Saturday, January 10, 2015

Liberalism has lost working class!

The Albuquerque Journal ^ | January 9, 2015 | Victor Davis Hanson 

Democrats for over a century were associated with the American middle class.

Working-class voters once believed that Democratic-inspired intervention into the economy – minimum-wage laws, overtime pay, Social Security, Medicare, workers’ compensation – protected their interests better than unfettered free-market capitalism.
Republicans often had trouble selling the argument that an unleashed economy and new technology would relegate poverty to a relative, not absolute, condition – something like suffering with a cheap outdated iPhone 4 while the better-off afforded an iPhone 6. Why, then, have Democrats lost the working class – especially white, lower-middle-class voters?
There are several obvious reasons.
For one, high-profile progressives are largely rich, and their relatively small numbers live in a gentrified cocoon. Politicians, academics, media personalities, celebrities and other Democratically aligned professionals had just the sort of academic brands or technological, linguistic, cultural and service skills that were well-compensated during the transition to globalism.
Their out-of-touch privilege, however, led to agendas – radical green politics, hyper-feminism, transgender advocacy, forced multiculturalism, open borders – that were not principal concerns of the struggling working classes. A techie in Silicon Valley, an actor in Hollywood, a trial lawyer in Washington or a professor at Yale had the income to afford the steeper taxes and higher housing, energy and college costs that were the natural dividends of their own political agendas.
High-speed rail, expensive graduate degrees and European-level gas prices are logical aims for elites....
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...

Why Jeb won't keep the rest from running

Yahoo News ^ | January 8, 2015 | Matt Bai 

The last two elections created and solidified a whole new group of what you might call surfer Republicans. If you’re a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz or a Marco Rubio, everyone said you were delusional when you first set out to take down a far more established Republican in your state. The sages said you couldn’t possibly raise enough money or get enough attention to win. And then you rode the wave and did exactly that. You can’t tell a tea party sensation like Cruz that he can’t run because there are too many other candidates vying in the same space. Once a politician feels invincible, only the voters can disabuse him of the idea.
The last three off-year elections were wave elections in which at least one chamber of Congress changed hands and had a profound effect on shaping the current leadership of both parties. It’s no accident that the only Democrat considered a truly national, galvanizing candidate is a failed presidential hopeful from 2008 who hasn’t held elective office since. The elections of 2010 and 2014 pretty much wiped out any chance the party had of developing a new class of stars. You basically have Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, and then a bunch of other folks you wouldn’t notice if you accidentally spilled cappuccino on them at Starbucks.
And don’t think all of this doesn’t draw in candidates whose careers predated the last few cycles, too. If you’re Jeb Bush or Rick Perry or Mike Huckabee, you think to yourself: Why should I sit this one out and watch while Cruz blusters himself into the vice presidency, just because he happened to run at the right moment in Texas?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...