Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! My-yummy!
Posted on 11/28/2011 6:35:49 AM PST by Evil Slayer
For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.
All pretence of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.
The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com ...
“So you’re saying that our side will become primarily defined by race? “
No I think the other side will primarily be defined by race. And I think we will eventually see tactics used in the US similar to those used in the last Kenyan election.
And that will have an inevitable polarizing effect.
++++++++++++++++++
“...If the SHTF, right thinking blacks are going to be at great risk in the fight, if the lines are being defined primarily by race.”
If the SHTF then your best protection will be to be surrounded by a community of like-minded people you know and trust.
I’m not sure what your imagining, but I don’t believe that the conservatives in this country will never become a racist, “shoot blacks on sight” mob.
It’s far more likely that the major urban areas will become NFZ for whites.
++++++++++++++++++
“I don’t expect you to have the answer, but the scenario you pose is of life and death concern for some people.”
If the above scenario plays out, we will ALL be in a life or death struggle.
That's why they have to push so hard for amnesty, welfare programs and student loan forgiveness. They don't need the white working class, except for needing them to pay the taxes that are going to buy them a constituency.
A couple of points. There has been and aways will be friendly fire, wish it wasn't so. You used the word
“primarily”, Most wars are ideological in nature. Jews fought in all armies of WWII, blacks fought on both sides of the civil war and there are probably other examples.
The truly amazing thing is that we are having this discussion......................
I disagree! Artists, Designers, and Librarians create wealth too!
ok folks when you say the word wealth, what do you mean?
I think your biggest threat would be from black libs who don't consider you liberal enough, if at all.
Next would be white libs who may actually have the balls to pull the trigger.
Your least threat would be from conservatives, because mostly they think before they act, and not base their actions solely on emotion.
Well, for folks like me, this isn't just an intellectual exercise. It's a life and death concern. There won't be uniforms in the next war.
Look at what happened in the Balkans.
Sadly, you are right to be worried. As am I. When SHTF, people stop thinking.
You see, the well educated Leftist who is making the good money, actually knows what is best for the lower and under classes, and therefore,logically as night follows day, ipso facto knows what is best for the white working and/or middle classes. Indeed, as I have just shown you, the Leftist in a secure financial position knows what is best for the whole nation.
When it comes to those nasty elections, the prosperous Left can count on the support of the lower orders, who are after all, too ignorant to notice that their leaders have resources while they have none, except what their leaders deign to give them. They have been controlled and brainwashed to think that their misery is the result of white middle class greed and look forward to receiving ever more of whitey's "ill-gotten gains" through tax-supported improved "social engineering" programs.
In case there are not enough members of the lower orders to support the agenda, we can always get more from the Third World. There are many other benefits from an alliance with the ignorant. Who the hell else would buy, for example, "Global Warming," and the preposterous taxes and regulations that keep it going?
Bottom line, the Left remains in power, and its leadership is directly or indirectly tax-supported.
Sweet.
Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! My-yummy!
Unions are part of the reason that so many blacks have trouble finding work.
“professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists “
These are the very people who are destroying our country by their “being.” China just announced that they were going to eliminate college degree programs for “professions” that could not get jobs on graduation. We would have a great start if we did the same, and it included these aforesaid mentioned people.
But the distribution of black voters is concentrated in places where they already have majorities.
The political repercussions of gathering minority strength remain unknown. Calculations based on exit poll and Census data suggest that the Democratic Party will become “majority minority” shortly after 2020.
One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics — populations frequently marked by diverging material interests. Black versus brown struggles are already emerging in contests over the distribution of political power, especially during a current redistricting of city council, state legislative and congressional seats in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.
They're building an inherently unstable coalition of upper and lower classes against the private sector middle class and writing off working class whites. They can say goodbye to the Jacksonian Democrats.
If we use the Great Recession to repeal the Open Immigration Act of 1965, the rats are demographically doomed for the foreseeable future.
When I think of the "Obama Coalition" - I'm thinking national and state races...States votes - electoral college - you know - that kind of thing doesn't depend on city tallies.
If someone purchases some resources from owners who, without coercion or deception, willingly supply them at the price paid, and if that person subsequently (possibly after some manipulation upon them) sells them to people who, without coercion or deception, willingly purchase them with their own money, then that person has created wealth. A reasonable lower bound on the amount of wealth created is the difference between the price for which the person bought the resources and the price for which he sold them.
If an artist buys $10 worth of materials and uses them to produce a painting, and if the artist finds someone who wants to spend $10,000 of his own money on that painting, by what measure would you say the artist has not produced $9,990 worth of wealth?
I would posit that while it may be difficult to precisely value things, the fact that someone is willing to pay $X of his own money for something implies that it is worth at least $X to that person. Likewise if a person is freely willing to sell something for $Y, it is worth at most $Y to that person. I would aver that when the artist purchased the materials, they were worth no more than $10, and when he sold the painting it was worth at least $10,000. Would you disagree with those assessments? How would you assess the values of the materials and the painting?
Well, I'm praying that this country doesn't cross that line. I don't have much to rest my faith on, though. We're living in scary times.
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.