Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: It’s A New Day In Gay America Previous entry: Fundies and child abuse

Limbaugh calls health care reform “reparations” and “civil rights”

Health CareRace

This is really hard to listen to, since Rush Limbaugh is being even angrier and nastier and egotistical than usual, but it’s nonetheless important if you want to understand the opposition to health care reform:

In it, Limbaugh uses high racialized language to denounce health care reform, calling it “civil rights” and “reparations” in these tones that are dripping with anger and disdain.  The context for this is a discussion about the evils of social welfare spending that allows the people who build wealth through labor to enjoy some of the fruits of that wealth through taxing people who build wealth through capital and hoard most of the wealth for themselves.  From a fairness point of view, people who work to build wealth should get part of the bounty for the country, and the most efficient way to do this is through taxation.  Most people, if they think about it, do think that the social contract should include those who labor as well as those who invest money.  So the way that Rush and his comrades are able to distract people and have them offer their loyalties not to their fellow citizens who have to work for a living, but to those whose work is mainly in investing, is to draw on race.  He’s using language that basically says, “Working white people: Ignore the fact that you have the same concerns and hopes and dreams as working black Americans.  Instead, your loyalty and decisions should be made on hoarding wealth in the hands of white people and keeping it from black people.  That doing this means you don’t get your share of the pie is too bad, but at least most of the people who get most of the money are white.”

Conservatives like to pretend that liberals “cry racism” about opposition to health care reform because of President Obama, as if we’re saying all criticism of the man is racist in and of itself because of his race.  And of course they like to pretend that; it’s easier to argue with than the actual argument.  The actual argument is that opposition to social welfare spending is largely rooted in this race-baiting that Limbaugh is engaging in.  The argument is that the tea parties are mainly white because some white people are so opposed to sharing with people they think are inferior to them that they will shoot themselves in the foot in the process of hitting those folks with the bullet. We’re saying that they see America in terms of black and white and not in terms of rich and not-rich, and so when they think of “wealth redistribution”, they think of it as going from a mostly white upper class to a more racially diverse working and middle class, and they get upset at that.  This would all be true if we had President Clinton instead of President Obama, though I do think the fact that we have President Obama is probably escalating the racism of the teabagger movement.  But it’s not the source of it by a long shot.

That’s also why the fact that most teabaggers are tipping the age scale is relevant, as well.  While there’s no shortage of racial resentment with younger white Americans, it’s certainly milder on the whole than with the older crowd. The younger you go, the more likely you are to find a willingness to get along and share and see ourselves as a single group—-Americans—-and less as a bunch of racially separate people at odds with each other.  Also, the younger you go, the more racial diversity you find, so again, you’re less likely to see that group as a whole choose preserving the extreme wealth of the few on top because they’re white over self-interest.  Conservatives are genuinely in trouble in the long run because of this, which is why some of their attempts to appeal to young people are so laughable.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:35 PM • (48) Comments

Pretty much. It’s all down to “it might help black people” who are by virtue of their race inherently not “hard-working” OR “deserving”. It’s basically a deal where rich white dudes are willing to pretend middle and lower class white dudes racist views of the world are true and preserve that illusion and all they ask in return is all of the money and votes for the purpose of keeping the money in “white hands”.

I suspect this is because a lot of underachieving white dudes understand in a real meritocracy they probably wouldn’t be working as good of a job because they couldn’t just skate by on the privileges of their race, class, and dudeness.

A lot of it is also fear of having to see one of “them”. White people have carefully insulated themselves in white bubbles for over 60 years and are not about ready to admit that America isn’t some whitetopia and they might actually have to share government services, jobs, cars, etc… with people of different melanin frequency. That their culture isn’t actually the only culture nor should be.

For people who have been trained by religion to give up everything interesting and novel about themselves to be a cookie-cutter stereotype of “normal” that is the most threatening thing of all.

If they’re no longer “special” by virtue of fulfilling the stereotype, then what are they but people who wasted their entire lives on something that didn’t actually make them happy, following someone else’s dreams?

People will give up anything to avoid having to face that personal revelation. Especially when they believe the day they’ll get to commit suicide without going to Hell is any day now and they just need to run out the clock.

Comment #1: Cerberus  on  02/23  at  08:14 PM

“Working white people: Ignore the fact that you have the same concerns and hopes and dreams as working black Americans.  Instead, your loyalty and decisions should be made on hoarding wealth in the hands of white people and keeping it from black people.  That doing this means you don’t get your share of the pie is too bad, but at least most of the people who get most of the money are white.”

This is the way politics in the south have been carried on since before the civil war.  The argument, to conservatives at least, seems as effective nationally as it did regionally.  As long as there are other people to look down on the fact that they are being kept in poverty and ignorance doesn’t seem to occur to some people.  This is nothing new.  It has worked for centuries, why should the conservatives abandon it now? 

A large part of the blame belongs to the white people who allow themselves to be used in the racist games of the corporate shills.  They have to carry the blame for their own racism.  Dividing the working class is important in keeping us in line, and they will do it along any lines they can, the racial/ethnic line is just easiest.

Comment #2: G Porgey  on  02/23  at  08:30 PM

Again, Galbraith’s “Culture of Contentment” is recommended reading.

Comment #3: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/23  at  08:31 PM

What cracks me up is that insurance is socialism. It is risk pooling. The idea is that you pay into a fund along with lots of other people and should one of the people who pays into the fund gets sick the fund then pays for their treatment (in theory) and because the people who speak on behalf of the fund represent so many people they can bargain with hospitals to bring down prices. Its just such a pity that the people who run insurance are such unbelievable shits that its necessary for government to intervene. If you had proper capitalist healthcare you would have to deal with the hospital by yourself. The only difference between a government run plan and private plans is that the government isn’t out to screw you, you pay taxes not premiums and the government hasn’t done it before. And it is wealth redistribution because the premiums of healthy people pay the bills of the people who are sick. If you have a problem with black people having wealth redistributed to them through health insurance you should also have a problem with black people being in a union, having a bank account or a pension plan.

Comment #4: pharmakos  on  02/23  at  08:42 PM

“If you have a problem with black people having wealth redistributed to them through health insurance you should also have a problem with black people being in a union, having a bank account or a pension plan.”

Dude, they do have a problem with that.  Limbaugh, the Republicans, Teabaggers, etc. have a problem with black people being anywhere except a cotton field.

Comment #5: phalamir  on  02/23  at  08:52 PM

What cracks me up is that insurance is socialism. It is risk pooling.

No, it isn’t.  Socialism is the community or national control of the means of production.  It is not a synonym for “collective action”.

God, I get annoyed with Americans and their slurring on this.  I put it down to growing up with propaganda that painted Socialism as the Big Satan.

Comment #6: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/23  at  08:57 PM

“Limbaugh, the Republicans, Teabaggers, etc. have a problem with black people being anywhere except a cotton field.”

...and the same for Hispanics (who would also benefit from real healthcare reform), except they can only be in a cotton (or any other) field until the crop is picked, and then it’s back across the border, Jose, we don’t care whether you’re really an America Citizen or not.

Rush demonstrates daily what a (no-)class act he is.  What a self-important asshole…

Comment #7: MikeEss  on  02/23  at  09:00 PM

Phoenician, in America, “Socialism” is whatever the Republicans, wingnuts, and Teabaggers need it to be for their political advantage.  Marx, Engels, and all the rest are just the names of clubs they use to hit anyone to the left of Newt Gingrich…

Comment #8: MikeEss  on  02/23  at  09:03 PM

Rush has been ringing this bell for a while.  For instance, back when Obama released his budget…

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051109/content/01125109.guest.html

“The objective is unemployment.  The objective is more food stamp benefits.  The objective is more unemployment benefits.  The objective is an expanding welfare state. The objective is to take the nation’s wealth and return it to the nation’s, quote, ‘rightful owners.’  Think reparations.  Think forced reparations here, if you want to understand what actually is going on.”

Comment #9: robelanator  on  02/23  at  09:11 PM

Not entirely off topic, I haven’t seen anyone reference this: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2011132171_pitts21.html

If you want to see proof of the author’s thesis that many people don’t want to be confused by facts, read the comments, but have a strong drink ready.

Comment #10: GeekGirlsRule  on  02/23  at  09:30 PM

#2: G Porgey,

The problem is, under capitalism, there are a finite number of jobs to go around - and an even smaller number of good jobs.

This is the basis for racial conflict among workers - and, in this country, historically, since slavery, White workers have gotten more than their fair share of the jobs - and in particular more than their fair share of the good jobs.

That’s the economic basis for working class Whites giving political support to racists - they have a dollars and cents stake in racism and racial privilege, because they directly benefit from it.

Comment #11: GregoryAButler  on  02/23  at  09:37 PM

No, it isn’t.  Socialism is the community or national control of the means of production.  It is not a synonym for “collective action”.

God, I get annoyed with Americans and their slurring on this.  I put it down to growing up with propaganda that painted Socialism as the Big Satan..

It’ll be interesting to see where you point out where I said socialism is Satan. It seems you think the only true socialism is for the state to take over everything and that’s a lot fun to think about it from an armchair. Clearly the state is not going to take over healthcare and health insurance is a socialist idea for an unplanned mixed economy. Or it would be if it wasn’t run for profit and wasn’t tiered.

Comment #12: pharmakos  on  02/23  at  09:40 PM

<Charlie Day>

OBJECTION! Extremely racist!

/Charlie Day

Comment #13: Well, what?  on  02/23  at  10:10 PM

Pharmakos, I did not state you precisely, although you certainly failed to use the term properly.

It seems you think the only true socialism is for the state to take over everything and that’s a lot fun to think about it from an armchair.

Dead wrong. My thinking is this:

i, Both markets and command systems, capitalism and socialism, are tools.  They have no moral weight in themselves per se.

ii, The market mechanism is more efficient and more effective in general than command economies. The default assumption should therefore be capitalism and capitalist mechanisms, which also has the advantage of encouraging better political freedom, since it does not concentrate political and economic power in the same hands.

iii, The market is predicated on ideal assumptions which are never met in the real world. The greater reality differs from these assumptions, the more likely it is that market failures will occur.  When market failures occur in one area, this can be detrimental to society as a whole.

iv, A command economy, socialism, can therefore be more effective and better for society than a market mechanism, capitalism, in specific areas where a good pragmatic case can be made based on the limitations of the market.  The default assumption is capitalism; in specific cases, socialism can be justified as a useful tool.  It is not a Great Satan, nor The One True Way - it is simply a tool to be used pragmatically where desirable for the greater good of society.

v, Examples might include utilities, roading, telecommunications or basic health provision.

Comment #14: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/23  at  10:44 PM

White people have carefully insulated themselves in white bubbles for over 60 years and are not about ready to admit that America isn’t some whitetopia and they might actually have to share government services, jobs, cars, etc… with people of different melanin frequency.

A few years ago, after living in Los Angeles for about 15 years, I went back to visit my family in the Chicago suburbs.  I was driving the rental car with my cousin who’d grown up in northern California—I think it was one of the first times the whole week I was there that we were alone.

She turned to me and said, “I have never seen so many white people in one place in my whole life.”  Which was pretty much exactly what I was thinking at that point—I had been away for so long that I had forgotten exactly how segregated the place I grew up was.  It was very surreal.

Comment #15: Mnemosyne  on  02/23  at  10:48 PM

A command economy, socialism, can therefore be more effective and better for society than a market mechanism, capitalism

You are talking like its an all or nothing. In europe you have mixed economies. If the state doesn’t run the hospitals (and they’re not going to) and they are run for profit that means socialism is the state providing basic insurance for everyone. And in the absence of the state doing it you have insurance companies providing (sort of) the same service with the same basic idea behind it. They pool risk. Pooling risk is the point of Socialism with a capital S. No one who is for Socialism wants it because its more efficient. Its so that everyone gets what they need and you ensure this happens because the folks running it calculate with everyone in mind and allocate work with that central concern in mind. Again, risk pooling. Socialism with the small s is what we (might be fortunate enough to) get in the conceivable future. 

You might note that I haven’t made any claims about the moral value of socialism.

Comment #16: pharmakos  on  02/23  at  11:31 PM

You are talking like its an all or nothing.

I thought the fact that I emphasised the word “specific” and stated “basic health provision” made it clear that I didn’t. As someone who has used both public and private health care as desirable, I certainly consider a mixed system better than all or nothing.

Anyway, I repeat my original comment - pooling risk is not socialism (per se).  Community or government control over the means of production is socialism.  The problem with American health care is that the mechanisms for pooling risk are explicitly capitalist - they’re out to make a buck, not encourage community health.

Comment #17: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/23  at  11:51 PM

The point of of socialism is risk pooling. Its insurance, we all contribute so in the time of need we get out what we need. Centralized control of the means of production is just one way of doing that. Unless the point of socialism is just to escape the antagonisms of capitalism. And I made that point about how the insurance companies don’t work now in my original post. Asking the foxes to guard the henhouse is a bad idea but the idea of a henhouse isn’t.

Comment #18: pharmakos  on  02/24  at  12:06 AM

If you have a problem with black people having wealth redistributed to them through health insurance you should also have a problem with black people being in a union, having a bank account or a pension plan.

To build off what Gregory said, if you look at the long history of the U.S., this is exactly what has happened.  Lynching and race riots of the early 20th century had the immediate and cumulative effect of redistributing personal and relatively humble holdings by black people—-farms, houses—-into white hands.  Not the white hands of people who didn’t already have their own stuff, mind you.  But a lot of otherwise middle class or working class white people moved up a tax bracket or two by accusing a black person of rape, getting them lynched, and confiscating their property.

Unions have a long and ugly history of excluding people of color, as well.  Bank accounts?  You should check out the research done showing that the more populated a neighborhood is by black people, the fewer banks (and grocery stores and other services) there are.  This is a huge, extensive problem. One way to address the disparities would be desegregation, but white flight tends to make that goal elusive.  This is a multifaceted, humbling problem of epic proportions. 

On health care reform, there’s mixed expectations on how much it’ll help.  It will help insure people of color—-black and Hispanic people are far more likely to be uninsured than white people.  However, access will remain an issue.  A lot of neighborhoods, towns, and cities have really uneven access to doctors and hospitals, and that’s distributed racially and by income.  There’s not much in the health care bill that will address that.  To make things worse, the open season declared on women’s reproductive health care will make the racial disparities even worse.  Planned Parenthood is the only health care that a huge percentage of its clients even get, and should it disappear from their neighborhoods, they’ll have nothing.

Comment #19: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/24  at  12:41 AM

”Socialism is the community or national control of the means of production”

True, but here anyway irrelevant

Because

”in America, “Socialism” is whatever the Republicans, wingnuts, and Teabaggers need it to be for their political advantage”

I describe myself as a “commie”
I might be a Marxist, don’t know, Das Kapital was way to long and dry for me to get through more than a few pages

But when I was a kid, people who thought that there was nothing wrong wit black people voting were called commies and “outside agitators on orders from Moskow” by the right
When my dad was a kid, people who wanted the new deal were called commies and “stalinist infiltrators” by the right
When my grand dad was a kid people who wanted to be allowed any worker safety at all were called commies and Bolshis and “little red henskis”

In the US, for over 100 years, the right has defined any thing decent and just as “red”, “communist”, “socialist” and “marxist” and since the right controls the message machine it stuck

So Im happy to call myself a “commie” in the US context whether it fits in a technical sense or not

Comment #20: jefft452  on  02/24  at  12:45 AM

”Unions have a long and ugly history of excluding people of color, as well”

Yep, that was the main doctrinal dispute between the AFL and the CIO

Comment #21: jefft452  on  02/24  at  12:49 AM

Centralized control of the means of production is just one way of doing that.

Centralized control of the means of production isn’t socialism. Workers control of the means of production is socialism. The distinction is sort of key. State control is *at best* indirect/representative socialism IF you assume the party in power is a representative of the workers… and we saw how well that concept worked out in the USSR.

Comment #22: BlackBloc  on  02/24  at  12:55 AM

I wasn’t saying that none of that has ever happened and clearly you and Gregory know more about it than me. I was just saying that if you said “I don’t think black people should be allowed in a union, hold a bank account, etc” you would not be taken seriously by the vast majority of people and those that do agree would be too fearful of being perceived as the racists they are to say they do agree. The fiscal conservatives may not want anyone in a union but they do want everyone to have a bank account.

Comment #23: pharmakos  on  02/24  at  12:55 AM

Centralized control of the means of production isn’t socialism.

It kind of will be for any large number of people. Socialism that is, not socialism. And the truth is that it would have to be hierarchical. Someone has to make a plan when its a large amount of people. Maybe it wouldn’t be violent like the capitalist\labor dynamic but it would be hierarchical. Unless its anarchists doing the socialism.

I might be a Marxist, don’t know, Das Kapital was way to long and dry for me to get through more than a few pages

Maybe you aren’t interested in reading it anymore but following this alongside it makes it much easier. http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/reading-marxs-capital-audio/id283537064

Comment #24: pharmakos  on  02/24  at  01:02 AM

Also I need to add the constant right wing dog whistle of the “welfare queen” as a black woman with many children by multiple partners who drives a Caddy, etc. etc. (Reagan’s continuing legacy, that and circle jerks over his roting corpse at RNC conventions…)

Never mind the FACT that the majority of people on welfare are *white* single mothers.

It’s this amazing sense of “if I don’t screw other people out of a decent life/job/home/healthcare HOW will I make MINE?” entitlement.

They are SO SCARED.

Comment #25: Danica Lefse Queen  on  02/24  at  01:07 AM

Pharmakos @24

Thanks for the link, but its still too deep for me

David Nivin’s character in the sappy but good WWII movie “stairway to heaven” described himself as “Tory by nature, Labour by experience”

That description pretty much fits me too so I was never much for the theoretical background

Comment #26: jefft452  on  02/24  at  01:13 AM

The first 4 or 5 chapters are the worst. I hate to be sending more links but Marx wrote a pamphlet called “Wage Labour and Capital” that boiled down a lot of his arguments and its actually pretty readable. Its online here http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm and its broken into a few easy chunks.

Again, sorry if it feels like I’m bugging you. I just got the sense you would like to read it if the dense language wasn’t such an impediment. Its still a little archaic but its clearer than das kapital

Comment #27: pharmakos  on  02/24  at  01:53 AM

Comment #11: GregoryAButler:  “The problem is, under capitalism, there are a finite number of jobs to go around - and an even smaller number of good jobs.”

In the south, in relatively recent times, a black man and a white man working side by side on the same job would be paid differently.  Oftentimes the black worker would only get half of what a white worker got.  Women, of course, all over the country and world, make less than men for the same work still, and minority workers still get passed over, hired last, fired first, and paid less than the white worker.  Of course the white worker wants this to continue.  That’s the reason Republicans are always attacking affirmative action.  Everyone with advantage wants to keep it.

You’re right, there aren’t enough good jobs for everybody to have one, high unemployment and underemployment keep the wage scale down.  The more people there are that can perform a task the less it’s going to pay, unskilled work is never going to pay the same as skilled labor.  When you keep one segment of the society from learning the skills necessary to compete for those jobs that is when it becomes racist or sexist.  African Americans have typically been left back in the American dream, underpaid and undereducated.  Anyone who thinks that there is equality of opportunity is living in a dream.

Comment #28: G Porgey  on  02/24  at  03:16 AM

The problem is, under capitalism, there are a finite number of jobs to go around - and an even smaller number of good jobs.

That applies to any economic system short of commune living.  There will always be a laborer and a manager.  Self-management as it applies to self-employment is unproductive in the face of economics of scale and scope.  One can remedy this by applying minimum wage laws and other rules that Ricardo laid out in his Iron Law of Wages

This is the basis for racial conflict among workers - and, in this country, historically, since slavery, White workers have gotten more than their fair share of the jobs - and in particular more than their fair share of the good jobs.

That’s the economic basis for working class Whites giving political support to racists - they have a dollars and cents stake in racism and racial privilege, because they directly benefit from it.

I concur by and large, but see above quote.  There needn’t be a limitation of “good jobs” or as it really means good-wage jobs.  It’s just a matter of enforcing laws that create a level of self-sufficiency in wages.

Unions have a long and ugly history of excluding people of color, as well.

So true and so sad.  The AFL was able to be viciously attacked by the corporate entities they fought against simply because they disallowed blacks into the unions and were thus able to have them turned against the union as they got hired to replace the striking unionists.  Even when the CIO took them in it left a strong feeling in the black community against unionization as it was the unions that struck and first allowed them to enter the better paying factory work they had been denied.  I could write a treatise on the matter here but I don’t think it’s worth it.  I don’t want to be caught “blacksplaining” by another angry poster…

Also I need to add the constant right wing dog whistle of the “welfare queen” as a black woman with many children by multiple partners who drives a Caddy, etc. etc. (Reagan’s continuing legacy, that and circle jerks over his roting corpse at RNC conventions…)

Never mind the FACT that the majority of people on welfare are *white* single mothers.

It’s this amazing sense of “if I don’t screw other people out of a decent life/job/home/healthcare HOW will I make MINE?” entitlement.

They are SO SCARED.

Both by percentage and general membership whites make up the vast majority of the social welfare users in the US.  The majority of those live in rural zones still.  Though that may be changing, I haven’t looked at the research in the last few years.  The issue is that as long as they can bring out the straw(wo)man that Reagan created, announce the return to state’s rights (aka: as long as the state is racist, conservative, and white we’ll leave it be), and use CIVIL RIGHTS as a bludgeoning tool they’ll be able to keep the stupid crowd enthralled. 

Reagan relayed that at a state fair, I forget whether it was Arkansas or Texas…maybe neither of those.  But it was specifically stated at a rural state fair where the majority of those people probably had some sort of social welfare program helping them and certainly the farms had electricity because of those programs.  It’s a blind eye deal that as long as I get to keep my benefits, I don’t care who loses theirs.  The last statistics I can recall about welfare fraud showed it to be less than 10%.  That is to say for every abuser there were NINE who needed that help and even then it was rarely enough.

Comment #29: Xeranar  on  02/24  at  03:54 AM

You’re right, there aren’t enough good jobs for everybody to have one, high unemployment and underemployment keep the wage scale down.

Don’t forget the other good ol’ American way to keep the wage scale down:  import illegal workers that you can get rid of as soon as they become inconvenient.  No annoying minimum wage, no irritating safety standards, just cheap, disposable labor.  And if you get caught, your company pays a small fine and goes right back to hiring illegal workers until you get too blatant about you and ICE is forced to do a raid.  Which, not coincidentally, gets rid of those longer-term workers who were starting to get a little pushy about things like getting paid on time or getting paid the agreed-on wage and not whatever you felt like paying them that week.

Comment #30: Mnemosyne  on  02/24  at  03:55 AM

Don’t forget the other good ol’ American way to keep the wage scale down:  import illegal workers that you can get rid of as soon as they become inconvenient.

Of course, the original concept involved whips and chains for these people until the DFHs spoiled THAT party.

Comment #31: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/24  at  05:10 AM

It has been many years since I have heard Limbaugh say anything that didn’t amount to BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA BLACK PEOPLE!!!!(drugs)”.

It’s all the Repubs have left, since saying “we’ll make sure you stay poor and uninsured, but at least the rich people taking your share of the pie will be white” is a little too obvious.

They’re using the poor whites’ racism against them to hide their (rich Repubs) deep abiding hatred of the poor even as they exploit them and take their money.

Comment #32: attack_laurel  on  02/24  at  09:26 AM

They’re using the poor whites’ racism against them to hide their (rich Repubs) deep abiding hatred of the poor even as they exploit them and take their money.

It’s no coincidence that this is precisely the age-old strategy by which the Southern elites have always kept poor whites in line.

Comment #33: Steve LaBonne  on  02/24  at  11:14 AM

You’re right, demographics cannot keep the “I’m happy to live in mud as long as the n!@@#&s;live in shit” mentality around forever. Someone should do a photo essay about teabaggers where they show photos of them today with their misspelled signs and photos from old newspapers where they are protesting integration at their high schools. I’ll bet you’ll find a lot of crossover in those pictures.

Comment #34: DC Fem  on  02/24  at  11:32 AM

Working white people: Ignore the fact that you have the same concerns and hopes and dreams as working black Americans.  Instead, your loyalty and decisions should be made on hoarding wealth in the hands of white people and keeping it from black people.  That doing this means you don’t get your share of the pie is too bad, but at least most of the people who get most of the money are white

The problem is that the white people won’t get a share of the pie proportional to their numbers, will they? It’ll get doled out based on race by people like you who believe in white privilege.  I’ve thought about why the white working class has abandoned the Democrats, and this is the reason.  It’s the unfortunate marriage of socialism and multiculturalism.  If you want to sell wealth redistribution in this country, make it race-blind, like the French do. 

Put it this way: if you’re a poor, white, straight, working class male, you’ll be so far down on the list of people who get their share of the redistribution pie that you might as well not go for the redistribution at all.  Instead, you’ll double down on market economics and hope you’ll strike it rich.  Everyone makes rational decisions based on self-interest.

It’s been my experience that there are two ways to get an entry level position in the better paying government jobs.  One: have a cleptocratic connection to the workplace; Uncle Joe gets you in.  Two: be part of a quota group.  In this way, the entry level positions are given to privileged whites, the rest are filled with non-privileged minorities in order to meet quotas.  The unprivileged whites - those without a relative or daddy’s golfing buddy on the inside - are simply squeezed out.

In France, by way of contrast, the race-blind policies prohibit hiring based on racial quotas.  Thus, the French working class has an actual chance at those entry level jobs and benefiting from wealth redistribution.  It’s not racism that kills wealth redistribution in the United States.  It’s your obsession with race.

Comment #35: PeterZeroOne  on  02/24  at  12:08 PM

It’s not market economies that create the “finite number of jobs to go around” thing, it’s capitalists. As Marx pointed out way back when, unless you have the “reserve army of the unemployed” or some equivalent mechanism whereby disfavored workers will be hurled into the lake of fire, the proles are going to get uppity.

What fascinates me about this is Limbaugh’s implicit claim that the country is way more racially stratified than it is. At least some of his listeners are going to be taken aback just a little at the assumption that they have insurance.

Comment #36: paul  on  02/24  at  12:41 PM

“The problem is that the white people won’t get a share of the pie proportional to their numbers, will they? It’ll get doled out based on race by people like you who believe in white privilege.”

...um, wrong.  It gets “doled out” (which means “collected”, not “earned”) by those on Wall Street and elsewhere who are politically well connected.  And given that Mr. Obama is the first Black POTUS evah, and was only one of a handful of Black Senators in US history, post-Reconstruction, and given the dearth of influence the Democratic Party has had in recent decades, and the active hatred in the Republican Party for everyone not Rich, White, and Christian, it’s pretty silly/stupid to suggest that Blacks in America are uniformly sitting in the lap of (unearned) luxury while Poor White People are Uniformly Suffering in Abject Poverty Because of Affirmative Action.

Have you actually been around during any part of the last 40-years?  You sound like you were just born this morning…

“Put it this way: if you’re a poor, white, straight, working class male, you’ll be so far down on the list of people who get their share of the redistribution pie that you might as well not go for the redistribution at all.”

...which is an asinine statement to make, and unsupported by the facts.  Give us a link, if you can. 

But hey, The Overclass in America encourages the proles to fight it out amongst themselves (rhetorically if not usually physically) over the table scraps, because it distracts them from realizing their pockets are being picked by the top 1%.  Idiots like you do their bidding by helping to keep the resentments simmering and aimed in the wrong direction.  Good Job, P01!!!

“It’s not racism that kills wealth redistribution in the United States.  It’s your obsession with race.”

That would be funny, if it wasn’t such a sick and ignorant thing to say.  Perhaps you don’t realize it, but there are a lot of other, more accurate sources of information out there besides Faux New, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the Wingnut Wurlitzer.  You are so stuffed full wingnut talking points you can’t discern actual reality anymore…

You’ve certainly earned your Troll Points today with that comment…

Comment #37: MikeEss  on  02/24  at  12:47 PM

Shorter PeterZeroOne:  Let’s you and him fight.

Comment #38: Mnemosyne  on  02/24  at  12:56 PM

Digby has a good piece today about where thinking like Peter’s leads you:  Republican Senators are claiming that the jobs bill might give tax breaks to companies that hire illegal workers so therefore the bill should not be passed.  In other words, Republicans say that working-class white workers are supposed to go without jobs just in case a company decides to defraud the government and claim an illegal tax break for undocumented workers.

But the problem is that liberals talk about race, not that conservatives play both ends against the middle in order to keep all working-class people subservient.  Riiiiight.

Comment #39: Mnemosyne  on  02/24  at  01:18 PM

Two: be part of a quota group.

The Nixon white house outlawed the quota system for government hiring.  Read up on it before you make that remark again.  That just shows how uninformed you are.

Comment #40: Xeranar  on  02/24  at  01:41 PM

“It’s not racism that kills wealth redistribution in the United States.  It’s your obsession with race.”

Because people who point out racism are the REAL racists…

In a way, I suppose we should be grateful that the DickOughtOne troll is here to exemplify what we’re up against: the utter ignorance of historical practices like redlining and discrimination; the wallowing in and terror of losing white privilege while simultaneously denying that it exists; implying that the white working class is justified in being mainly afraid their money will be given to undeserving black people; then tone-deaf cognitive dissonance about privileged whites getting all the good jobs.  It’s an overflowing grab bag of cluelessness.

Comment #41: Sour Kraut  on  02/24  at  01:44 PM

Put it this way: if you’re a poor, white, straight, working class male, you’ll be so far down on the list of people who get their share of the redistribution pie that you might as well not go for the redistribution at all.

The redistribution pie goes right to working class whites, particularly in the south or in congressional districts of well connected congressmen—John Murtha, Robert Byrd, and Strom Thurmond made their careers on that sort of thing.

Also, the nature of government jobs, which tend to be white collar jobs offering a middling salary, will select for a group of applicants quite different than the pool you seem to think they are drawing from.

Comment #42: Tyro  on  02/24  at  02:33 PM

Comment #7: http://www.ciw-online.org/101.html#photos

Yep.

Comment #43: pitbullgirl65  on  02/24  at  02:54 PM

Never mind the FACT that the majority of people on welfare are *white* single mothers.

It’s this amazing sense of “if I don’t screw other people out of a decent life/job/home/healthcare HOW will I make MINE?” entitlement.

They are SO SCARED.

Comment #25: Danica Lefse Queen on 02/23 at 11:07 PM

Yep. And never mind the fact that Reagan was a far larger welfare queen, by virtue of being a politican. My god I loath that man and his legacy.

Comment #44: pitbullgirl65  on  02/24  at  02:58 PM

PeterZeroOne, are you still insisting that your opinion is relevant or thoughtful?  How quaint.

Comment #45: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/24  at  03:39 PM

“Have you actually been around during any part of the last 40-years?”

Ive noticed latley on call in shows and blog comments that “look where 40 years of liberalism has gotten us” line being parrotted by teabaggers and such

It was what Reagan used to whine back during his failed 76 presidential bid
OK, FDRs 1936 landslide to 1976 is 40 yrs

but in 2010, 40 years ago was 1970
in the last 40 yrs, we had Nixons landslide followed by the Dems picking a southern godbotherer over “another northeastern liberal”, then the Reagan-Bush years, followed by another Southern moderate dem with Gingrich and southern Rs taking control of the house, followed by Bush II

but I guess if Reagan said it its holy writ, so no matter how long weve been under conservitive rule we its still OK to whine about “40 yrs of liberalism”

Comment #46: jefft452  on  02/24  at  06:02 PM

I was thinking the same thing on that whole “40 years oof liberal policy” bullshit.

27 years of mostly staunchly conservative presidents - Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush; and Ford was the only semi-sane one of the bunch.

Compare that with 13 years of moderate centrist presidents - Carter, Clinton, and Obama.

Yeah, 40 years of liberal policy my ass.

Comment #47: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  07:01 PM

“Yeah, 40 years of liberal policy my ass.”

It wouldnt even be as bad if they said 70 yrs of liberalism
then they would just be wrong/lying

But st ronnie said “40 yrs” so 40 years it is
dosent matter that he said it 35 yrs ago

Comment #48: jefft452  on  02/24  at  10:01 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.