Skip to comments.
Working class snookered by Bush ["working class" religion, abortion, homophobia]
Capital Times ^
| 10-11-06
| Dave Zweifel
Posted on 10/11/2006 3:57:39 PM PDT by SJackson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
getting the vote of low- and moderate-income people - particularly, males - has been a phenomenal accomplishment of the current breed of Republicans. The Karl Roves and Jim Dobsons of the world have cleverly used religion, abortion and outright homophobia to get folks to ignore their self-interests and elect candidates who do vote for so-called "family values," of course, but also work overtime to make life comfortable for the rich and powerful at the expense of the powerless.
As direct an admission of the amorality, immorality if you prefer, of the left.
While I don't accept his economic premise, if the "working class", people who work which includes me but perhaps not the author since he likely voted Dem or Green, ignore their personal economic interests to vote based on their moral values, good for them. Dave Zweifel should be attacking the moral values, not the fact that some votes can't be bought for short term economic gain.
1
posted on
10/11/2006 3:57:40 PM PDT
by
SJackson
To: SJackson
getting the vote of low- and moderate-income people - particularly, males - has been a phenomenal accomplishment of the current breed of Republicans. Frank's upset that this particular demographic no longer votes in knee-jerk fashion for the socialist left.
2
posted on
10/11/2006 4:00:00 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
(A pirate's life for me.)
To: SJackson
Gee, maybe 'cause even us rubes in the Mid-West are smarter than Thomas Frank? Ya think???
To: SJackson
As Paul Krugman of the New York Times pointed out last week OK, thats enough. I don't need to read an further.
To: SJackson
Thomas Frank: I'm smarter than the rest of the people in my state who all vote republican because they have I.Q.s of 70 and are a bunch of caveman homophobes.....
Winning those hearts and minds, eh? Maybe they like tax cuts and social conservatism. No, couldn't be.
5
posted on
10/11/2006 4:09:33 PM PDT
by
NapkinUser
(http://www.votegraf.com/)
To: SJackson
Is the newspaper name an Englishing of Das Kapital? Still seem to believe in dialectial materialism, don't they?
6
posted on
10/11/2006 4:14:03 PM PDT
by
The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
To: SixStringSlinger
Thomas Frank is from the Midwest.
7
posted on
10/11/2006 4:17:33 PM PDT
by
durasell
(!)
To: SJackson
The democrats work off the flawed premise that big government is best for everyone's economic "self interest", when that is actually the opposite of what is best for one's economic self interest. If you want a higher standard of living, then you are not going to get it from the government. You will get it from a pro-growth economy, which is what the republicans stand for. People are not voting against their self interest when they vote republican. They are voting for their self interest. If you want to vote against your self interest, vote for the democrats and let them tax you to death for the "common good" (which is the opposite of self interest).
As far as the rhetoric about the "haves and have nots", that is just more Marxist class warfare propaganda.
8
posted on
10/11/2006 4:17:42 PM PDT
by
Hendrix
To: SJackson
Last week, this administration's NLRB added to labor's woes with a ruling that expands by millions the number of workers ineligible for union representation. In a case brought by the management of some Massachusetts hospitals, the NLRB greatly expanded the definition of who is a supervisor and, hence, exempt from any union.
Krugman cop-out for the fact that union power diminishes as 1) they tend to gradually bankrupt what industries they do control and 2) your average private U.S. worker chooses to deal with his employer directly, vote the way he chooses, and give money to the politicians and parties he chooses instead of giving money and taking orders from union bosses.
9
posted on
10/11/2006 4:23:21 PM PDT
by
dr_who_2
To: SJackson
As far as I am concerned, the union laws in this country are really screwed up. A company should be able to fire someone for trying to unionize its workforce. In fact, a company should be able to fire its entire union workforce if it wants to and hire non-union workers. Unions have way too many laws to protect them. Let the free market work as it should and dump the union laws.
10
posted on
10/11/2006 4:24:59 PM PDT
by
Hendrix
To: SJackson
Surely the loonie-left's all-out-assault on Christian writers and their large following got a nitwit or two back in the demoncrat fold...
11
posted on
10/11/2006 4:25:30 PM PDT
by
100-Fold_Return
(Soros hates MEGA-churches, Televanglists, and Wal-Mart)
To: SJackson
Rise up Kansas proletariat workers! Stop voting for Republicans, you swines!
12
posted on
10/11/2006 4:25:38 PM PDT
by
dr_who_2
To: Hendrix
The democrats work off the flawed premise that big government is best for everyone's economic "self interest", when that is actually the opposite of what is best for one's economic self interest. If you want a higher standard of living, then you are not going to get it from the government.I don't disagree with you.
We all have a multitude of interests, self-interests, outside of the economic sphere for most of us.
The author takes it as a given that voters economic interests will trump all else. I dare to say he's thinking lower economic classes, but maybe not.
If Bill Gates acts against his economic interests to advance social causes, private or government sponsored through taxes, that's great. My guess there's a long list of the affluent the author would fawn over for their contributions in that sphere. But if we accept his economic premise that the Dems would be better for a middle class working stiff economically, he can't figure out how that working stiff would vote Republican on a moral basis when the Dems are offering an economic payoff.
A classic elitist, amoral view of the working class.
13
posted on
10/11/2006 4:29:51 PM PDT
by
SJackson
(The Pilgrims—Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn't do!)
To: Hendrix
As far as I am concerned, the union laws in this country are really screwed up. A company should be able to fire someone for trying to unionize its workforce. In fact, a company should be able to fire its entire union workforce if it wants to and hire non-union workers. Unions have way too many laws to protect them. Let the free market work as it should and dump the union laws. Rather than get into it now, imo within a year or so we'll have 10 million plus new workers, guest or "citizen embryos" I don't know, and the unions will feast on them if thay have half a brain. Unions have been in a long decline, but I suspect market conditions will be improving for them soon. For their political allies, perhaps.
14
posted on
10/11/2006 4:32:49 PM PDT
by
SJackson
(The Pilgrims—Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn't do!)
To: SJackson
Big corporations like Wal-Mart don't have to fear firing workers who attempt to unionize because the Bush appointees to the labor board, if they act at all, will only respond with a slap on the wrist. And they shouldn't have to.
After all free enterprise works and supports government to boot and if our economy were based on anything different, we would be living in a third world and the complaints would be 10 fold.
15
posted on
10/11/2006 4:33:04 PM PDT
by
EGPWS
(Lord help me be the conservative liberals fear I am.)
To: SJackson
No one will be able to understand them if it happens... unless they force companies to hire interpreters.
LLS
16
posted on
10/11/2006 4:36:39 PM PDT
by
LibLieSlayer
(Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
To: SJackson
It doesn't say it in so many words, but it sounds like school principals and vice/assistant principals can't be union members anymore.
Thats a good thing!
17
posted on
10/11/2006 4:37:30 PM PDT
by
WildBill2275
(The Second Amendment guarantees all of your other rights.)
To: SJackson
Thomas Frank asked how it is that working people in a red state like Kansas can consistently vote against their own economic interests.
If life were all about economic self-interests then NOBODY would volunteer for anything, ever.
18
posted on
10/11/2006 4:44:13 PM PDT
by
crazyhorse691
(Diplomacy doesn't work when seagulls rain on your parade. A shotgun and umbrella does.)
To: SJackson
Of all the elitist left-wing claptrap out there, this bit about how the poor and oppressed could be so stupid as to vote for "the current breed of Republicans" is one of the clappiest and trappiest.
To: SJackson
About 12 percent of the U.S. workforce is unionized. If the whole U.S. workforce were unionized there would either be much fewer jobs or no jobs because small businesses, which create most of the jobs, would cease to exist and the economy would collapse.
20
posted on
10/11/2006 4:53:34 PM PDT
by
Brad from Tennessee
(Anything a politician gives you he has first stolen from you)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson