Posted on 10/03/2015 11:47:06 AM PDT by Petrosius
While conducting extensive surveys of white voters in 1971 and again in 1975, Warren identified a group who defied the usual partisan and ideological divisions. These voters were not college educated; their income fell somewhere in the middle or lower-middle range; and they primarily held skilled and semi-skilled blue-collar jobs or sales and clerical white-collar jobs.…
Warren called these voters Middle American Radicals, or MARS. “MARS are distinct in the depth of their feeling that the middle class has been seriously neglected,” Warren wrote. They saw “government as favoring both the rich and the poor simultaneously.” Like many on the left, MARS were deeply suspicious of big business… MARS also backed many liberal programs: By a large percentage, they favored government guaranteeing jobs to everyone; and they supported price controls, Medicare, some kind of national health insurance, federal aid to education, and Social Security.
On the other hand, they held very conservative positions on poverty and race. They were the least likely to agree that whites had any responsibility “to make up for wrongs done to blacks in the past,” they were the most critical of welfare agencies, they rejected racial busing, and they wanted to grant police a “heavier hand” to “control crime.” They were also the group most distrustful of the national government. And in a stand that wasn’t really liberal or conservative (and that appeared, at least on the surface, to be in tension with their dislike of the national government), MARS were more likely than any other group to favor strong leadership in Washington—to advocate for a situation “when one person is in charge.”
If these voters are beginning to sound familiar, they should: Warren’s MARS of the 1970s are the Donald Trump supporters of today.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
Should be MARs or MAR’s
Another attempt to portray Trump as being of the racists, by the racists, for the racist.
Trump is from MARS, the author is from Uranus.
Author is from TNR; former senior editor.
New Republic senior editors don’t change their spots.
"The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good."
"Mr. Watts is only half right. The difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives believe humans are fundamentally flawed but can be civilized by organized religion and reason-based ethics, while progressives believe humans are born as empty slates, and everything they are and become, both good and bad, is the result of environment, so change the environment and people will change.
"But that is the distinction among the cognoscenti. "Pop" progressive prejudice teaches that the Jewish/Christian cisnormal white man is the cause of all evil in the world, unless he repents and submits to the will of the non-Jewish/Christian non-cisnormal non-white (and in order to be in power, one must be at least two of the "non"s). "Pop" conservatives, reacting to pop progressive prejudice, assert the opposite. Both groups strain at gnats: e.g., pop progressives fly rainbow flags in order to stick it to the pop conservatives, and the pop conservatives fly Confederate-style flags in order to stick it to the pop progressives; all the while, the progressives in power, supported by their pseudo-conservative lackeys, continue to gut society.
"Most Americans are not ideological, philosophical, or intellectual. They want to live and let live, they want to work and let work, they want to worship and let worship, they want to be safe and let others be safe. They don't want to hear that homosexuality is sinful because they know gay Bob down the street is a nice guy, they just wish the freaks would stop parading down Main Street. Conversely, they don't want to hear that white people are the cause of all black people's troubles because they've never caused any trouble for any black person, they just wish the thugs would stop flashing their gang signs and playing knockout games down Main Street.
"And that is why Donald Trump is likely to become our next President, because he says what average Americans have been thinking for the last 30 years, whether or not it fits the conservative world-view, because most Americans aren't conservatives, but they're tired of being blamed for every little problem that every non-conservative can think of as being a problem."
The little people. The nothings. The common clay of Nowheresville America. You know, morons.
Sheesh, these elitist pricks couldn't be more condescending if they took a college course in Elitist Prickism. Oh, wait...
In an article in "Rolling Stone" back in the Seventies, a prominent activist on the Left referred to them as "assholes."
The meme always is that Republican or conservative voters are poorly educated and ill informed. This, in spite of the fact that data typically shows just the opposite. No doubt whoever happened to be leading the Republican race at this point would have those “poorly educated and ill-informed” supporters.
Total clap trap...again, how many times to those we don’t agree with must they name call.
They still do. As do the pseudo-conservatives that spout a few talking points every couple of years to get re-elected. Both groups are sophisticated enough these days to not speak such words aloud to a reporter or near a microphone.
To him I would offer a word from the predominately leftist field of psychology; “projection.” :-)
“while Democrats see people as fundamentally good.”
In other words, the left denies human nature and institutes policies that perpetuate death, poverty, misery and dependency.
Yeah, though the article is reasonably descriptive, the entire tenor is “these less than intelligent types have limited, racist opinions”.
A widely held fallacy. Leftists actually see other people as fundamentally incompetent to live their own lives.
Except for white heterosexual males.
John Judis is a socialist who writes for the New Republic. When he wants to do an attack piece, he's savage. This is controlled and contained for him.
It's certainly something one can disagree with or criticize, but it's not especially vicious considering who wrote it.
The idea of pinpointing a politicians supporters as part of a class is sort of beside the point. As you note, it can be used as a snobbish put-down.
More to the point is understanding just what it is in a politician that appeals to voters and just what it is in voters that politicians appeal to. That part of the article may be more worthwhile.
Not a Trump supporter here but having seen many postings about Trump by his supporters on FR, I just don't see this.
I may not agree with them about some things but I don't see them as favoring government guaranteeing anything to anyone. Rather the less government, the better.
They also don't support price controls, national health insurance, or aid for federal education.
This article does not describe my experience with Trump supporters.
There was a vast hippy culture that wanted love and peace and though there were no political solutions to accomplish love and peace, the desire was still there
I liked halucinagens, not speed nor downs ... just .. "out there" ....
It was a fun place to be
I think the author was attempting to negate Archie Bunker by joining him to meathead ....
Archie never changed, never joined up with meathead and is still here .... in my mirror, anyway.
An insider elite ... yawn...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.