Mid-length but interesting item here. In brief, the (D) party lost the 'burbs by a ton across the country, except in (you guessed it) California and metro D.C. This is very important, for as any historian will tell you, revolutions are led ONLY by the middle class.
...Barack Obama, running as a conciliatory pragmatist in 2008, did even
better with some 50 percent. This performance was aided by the growing
proportion of racial minorities, including African Americans, who had
moved to the suburbs.
But as Obama’s administration took shape, suburban support began to ebb. In 2012, Obama lost the suburbs to Romney by a two-point margin. In this year’s congressional elections
the GOP edge grew to 12 points in the suburbs, which accounted for a
majority of the electorate. The Democrats won by 14 percent in the more
urban areas, but these accounted for barely one-third of the total
vote. The result was a thorough shellacking of the Democratic party from
top to bottom....
There's a reason for this.
...the political obsessions of the Obama Democrats largely mirror those of
the cities: climate change, gay marriage, feminism, amnesty for the
undocumented, and racial redress. These may sometimes be worthy causes,
but they don’t address basic issues that [a]ffect suburbanites, such as
stagnant middle class wages, poor roads, high housing prices, or
underperforming schools. None of these concerns elicit much passion
among the party’s true believers.
"Obsessions" is the very best word to describe Democratic Party memes. See, e.g., "Shirtstorm."
One hopes that (R) poobahs wake up and smell the coffee in this essay.
The historians are wrong because in much of the world today, and all of the world for much of its history, there is/was no such thing as a middle class.
ReplyDeleteOne big thing the Beast writer missed is suburbia is tired of paying for the continued failure of the urban core, while Barack Obama, Tom Barrett and their fellow Rats seek to drain the burbs dry to prop up their failed urban core.
Umnnhhh...
ReplyDeleteI suppose that we could argue about the definition of 'middle class,' and bring up the Marxist origin of the phrase. Or we could argue that I mis-stated the case and should have said 'all revolutions were FINANCED by the middle class.' Or we could argue that the term 'middle class' is not necessarily indicative of the degree of wealth therein, but that such a 'class' was always not-in-power.
I'd accept any of those corrections.
The American Revolution was not led by the King (uppermost-class), nor his direct appointments (arguably Upper Class). It was led and financed by others--who may have been rich, but were certainly not "in power," and by and large were not coupon-clippers.
The French Revolution was led and financed by ---Not King, just as the Russian Revolution was led and financed by Not Czar.
"Middle class" is not a Marxist creation, but an American one that predates Marx by roughly 100 years. Before then, and indeed still in much of the world, it was the "nobles" arguing over which subgroup of them would be lording over the serfs.
ReplyDeleteThe French Revolution (18th-century) is the unique exception to the rule that revolutions are formented/financed by either "nobles" out of power or a foreign entity. Even the American Revolution was formented/financed by what passed for nobility here; it's that instead of assuming the spoils of a successful war, they started the Grand Experiment whose final nail will begin to be driven into the coffin tonight.
At minimum, Marx pioneered the concept behind "class warfare", using "working class" terminology. There are historians of political thought which specifically state that Marx originated the phrase (or its equivalent) "middle class."
ReplyDeleteNow when you mention nobles v. nobles, you are dead-on. That happens to comport with what I state: the "middle", while perhaps being wealthy, and perhaps having SOME power(s), do not control the country/state.
Barons and nobles (etc.) had money, and had some power--like their own small armies. But they were "middle" by virtue of the fact that they did not have control.
For example: at this time, GE and Chase are "upper/ruling" class. Credit unions and Joe's Turbine and Transformer Company--while being prosperous--are "middle" because they do not have control over the direction of the country.
GE/Chase are NOT going to lead, nor finance, a revolution. But the CU's and Joe's T&T certainly could.
Similarly, the Ruling Class which exists largely in D.C., will not lead/finance a revolution.
But Governors could, albeit that is not likely. Yet.