children being indoctrinated into being soldiers for Christ? Ten years later you now have drag queens reading to elementary school children. What a world.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

this is the thing - the modern left is some new weird religion. I thought the left used to be skeptical of things. Anyone remember Bill Hicks?

Feryl said...

"It kinda makes sense that the youngest voters would be the most interested in social issues, because they are not yet facing the economic and other issues that matter to people who have houses, bills, and families - like taxes, schools, regulations and red tape, and later medicare etc. They may age out of it."

Right, early Millennials now heavily over-lap with Gen X-ers in their alienation from, and frustration with, a system that heavily rewards an often corrupt elite while doing little to safeguard economic fundamentals.

And take into account that people in their 20's rarely even seek health care, in comparison to older people. Health care, for people over the age of say, 60, probably is the most important issue of all.

Crime is notably a non-issue, in comparison to the 80's and 90's when Silents and Boomers were intent on making Gen X the most incarcerated generation in Western history.

I think that 20something people are insecure about their identity, and aligning oneself with a particular tribe is important. As we get older, we tend to stop being so immaturely didactic and judgemental about "social" issues that don't really mean all that much when you gain perspective. Our stances might remain strong, but we no longer make such a damn big deal out of them.

Alternatively, people actually get more selfish and cynically pragmatic as they age. I guess we can't solve problem X or Y or in my lifetime, so I might as well just focus on paying the bills. This famously is the road that Boomers began to go down in the late 70's.

Young girls really are clueless and naive. They're probably the demographic that most needs to have the franchise taken away from them.

Feryl said...

"But now we've transitioned to the rightist position on cultural issues being the libertarian one. The Left is now trying to force everyone - under penalty of law and career and reputational ruin - into using invented pronouns and pretending to like it, baking cakes, pretending that criminals are sacred and not ever calling the police, and groveling before whatever they have decided that week is the doctrine, whereas the Right is now just saying leave people alone and let them do what they want. Jordan Peterson is the first person to get traction articulating the "leave me alone" strategy. "

The idea here is that during a dominant paradigm for a particular set of memes, the losing meme-set is terrified of it's minority views being imposed on. E.g., during the generally culturally conservative 1930's-early 1990's, it was the cultural Left that wanted the government and the school marms to go the hell away so that gays could bugger each other in peace. As we've transitioned towards full-throttle cultural liberalism since the mid-90's, it's been the dwindling tribe of conservatives who now fear that the establishment is imposing it's will on it's enemies.

I think that the Soviet Union dying out made it much more socially acceptable for (often elite) liberals to spout really bold stuff, which encouraged conservatives and moderates to go further to the Left. Before the 1990's, liberals were terrified of being called Godless communists. In order to "fit in" these days, most conservatives and moderates now have cultural positions that would've been regarded as extremely liberal in the 80's. There's also the generational factor; Boomers hated the (behavioral and cultural) conservatism of older generations, and when Boomers essentially took over the establishment in the 1990's, they started to make it socially unacceptable for (upper class at first, then lower classes later) people of all generations to state certain ideas or facts thought to be disrespectful towards the "historically disadvantaged". The end result is that Gen X and Millennial elites are, on a cultural level, extremely oriented to the Left....Because only a mouth breathing cretin would have the cultural positions that a GI Gen person had in the 1970's.

Instead of blaming Millennials for PC, we instead ought to blame the death of the Soviet Union and the rise to power of the Boomers. Not to mention the outlawing of cultural conservatism and conservative ID politics in the workplace and in academia, which started in the 70's and then was complete by the late 90's.

Lance E said...

Does immigration/demographics count as a social issue, or is that a separate category?

Feryl said...

"White Christianity took a big hit with the evangelical and catholic scandals 10 or so years ago. Leftists and secularists went for the jugular and they haven't recovered since. Remember the scare-documentary Jesus Camp? About dozens of millions of children being indoctrinated into being soldiers for Christ? Ten years later you now have drag queens reading to elementary school children. What a world."

Boomers led the campaign to change our religious mores, first by losing interest in the traditional denominations and boosting attendance of fringier and more strident sects (while overall attendance of religious events declined among Boomers compared to older generations). The Evangelical movement in particular soared in popularity in the 80's and 90's.

Gen X-ers abandoned organized religion altogether. Like, what good is it?

Millennials have opted to forgo having any active spiritual life at all.

Audacious Epigone said...

Passer by,

Yes there are, though per usual the marriage gap is much wider than the sex gap is.

For as long as we've been able to track it, religiosity has been positively correlated with procreation (some exceptional sects... excepted), yet religiosity has steadily declined in the Western world. At some point biology should catch up with culture and the trend should reverse, shouldn't it? Maybe we're seeing the early stages of that process.

Sid,

Jack Donovan calls the SJW left "the new church ladies", a phrase I like.

Jig,

In some sense it does, though in another it says a lot about the West in The Current Year that people in their twenties are so neotenous.

These are the culture war's elite force of paladins. They put the boomercons going on about sportsball to shame.

herfsi,

The last libertarian will be beaten to death by his copy of Atlas Shrugged that some dindu just stole from him.

Anon,

R-I has a filter for students. Yikes, not good. Going to dig into it in some future posts.

Random Dude,

Progressives didn't like the house Christianity built, so it tore the house down in the middle of a storm and sent everyone out into the storm without a better structure for them to seek refuge in.

krusty,

Must... not... mention... Culture of Critique--*gasp*.

Feryl,

Re: young women, the 'staff writers' for Huffington Post or the shrill harpies that cornered Jeff snowFlake on the elevator are illustrative, but the examples abound.

There are some early signs that Gen Z is more religious than the millennials, the millennials likely being the least spiritual--and probably least empirical, too, an awful combination--generation ever.

Lance E,

Immigration is a separate issue, a stand alone issue and there is nothing explicit about identity.

White pill: Twice as many people put immigration at the top of the list (12%) as put social issues there (6.2%). Immigration has skyrocketed in importance in polling over the last decade.

Feryl said...

"Re: young women, the 'staff writers' for Huffington Post or the shrill harpies that cornered Jeff snowFlake on the elevator are illustrative, but the examples abound."

Mental illness peaks during the early-mid 20's years (when bands usually write their best music, BTW). I wouldn't take most twentysomething people that seriously. And whether it's rioting in the late 60's, street crime in the late 70's, or SJWism in the late 2010's, it usually is young people who are most susceptible to buying into whatever is trendy. Even if it's a bad trend.

Feryl said...

"In some sense it does, though in another it says a lot about the West in The Current Year that people in their twenties are so neotenous.

These are the culture war's elite force of paladins. They put the boomercons going on about sportsball to shame."

Aud, I think that a lot of very early Millennials (to say nothing of older generations) find it strange how interchangeable today's twenty-something people seem to be. Gen X-ers and even early Millennials were in their 20's during The Unraveling, when nobody wanted to join anything. An era of profound individualism, with muscular devotion to not blending in and only trusting yourself. But that also accounts for how anhedonic people have become; with older people stamping down on all forms of risk taking and indulgence along with young people listening to their elders, we've developed a class of teens and twenty-somethings who are loath to talk or act out of turn....And have anything end up on their "permanent record". It's not unlike what society experienced in the 1940's and 50's, when later GIs and Silents dared not speak up or break any rules.

Early Millennial nostalgia: I watched the 1990 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie, which was made during the peak of the Unraveling (about 1989-1996). The young "hero" characters, and the thug henchmen and criminals, are all Gen X-ers. The theme of the movie is basically that the world is a dark, crime ridden place, and if you're lucky you'll be tough and well-trained enough to survive. This is what passed for "kids" entertainment back then. While the film's Boomer characters are portrayed as sternly judgemental mentors, from the wise Splinter to the fiercely misguided Shredder , locked into a battle of good vs evil, the Gen X youngters are snarky, disobedient, indulgent, and clearly feel confused and "sped up" by a world that has little security or good will among man. Of course, people born in the 1990's either never felt like the world worked this way, or they did but weren't programmed to feel as if they needed to toughen up to deal with it. Some of this could be due to parenting; I don't think the children of Gen X-ers could relate to the generational mentality that you see in that 1990 movie, whereas the children of Boomers can. People born in the mid-late 90's are much more likely to have had at least one X-er parent; people born in the 70's and 80's typically have two Boomer parents.

216 said...

https://twitter.com/VMontanero/status/1050519993694212096

This belongs in the "cursed boomer images" as it has way too much text for a meme, but does fit in with what people mean by "social issues".

216 said...

A visual understanding of the limits of Boomerconnery in this thread

https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Anyone-else-notice-all-the-interracial-couple-commercials-on-TV-anymore-/5-2155010/?page=1

aNanyMouse said...

AE: "Immigration is a separate issue, a stand alone issue and there is nothing explicit about identity."

Nothing explicit yet, but it's implicit as hell, just ask Pelosi.
It has econ aspects (driving down wages) which dovetail into the identity aspects, since SJWs so like to stick it to Deplorables, so many of whose wages are hurt by this.

Throw in crime/ BLM, and you've got a "new" set of issues, call them what you will, which are really *the* cutting issues now (since Trump declared for office), revolving mostly around identity.

aNanyMouse said...

And (so Whiskey would have it), the sexuality issues largely overlap with the identity issues, since (mostly single) females, age 15-35, want Sexual Lib, *and* subconsciously long to be raped by Alphas (known to be mostly blacks / browns).

216 said...

Anonymouse,

While its a common trope on our side to insist that female sympathy for the invaders is rooted in evo-think and their nature as "war brides"; I think an alternative explanation is that they are displaying maternal instincts. Discourse on "refugees" is always memed in around "dead children" "kids in cages" "family separation" or the older standby of "women and children". That most refugees are actually young male economic migrants is considered an inconvenient fact that the media likes to suppress.

While women might want "toxic masculinity" on a primal level, they are doing everything they can to suppress it at a political level. I just find it a bit irrational for the same people that complain that white males are "toxic and hypermasculine" to turn around and defend the even more patriarchal foreigners. Feminists always want to "build a better beta" as Dalrock described it. More aggressive feminism might actually scare foreigners away.

aNanyMouse said...

216:

Whiskey's view is that, these maternal instincts would lead to a fraction of the current noise, if the invaders were (mostly beta) whites.
These feminists always want to "build a more *compliant* beta", who cucks when the women sneak out, to roll around in hay with Invader Alpha.
They "irrationally" whine about how white males are "toxic and hypermasculine", only because they know, that so many of those betas will cuck under this pressure.

"More aggressive feminism might actually scare foreigners away", but for the likelihood that the invaders sniff out, that these feminists are showing their hand, when they defend the even more patriarchal foreigners.
Notice how little most feminists whine about (all-Muslim) FGM.
Instead, Oprah lectures us about how Islam is a religion of Peace.
How many feminists dispute her on this?

Ockham's Razor tells us, that this is really about subconscious longing to be raped by Alphas.
The rest is BS.

216 said...

Anonymouse,

Wrt to the subconscious level, that is persuasive. I still sense some limitations though:

-Most younger women are on a hormonal birth control, that (broscience) suppresses ovulation when they are most attracted to alpha characteristics.

-These same women loudly demonstrate in favor of permissive abortion laws, a revealed preference they don't want to birth the alpha thugspawn.

-Discourse around feminists/immigration is based in victimhood, a decidedly beta status.

-The left doesn't talk about FGM because its a far-right hobbyhorse. If R. Spencer converted to Shia Islam, and convinced many of his followers to do the same, we'd have a constitutional amendment banning Islam within a year. Much of political stances is oppositional in nature. Thousands of clitorectomies is a price they are willing to pay for victory, no different than the environmental damage that we countenance in order to preserve coal mining.

-Oprah was literally raped by an alpha

Marty T said...

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal was always a crock, used by people who are just liberals but don't want to be called that. Social liberalism always requires tax money.

aNanyMouse said...

216, a forthcoming reply. But:

"suppresses ovulation when they are most attracted to alpha characteristics."
I rather doubt that this swings sexual desire very much from away alphas, enough to change the politics.

"they don't want to birth the alpha thugspawn."
Yeah, until they've found beta Bux to pay the bills.

"victimhood, a decidedly beta status."
Yeah, they'll always *play* victim, as a ploy for beta Bux, etc.

"If R. Spencer converted to Shia....".
A classic way to put the point, with a good grain of truth, but if a beta religion started FGM, these women would jump all over it (maybe even if Spencer converted to it!).

Marty T said...

There's very little doubt our nation would be better off without women under 30 voting. So that must be the ultimate goal (in fact, the revocation of the 19th completely).

216 said...

Anonymouse,

If you consider the lifestyle patterns of the average Western feminist, they don't often cross over with that of the average Third World invader. Their sympathy for the Other is birthed from a spectator's position.

The average Muslim invader, while typically less pious than their cousins back home, is still considerably more pious than the average Western European. While they share a civilizational ambition for conquest, their movement is more motivated by the minutiae of economic circumstance. In their home society they typically are neither alpha nor wealthy, and as such struggle to find women in a polygamist society.

They are in short, beta, as they avoided fighting in their home country's military or in a jihadist group. This is why we see so many cases of these men sexually harassing, assaulting and raping Western women. Contrary to our tropes, these women aren't interested in these swarthy betas, but a Muslim beta is operating outside of his traditional social restraints so he feels free to violate. You don't need to use force if she submits willingly.

I don't think rape is as powerful an emotional argument as we might like to think. Every time that the far-right attacks the "patriarchial, misogynist" Afro/Muslim invader, the left responds by doubling down on criticizing white Christian males. Most criticism of Islam is about how it is "not liberal", and these attacks are re-directed by the establishment towards and within Christianity.

In a contrarian sense, I agree with you, we gain more mileage as "rape apologists" by denying that the assaults are rapes and are instead just slutty Western women not worthy of tribal protection.

Sid said...

Jig Bohnson,

There's no way things like "don't date sluts" is feasible to enforce. Even so, if social issues are now based on sexuality and reproduction, then there are definitely economic policies we can pursue to ensure positive reproductive outcomes. Pro-white natalism needs to be the end goal of our economic and social policies, and everything else will either correct itself or won't be too challenging to fix.

Passer by,

It's funny to reread or rewatch the speeches Obama and Hillary gave in 2007-2008. They name drop God and Jesus speech after speech, try to frame their leftist values in Christian rhetoric, made it a point to say they were opposed to gay marriage, etc. It's insane to think that was a mere decade ago!

I think what happened was that Obama "paced and led" on what you could call the "American civil religion." He talked about God, the Founding Fathers, the Civil Rights movement, etc. This is a major reason why he drew out such messianic fervor from his supporters. Once he won office, however, he cut off the religious stuff slowly. Before too long the American civil religion was replaced with SJWism, but that was so unpalatable to so many Americans that Trumpism and the alt-right arose to counter it.

Random Dude,

Certainly, I remember watching Jesus Camp summer 2008. I also remember leftists around that time talking about "Christian fascism" or whatever.

Trump has changed a lot of things, but they've been calling their opponents fascists for decades.

I was in a cafe yesterday and I saw a magazine cover with a boy dressed up as a girl. Really sick stuff. What's disappointing is that I currently reside in a former Soviet, Eastern European country, but the poz is still exported everywhere.

AE,

That's a point I tried to make a few years ago to an Australian: there are still Christian killjoys, but the most vicious and powerful ones are on the left. Just look at Kavanaugh and how they tried to blacken his name because he drank beer in college. Christians haven't been that bad since the end of Prohibition.

"...the millennials likely being the least spiritual--and probably least empirical, too, an awful combination--generation ever."

The quote attributed to G.K. Chesterton comes to mind. "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing. They believe in anything."

Jig Bohnson said...

"While its a common trope on our side to insist that female sympathy for the invaders is rooted in evo-think and their nature as "war brides"; I think an alternative explanation is that they are displaying maternal instincts."

Actually this is something I have commented on before. It isn't an either/or, it's definitely a both. This is a perfect case where they can have their cake and eat it too: They can stoke their sub-conscious instinctual attraction to assertive men from more assertive cultures while at the same time satisfying maternal instincts extending charity and help to vulnerable people in need. Importantly though, and this is the kicker, they can convince themselves and other people that it is actually only about the latter and not at all about the former, thus maintaining a veil of moral purity.

Imaging if being around and increasing the presence of what you were sexually attracted to also happened to align perfectly with what society viewed as charitable behavior! Like what if there were millions of single, marriage-oriented Ukranian, Thai, and Columbian women ages 20-30 who were fleeing some conditions in their countries and wanting to settle unaccompanied in the West? You would be volunteering at the refugee center every day, and telling reporters "I just want to help people!" And maybe you would actually feel like you were helping people, but that's not the primary reason you wanted to go down there.


Incidentally, this particular alignment reaches its apex with the white (sometimes even Jewish) young women who get involved with the anti-Israel movement on elite college campuses. They get to align themselves with and spend time around the most misogynistic, most assertive, least feminist men on Earth (hot!), while at the same time having it be under the guise of defending supposedly downtrodden people thus maintaining their internal and external progressive cred.


Passer by said...

Guys, the women refugee thing is not only a maternal instinct. Female aid workers are systematically f.ing the refugees.

Search for the situation in the Calais jungle camp or in Sweden.

Or check that post with numerous links about this issue.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/7dmiuu/women_and_refugees_a_compilation/

aNanyMouse said...

216:
"these women aren't interested in these swarthy betas".
I'll bet that these women don't bother to think, about whether these swarthy Arabs are actually the betas you describe them as.
All these women care about is that, relative to the boring white betas who predominate in the West, these Arabs **are** tingling alphas.

Jig puts it all very well above (at 6:44 am), with his
"They can stoke their sub-conscious instinctual attraction to assertive men from more assertive cultures, while at the same time... maintaining a veil of moral purity".
Nothing, but nothing, suits modern Lefty women better, than being able to run their real agendas, while maintaining a veil of moral purity!

Sid said...

Jig Bohnson,

I have a friend who has analyzed the situation much the same way you have. He has pointed out that refugees push both the maternal and the nubile buttons in women.

They're poor victims of fate who are fleeing a war zone, but they're also tough macho men who won't take any shittesting from them.

Black men are often able to push the two buttons as well: they're portrayed as strong, athletic, hyper cool and hyper sexual, but also poor children held down by the terrible chains of slavery and persisting racism.

Anonymous said...

I am veryskeptical that you can take this seriously as anything other than a snapshot. yes, right now, with 3% unemployment, young people care about social issues. Unemployment tends to affect them a lot more. What was it/will it be when we're at more normal levels?

216 said...

Anon,

The economy could go either way, a recession is certainly possible by 2020, and very likely by 2024. But at the same time, the US still has unused capacity on the table, labor participation rates are still below their pre-2008 levels and U6 is still above 5% so we don't yet have full employment. Black unemployment, while at the lowest level on paper (6%) is effectively still in a recession. The EU has been a much slower recovery from the recession, so there is even more capacity underused there.

Of the BRICS, three (BRS) of them are currently in recession, all of which are due to political factors. The current growth cycle would get a major shot in the arm if all three were flipped. A Bolsonaro victory could have salutary geopolitical affects by convincing Venezuela to moderate, returning +1.5 million bbl/day back into the oil market. Successful Trump negotiations with North Korea/Iran, while being politically beneficial, would also further stretch out the growth cycle.

At the point we are at now, even a minor recession would result in a GOP wipeout, the "trade war" has spooked Midwestern working class voters that should be its biggest supporters. Large numbers of people still consider themselves financially insecure, and are scared about what the media eagerly reports as apparent economic amateurism and arson carried out via Trump tantrums. Support for redistributionist policies is far higher now, as the belief is that the benefits of the economy went to the top 1% via stock buybacks instead of wage hikes.

Audacious Epigone said...

Damn this is a great discussion. Thanks to all.

Anon,

The economy polls highest among 40-49 yo, then 30-39 yo, then 18-29 you, then 50-59 yo and finally 60+. When the next downturn happens, the importance each cohort attaches to it will go up but I don't think the rank ordering will change much.

Passer by said...

@216

"the "trade war" has spooked Midwestern working class voters that should be its biggest supporters."

Now that you mentioned that, i will add that according to the polls dems and women are more supportive of free trade and reps and men are more supportive of tarrifs.

The US is a funny country, "the left" is for free trade and "the right" is for tarrifs.

Audacious Epigone said...

Passer by,

That has been the case for years. I fell into discovering it during the 2016 presidential campaign, but as I looked at other polling at least since Obama's first term, it was clear that Republican voters were more restrictive on trade than Democrat voters were.

216 said...

Passer by,

Free Trade is a Liberal idea, there is nothing inherently conservative about it other than its undermining of Communist regimes.

Left-wing parties have an electoral self-interest in opposing free trade because their working class voters don't benefit from it. From a purely ideological perspective, they want an egalitarian distribution of wealth, worldwide. If you are familiar with Daniel Hannan MEP, he does the British version of DR3 by complaining that EU protectionism prevents North Africa from having the equivalent of maquiladoras.

But due to structural economic changes, certain left-wing parties, now have an electorate in the professional class that doesn't mind the loss of factory jobs in exchange for cheaper goods and expanded social programs.

AE,

The more cynical GOP politicians have been aware that their base is not onboard with free market fundamentalism. Reagan shoved NAFTA into the cooler until Bush revived it in 1989. GWB didn't repeat his father's mistake and imposed the steel tariffs, which were of a higher rate than the ones Trump imposed, and Chinese dumping was not the concern.

The question mark is the people in Congress, who have the "Saipan Tom" mentality. Perhaps it arises from being elected out of a safe district and relying on incumbency to coast to re-election.

To propose a counterfactual, GWB took a lot of flak due to the bank bailout, and few today will defend TARP. But all of the "free market" posturing that masqueraded as populism created a strategic hole. The price of the bailout was the government getting free stock in the surviving banks. We'd be considerably better off if those stakes (and the dividends) had been retained, and we'd have the leverage to end any "woke capital" practices.

Mr. Rational said...

A Bolsonaro victory could have salutary geopolitical affects by convincing Venezuela to moderate, returning +1.5 million bbl/day back into the oil market.

That's going to happen way too slowly to affect electoral results.  The deconstruction of the Venezuelan oil industry happened over years of disinvestment, cannibalizing capital to support consumption.  Reconstruction will take at least as long and will require abstemiousness while consumption is foregone in lieu of investment.  The pain will continue for some time and third-world people with high time preference will not be able to understand nor vote for the necessary policies and personal denial to return to the status quo ante.

The upshot is that Venezuela's turd-worlders must be suppressed, disenfranchised, or otherwise removed from policy decisions.  They don't have what it takes to even take care of their own interests 10 years out; they have no business voting for policies for a nation 1-2 generations hence.  So they have no business voting at all.

Jig Bohnson said...

@216

Definitely. In fact, I want to take the analysis a step farther. It has been noted that the leadership of Black Lives Matter is heavily gay and trans. In fact I recall some disgruntled black person referred to it as 'a gay movement masquerading as a black movement' but I don't remember where. I wonder if this is because BLM is a way for gay men to align with and have contact with extremely aggressive, masculine, confident men (the black underclass), who they could never have access to in the gay community, under the cover of being involved in a social cause.


AE, how about looking into this?? Is there a poll that shows support for BLM vs. sexual orientation? And then to contrast, some other data with support for a cause with less sexy men (Tibet?) vs. sexual orientation?

Audacious Epigone said...

Jig,

Aargh, it looks like R-I had a poll on support for BLM but it has since pulled the data on it. Not sure why, by it would've allowed for race and sexual orientation cross-tabs.