I entered the following passage as a comment on the latest op-ed piece by liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich. In it he decried the gun nuts attending rallies outside town hall meetings on healthcare reform, then went on to talk about Republican perfidy in promoting an array of out and out lies about healthcare reform.
The New York Times editors censored this comment, refusing to run it. Feel free to let me know why you think they did that.
That said, however, the Democratic side has helped feed these paranoid fantasies. Nobody has clean hands in this mudslinging.
1. The Democratic Party has for 40 years worked hard for the
3. The Democrats have failed--flagrantly failed--to make it clear they're against the Republican leadership, not their actually conservative rank and file. Continually branding Republicans as "racist" and other epithets enrages them, racist and non-racist alike, driving them into the eager arms of self-described conservative leaders who are actually shills for the Angry Billionaire's Club, and laughing at them behind closed doors. But the Democratic Party has done yeoman work at forcing these people into the GOP's deathgrip.
4. Affirmative action is a bone in the throat of the white working class. We're paying a heavy price for this form of reparations for the slavery practised in the 19th century. That's exactly how working-class whites see it, and every time they have to deal with indifferent-verging-on-downright-rude civil service bureaucrats "of color," it reinforces their sense of aggrievement.
5. Private sector unions have declined greatly since their heyday in the 1950s. But public sector unions are in heaven--across the nation their workers enjoy lifetime security, fat pensions, terrific healthcare plans, and a total compensation of around 43% more than their private sector counterparts. Moreover, declining public services--right down to bridge and street maintenance--are happening in part because money is being diverted into lavish pensions as public sector workers retire. It's not just Senators--this advantage extends right down to manual laborers at City Hall. And working-class Americans are starting to wake up to this fact--and to the fact that this disparity is stoutly supported by the Democratic Party.
Just how long can you ask people who are behind in their mortgages to keep sacrificing to groups of people who appear to spit on them? It forces the white working class into the sort of tribalism, the "only we are true Americans" the Republican leadership wants them to believe.
In the propaganda war the Demos keep acting as deer-in-the-headlightsey as John Kerry did. But in reality as well, the Democrats keep stiffing the working stiffs who they once worked for.
A majority of Americans may let the foxes back in the henhouse if this keeps up. Democrats can't keep pandering to every special interest without paying a price in the voting booth. And we may lose healthcare reform over these simmering issues. Which will be a dirty shame.
2 comments:
"The New York Times editors censored this comment, refusing to run it. Feel free to let me know why you think they did that."
Ehkzu
It's impossible to figure out what motivates the NYTimes editors. I think different screeners/censors do it differently. I've attacked the Times Editorial position and been selected as an "Editor's Choice" -- see this:
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/opinion/26fri1.html
On the other hand, they would not publish the comment below (which also criticized the NY Times Editorial Board). Can you explain that to me?
This story is scary on so many levels. But this is the price we pay for the DISHONEST rationalizations that have come forward to justify our current policy of non-enforcement of our immigration laws.
The worst of those justifications is the idea that we should allow unrestricted immigrations because "these people" for some odd unspecified reason don't want decent work, they only want the work that "Americans don't want." This destroys America's egalitarian ideals at its roots. So immigrants are, under this logic, coming here as a lesser class to do only the work no one else wants. They are a lesser breed.
It turns out, their children do not accept that status and rebel. But they are rebels without a clue. But America's "immigrant advocates" (including the NY Times Editorial Board), are outraged that these "American born" children are forced to accept the same status prescribed for their parents or rebel and accept the "Thug Life." Rather than allow employers to pay more for work that no one wants (like cleaning toilets) -- a true market solution, our current system of immigration non-enforcement insists that these jobs be filled at Third World pay levels because employers have an entitlement to workers that accept poverty level wages.
There was never any work here that couldn’t be done AT A HIGHER WAGE by those already here. It was always a lie that Americans did want this work. Americans wanted it at a higher wage: a wage that the ordinary free market mechanisms of supply and demand would have dictated in the absence of uncontrolled immigration. The effect and purpose of unrestricted immigration was to fill these jobs at lower wages. Wages so low that they have stripped the work of all dignity. These wages were so low that “No American would want them.” Wages that even the children of the illegal immigrants found unacceptable. They understood and rejected the implicit social contract of unrestricted immigration.
For the Times Editorial Board – We are reaping the fruits of the anti-democratic seeds that you sew. Read this and know that this is logical consequence of what you advocate. You insisted that immigrants be allowed to come here as a special underclass of the working poor. What you got was a special non-working underclass of the criminal and violent.
The comment refers to the following article
on the rise of an immigrant you underclass.
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/04/19/us/19immig.html?s=1&pg=2
Both comments on similar topics. Both comments expressed a similar viewpoint. The Times is just inconsistent.
Ehkzu said: "The New York Times editors censored this comment, refusing to run it. Feel free to let me know why you think they did that."
Ehkzu
It's impossible to figure out what motivates the NYTimes editors. I think it's different ones. I've attacked the Times Editorial position and been selected as an "Editor's Choice"
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/opinion/26fri1.html
On the other hand, they would not publish this comment (which also criticized the NY Times Editorial Board). Can you explain that to me?
This story is scary on so many levels. But this is the price we pay for the DISHONEST rationalizations that have come forward to justify our current policy of non-enforcement of our immigration laws.
The worst of those justifications is the idea that we should allow unrestricted immigrations because "these people" for some odd unspecified reason don't want decent work, they only want the work that "Americans don't want." This destroys America's egalitarian ideals at its roots. So immigrants are, under this logic, coming here as a lesser class to do only the work no one else wants. They are a lesser breed.
It turns out, their children do not accept that status and rebel. But they are rebels without a clue. But America's "immigrant advocates" (including the NY Times Editorial Board), are outraged that these "American born" children are forced to accept the same status prescribed for their parents or rebel and accept the "Thug Life." Rather than allow employers to pay more for work that no one wants (like cleaning toilets) -- a true market solution, our current system of immigration non-enforcement insists that these jobs be filled at Third World pay levels because employers have an entitlement to workers that accept poverty level wages.
There was never any work here that couldn’t be done AT A HIGHER WAGE by those already here. It was always a lie that Americans did want this work. Americans wanted it at a higher wage: a wage that the ordinary free market mechanisms of supply and demand would have dictated in the absence of uncontrolled immigration. The effect and purpose of unrestricted immigration was to fill these jobs at lower wages. Wages so low that they have stripped the work of all dignity. These wages were so low that “No American would want them.” Wages that even the children of the illegal immigrants found unacceptable. They understood and rejected the implicit social contract of unrestricted immigration.
For the Times Editorial Board – We are reaping the fruits of the anti-democratic seeds that you sew. Read this and know that this is logical consequence of what you advocate. You insisted that immigrants be allowed to come here as a special underclass of the working poor. What you got was a special non-working underclass of the criminal and violent.
The comment refers to the following article
on the rise of an immigrant you underclass.
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/04/19/us/19immig.html?s=1&pg=2
Post a Comment