Kbg wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:07 pm
Ok, I like this thread. May I offer a slight critique which may help elevate the discussion and make it a wee tad less jumbled. Political, Economic and Social are three really large topics and going in and out of all three make the conversation hard to follow and the soundness of argument gets diluted when tangential stuff gets brought in.
So let's try some basic definitions...
Politics refers to things associated with governance
Economics refers to things associated with the production, consumption AND the transfer of wealth associated with these activities (this last clause is key because all economic transactions involve a transfer)
Sociology refers to the development, structure, and functioning of human society
These things are NOT science, they are at their core a matter of human preference...so how about we get that one out of the way right up front and realize that most of what is being argued is YOUR personal preference. There is nothing necessarily superior about YOUR personal preference to SOMEONE ELSE's personal preference.
Sophie opened this and the topic is the New Republican Populism which she asserted was associated with populism, free-market and personal freedom. My quick take as an observer I would say with regard to NRP and these three; populism - yes, free market - seriously no, personal freedom - selective. Along these lines the conversation tangented off to what is conservatism and collectivism vs. individualism. For the record, folks should go back and read pmward's post. This seems to be a major "thing" these days and the concept is an important one to understand...it explains a lot and captures the relative merits/disadvantages of each component.
Personally, I do not believe either major party is really driven by "core principles" come what may. I also don't blame them for that. At the end of the day politicians who receive compensation or serious perks from their elected office are driven to win in a competitive political world (except where it's not competitive which, frankly, is the vast majority of the United States). Political parties, in theory, represent the beliefs of a large section of the populace. To understand the two major American parties all you really need to do is spend some time figuring out who it is they are representing. Once you understand this, then you understand their platforms. History shows that from time to time there are major shifts of constituents from one party to another. There was a time an African-American would never vote Democratic as one simple example. There was a time the Republican party was a non-entity in the American south as another example. Nationalism has floated back and forth between the two parties. Whether we are undergoing a significant shifting of constituents right now is hard to say, but I don't think so. (See next para)
If someone had to ask me what the two parties most closely represent in 2020...I'd make a strong argument that the Rs represent rural America and the D's represent urban America. Pull up a bunch of presidential election maps state by state and that becomes crystal clear, to the point I personally think it's indisputable. I think the next truly FDR, Reagan stature level political figure is the person who breaks this dynamic and at that point, and only at that point, do I see a seismic shift in the electorate. I think a lot of the positions the two parties take are completely understandable when one simply looks at who lives in cities vs. rural and what their interests/world views tend to be. (What I find incredible is how much of what drove our structure of state representation at the Federal level was extremely driven by this exact same dynamic.)
So there's my argument...the R party is representing rural America (and some "legacy" big business industries and small business owners). Meanwhile, the D party is representing urban America (and some information age industries and labor unions).
I would love some push back on this that is factual and well reasoned...for now it's my personal political theory and I'm sticking to it...but I'm always open to change when presented with new/better evidence. To me this is all you need to know to understand American politics and why the parties do what they do.
So now let me hit Sophie's three things one by one.
Populism - yes, but more of the rural and lower class. However, I would argue that BLM, antifa etc. are just the flip side of the populism coin.
Economic - no. I think what the unmentionable tapped into in 2016 as did the "Burn" was a strong rejection of internationalism in political policy, but most significantly economic policy...and to be specific...having what were formally excellent blue collar jobs dying by the millions along with the rise of offshoring to an industrializing China. A free marketeer would never be for what has occurred in terms of trade policy.
Personal freedom - selective. Again, I think this is the flip side of the same coin. Clearly the cancel culture (rightly so in my view) was taken on full steam. However, I think the other side could/would argue the whole LGBT/transgender/BLM etc. thing was about personal freedom for oppressed non-mainstream people.