I decided to drop by Hullabaloo to see what our old friend David Atkins (aka “Spoony”) thought of the Obamacrats decision to abandon the white working class:

The New Realignment


Less educated whites have been a stumbling block for Democrats for decades. Democrats held them together under the New Deal coalition pretty much until the Civil Rights movement, after which the conservative movement successfully transposed a “cultural” elite trying to enforce race and gender equality over the financial elite that this group had resented previously.

Democrats had been trying to “win back” these voters for decades with compromises designed to assuage their anti-welfare, anti-equality sensibilities. But with current demographic trends, that’s increasingly unnecessary–even if it were possible. Ideally, the Democratic missions of securing the safety net, increasing the minimum wage and safekeeping middle-class jobs should appeal to less educated whites. But it won’t. A more strident progressive message would do a good deal to bring these voters back and convince them that Democrats best serve their interests, but it’s still mostly a lost cause. The right-wing propaganda machine has been very effective in creating a tribal mentality with these voters that will be nearly impossible to break.

For those most concerned with social issues, this development will represent a step forward: Dems will feel increasingly emboldened to openly support women’s rights, gay rights and the like without feeling the need to seek cover. Yes, minority groups tend to be more socially conservative on these issues, but they’re also not the defining issues on which minority groups are voting. Few Latinos will vote for a party of anti-Latino racists just because that party happens to agree more with them on the subject of abortion–not even if that party is led by the likes of Marc Rubio.


But all in all, it’s conservatives who should be most worried. They have doubled down on appealing to less affluent whties with a calumnious message of lies and pure hate, targeted to a disappearing demographic. And they’re counting on a magic hail mary pass to win back Latino voters with Latino figureheads after they have wrung every last drop they can out of white resentment. That’s not a sound strategy, and it won’t work for them over the long haul, no matter how much money they have to spend on it.

Ironic money quote:

“. . . a tribal mentality with these voters that will be nearly impossible to break.”

Whose tribe? OUR TRIBE!

Seriously, Spoony demonstrates every tribal stereotype the left uses against the right except jingoism, NASCAR and incest. He should type his screeds in sneer font.

Why would anyone want to stay with a party that holds them in such contempt?

This entry was posted in 2012 Elections, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Playing the Race Card, Politics, Racism, Zombies and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Spoonville

  1. dm says:

    Another fine thing by the Dems…apparently the HR2112 that appropriates funding for various things, including Agriculture, also includes the legalization of slaughter houses – FOR HORSES.

    Exactly what do the Dems have against horses????

  2. myiq2xu says:

    Moe Lane (Redstate):

    You’d expect more of a reaction from the New York Times, all things considered. After all, the New Deal coalition has not just existed and affected American politics for my entire life; it’s done that for my parents’ entire lives. Which is not to say that it’s particularly surprising that the New Deal coalition would eventually dissolve, of course; it’s almost eighty years old, and been taking body blows for the last thirty. Political alliances and movements come in and out of existence all of the time, and that’s just the nature of things. There still should be less of a shrug about it all, though.

    But here’s the thing. The New Deal coalition is dying, if not dead. What were the Democrats planning to replace it with? What the NYT calls ‘economic’ coherence I’d also call ‘ideological;’ whether you agreed with the New Deal program or not, you could always actually define it in terms that were internally self-consistent. Broadly speaking, it was a broad agreement among various groups that America’s most pressing problems could be managed and ameliorated on a broad scale through ‘expert’ and judicious government intervention; and that such intervention dampened the uncertainty and anxiety that might otherwise cause societal panics and economic dislocations. Again: you don’t have to agree with that (I don’t) to recognize that it existed as a coherent policy.

    But now that has gone by the wayside, to be replaced with a system that… apparently plans to trade support for permanent government dependency programs for minorities, in exchange for legislating the fringe progressive morality of affluent urbanites. Aside from the utter lack of an unifying intellectual or moral framework to such an arrangement, it’s unclear exactly who benefits less from it; while it’s certainly not in minority voters’ long, medium, or short-term interests to become a permanent underclass, it’s not exactly clear that minority voters are even particularly ready to vote for a progressive social policy (as an examination of recent reversals in same-sex marriage movement in California and Maryland will readily attest). But then, that is not really the goal, is it? The goal is to re-elect President Obama – which is something that poor African-American and rich liberal voters both wish to do – and if that is accomplished, then anything else is extra. Which is just as well, because nobody really expects Obama to have much in the way of coat-tails this go-round.

    And that is the amazing thing about all of this: the Democratic party has apparently decided to toss aside the vast mass of American voters in order to benefit a man who will, at best, only hold power for another five years. Even assuming that it works, there’s no way that the next Democratic candidate will be able to duplicate the conditions that got Barack Obama re-elected… and it’s certainly not going to do anything to allow the Democrats to win seats in anything except already safe-territory. Which is great – I am a Republican interested in getting Republicans elected – but you would think that my opposite numbers in the Democratic party would start getting nervous about the looming crackup.

    • votermom says:

      I admire how he sums it up:

      system that… apparently plans to trade support for permanent government dependency programs for minorities, in exchange for legislating the fringe progressive morality of affluent urbanites.

      And the elites within that system are operating on a system of patronage and favors.

      • catarina says:

        There is huge money to be made administering special “programs,” whether they actually help anyone or not.
        Lots of money to be made in bloated government.

        Those white working class voters present too much of a challenge-get rid of them!

  3. catarina says:

    That is such a sick pile of bullshit I don’t even know where to begin.

    Never again will I vote for another Democrat. Never, ever, ever.

    Don’t care if they’re women. Don’t care if they’re Jesus come down from the cross.

  4. It’s amazing how many people in the Dem tribe will say working class people are voting against their interests when they vote for the GOP. True. But just as true they’d be voting against their interests if the vote for the Dem. Neither party is on their side. But the difference is the Dem party openly despises them and insults them. The GOP at least pretends to be on their side. If someone is going to screw you, at least they can be pleasant about it.

    • catarina says:

      If the GOP draws the line on raising taxes and reckless spending, they’re doing more for the middle class than Obama has.

      • Susan says:

        I didn’t realize you were a millionaire, catarina. If you’re not, every penny that the GOP will protect the millionaires from paying in taxes will come out of the pockets of people like you and me.

        As to reckless spending, are you familiar with the defense budget?

  5. jjmtacoma says:

    They haven’t done anything for the working class for years, except suck money out of the unions to get elected. At least they are being up front about it now?

    No, I probably won’t intentionally vote for dems any time soon. Unless they are women, I will vote for women of any stripe.

    • That’s a good approach. I think the main idea is to shake things up and keep screwing with them. So just voting out who ever is in, and keep them changing. Except vote for women when ever possible just because that will hopefully change the dynamics of how things work. Kind of all we have.

  6. foxyladi14 says:

    more women.vote for the women. 🙂

Comments are closed.