Comments on: Growing Income Inequality in America: Help Me, Please, Prepare for a Radio Show http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:37:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jim Z. http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746&cpage=1#comment-388849 Jim Z. Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:25:33 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746#comment-388849 Masked Marauder hit the nail on the head. Wealth distributiion is even much more skewed than income in the US. Masked Marauder hit the nail on the head. Wealth distributiion is even much more skewed than income in the US.

]]> By: MaskedMarauder http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746&cpage=1#comment-388182 MaskedMarauder Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:53:58 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746#comment-388182 I'm not sure growth of income inequality is what needs to be discussed. The growing inequality of the distribution of wealth is more relevant. There are well entrenched theories on how income is apportioned by market theory. Frankly, due to improvements in industrial efficiency and automation, a lot of work is worth a lot less than it used to be, and its really hard to argue against it. After all, if a machine makes a job so easy that a monkey could do it, how can justify paying a man more than a monkey's wage? Although we won't like getting less, we see the logical necessity and inevitability of it and acquiesce because There Is No Alternative (Margaret Thatcher's trademark justification for her severe disinvestment policies: TINA). Its bad, but its not unjust. Although income is decreasing for most on the bottom and middle of the totem pole, and rising for a few at the top, the real problem is the distribution of wealth because wealth is power and measures how we share the benefits and burdens of our commonwealth, which is the purpose and nature of government. How do we as a nation share the the work and risks, and how equally do we share in the fruits of those labours and tribulations? This is ultimately what undergirds social stability. There comes a time in a society's arc when it finaly dawns on the majority that they just don't have a big enough share of the common wealth to make it worth their while to participate and that they're being played for chumps. And its that inequality that's most corrosive; the inability to share equitably. This is a moral issue, not an economic one. In the moribund phase some leader will get up on his hind legs and say "We need to do X!!," and the people just say "What's this 'we' business?" and then the show's over. A common means of measuring distribution of wealth is the Gini Coefficient. http://tinyurl.com/ycxokww Its an imperfect measure, but is there a better one? In any event, it is more relevant to your purpose, I think. Here are a couple refs on the sorts of ways it can be employed in understanding societies: http://tinyurl.com/ydu8grq and http://tinyurl.com/yaesj98 . I’m not sure growth of income inequality is what needs to be discussed. The growing inequality of the distribution of wealth is more relevant.

There are well entrenched theories on how income is apportioned by market theory. Frankly, due to improvements in industrial efficiency and automation, a lot of work is worth a lot less than it used to be, and its really hard to argue against it. After all, if a machine makes a job so easy that a monkey could do it, how can justify paying a man more than a monkey’s wage? Although we won’t like getting less, we see the logical necessity and inevitability of it and acquiesce because There Is No Alternative (Margaret Thatcher’s trademark justification for her severe disinvestment policies: TINA). Its bad, but its not unjust.

Although income is decreasing for most on the bottom and middle of the totem pole, and rising for a few at the top, the real problem is the distribution of wealth because wealth is power and measures how we share the benefits and burdens of our commonwealth, which is the purpose and nature of government. How do we as a nation share the the work and risks, and how equally do we share in the fruits of those labours and tribulations?

This is ultimately what undergirds social stability. There comes a time in a society’s arc when it finaly dawns on the majority that they just don’t have a big enough share of the common wealth to make it worth their while to participate and that they’re being played for chumps. And its that inequality that’s most corrosive; the inability to share equitably. This is a moral issue, not an economic one. In the moribund phase some leader will get up on his hind legs and say “We need to do X!!,” and the people just say “What’s this ‘we’ business?” and then the show’s over.

A common means of measuring distribution of wealth is the Gini Coefficient. http://tinyurl.com/ycxokww

Its an imperfect measure, but is there a better one? In any event, it is more relevant to your purpose, I think.

Here are a couple refs on the sorts of ways it can be employed in understanding societies: http://tinyurl.com/ydu8grq and http://tinyurl.com/yaesj98 .

]]> By: Steve http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746&cpage=1#comment-388124 Steve Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:31:33 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746#comment-388124 I'd be willing to bet that a majority of this radio audience distinctly recalls how they first digested the concept of "deregulation" during the Reagan admin. I would challenge them on how deeply and specificially engaged they were in the principles of deregulaton at that time in their lives. These were still young men and women who weren't exactly engrossed in the potentialities of Republican or conservative politics. They were lower to middle-class, post-Vietnam-era folks who mostly just wanted decent pay and retirement after working somewhere for twenty-five or thirty years. So long as manufacturing remained stable, and blue-collar work was readily available, a middle-class income was sufficient to them. Indeed the stability and security of our national economy remained for awhile, until about a decade afterwards when experts began seriously doubting its continued strength and steadiness. At that point in time, the middle-class wasn't close to being a politically informed citizenry. These folks (many if not most were nearing the age of 40 or better) either simply weren't going to 'give in to' or 'give up' what they'd worked for. Or, they subscribed to the general mindset of "you can't teach an old dog (themselves) new tricks." If you can temporarily neutralize them from obsessing about Bill Clinton's licentiousness, you could invite them to honestly compare Bill Clinton's record on the economy as opposed to Bush I and II. This could open some common ground if they'd be willing to admit Clinton had a better record on the economy than little Bush. AND AT LEAST AS GOOD AS BUSH I, or else why would Clinton have been elected right after, and then again? Oh, and, I wouldn't waste time mincing words when someone goes to the proverbial Republican-Conservative well on terrorism and/or national security. I would, rather matter-of-factly, declare that issue off the table as soon as it's mentioned. I’d be willing to bet that a majority of this radio audience distinctly recalls how they first digested the concept of “deregulation” during the Reagan admin. I would challenge them on how deeply and specificially engaged they were in the principles of deregulaton at that time in their lives. These were still young men and women who weren’t exactly engrossed in the potentialities of Republican or conservative politics. They were lower to middle-class, post-Vietnam-era folks who mostly just wanted decent pay and retirement after working somewhere for twenty-five or thirty years. So long as manufacturing remained stable, and blue-collar work was readily available, a middle-class income was sufficient to them. Indeed the stability and security of our national economy remained for awhile, until about a decade afterwards when experts began seriously doubting its continued strength and steadiness. At that point in time, the middle-class wasn’t close to being a politically informed citizenry. These folks (many if not most were nearing the age of 40 or better) either simply weren’t going to ‘give in to’ or ‘give up’ what they’d worked for. Or, they subscribed to the general mindset of “you can’t teach an old dog (themselves) new tricks.”

If you can temporarily neutralize them from obsessing about Bill Clinton’s licentiousness, you could invite them to honestly compare Bill Clinton’s record on the economy as opposed to Bush I and II. This could open some common ground if they’d be willing to admit Clinton had a better record on the economy than little Bush. AND AT LEAST AS GOOD AS BUSH I, or else why would Clinton have been elected right after, and then again?

Oh, and, I wouldn’t waste time mincing words when someone goes to the proverbial Republican-Conservative well on terrorism and/or national security. I would, rather matter-of-factly, declare that issue off the table as soon as it’s mentioned.

]]> By: bob adams http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746&cpage=1#comment-387970 bob adams Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:14:58 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746#comment-387970 Although I am personally ill-equipped for such argumentation, I do subscribe to the tactic of starting with common ground, and, I think for this Southern, conservative bunch expressing shared ideals such as love of family, country (but without jingoism), and perhaps the Creator would create an ambiance of or semblance of openness and willingness to listen. The ideas of JUSTICE and MERCY can, perhaps, then be explored and why we liberals want to seek justice for all whereas conservatives are ok extending it to a specific, identified person but rebel against extending it generally or to non-us groups (eg, immigrants, minorities, etc). Secondly, the conversation devolves to argumentative nonsense when we remind conservatives that our current mess is largely the result of Reagan, his disciples, and Bush 2. Good luck. Although I am personally ill-equipped for such argumentation, I do subscribe to the tactic of starting with common ground, and, I think for this Southern, conservative bunch expressing shared ideals such as love of family, country (but without jingoism), and perhaps the Creator would create an ambiance of or semblance of openness and willingness to listen. The ideas of JUSTICE and MERCY can, perhaps, then be explored and why we liberals want to seek justice for all whereas conservatives are ok extending it to a specific, identified person but rebel against extending it generally or to non-us groups (eg, immigrants, minorities, etc).

Secondly, the conversation devolves to argumentative nonsense when we remind conservatives that our current mess is largely the result of Reagan, his disciples, and Bush 2. Good luck.

]]> By: William Meyer http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746&cpage=1#comment-387967 William Meyer Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:51:37 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746#comment-387967 About income inequality, you could say, "Liberals don't understand why middle and lower-middle class repub voters seem to be willing to elect representatives who routinely vote for measures that wind up enriching the rich at the expense of the poor and middle classes. Liberals think that those repub voters must want to give the rich a pass because they fantasize that they themselves might become rich one day, and wouldn't want the government taking their money if that happened." Aside from wedge- or single-issue voters (abortion, anti-gay-rights), I haven't heard conservatives address the liberal talking point that conservative voters seem willing to vote against their own economic interests. The rich being enriched, I think, is only part of the problem though. The desire for (moderate) upward mobility of Detroit auto workers' unionizing for middle-class wages has been one explanation for why the U.S. auto industry lost its competitive edge, from the 70s to present. By the same token, I believe that there are middle-class "elites" in various sectors of the U.S. economy (in education, academia, health care, the ownership side of real estate, corporate America, government employees, etc.). Like the auto workers of the 60s-70s, regular working folks in those sectors are better able to "feather their nests" relative to their counterparts in more vulnerable economic sectors, like retail, construction, small business, and less-unionized factory work, etc. The former retain their 401K's, health insurance, while the latter don't. About income inequality, you could say, “Liberals don’t understand why middle and lower-middle class repub voters seem to be willing to elect representatives who routinely vote for measures that wind up enriching the rich at the expense of the poor and middle classes. Liberals think that those repub voters must want to give the rich a pass because they fantasize that they themselves might become rich one day, and wouldn’t want the government taking their money if that happened.”

Aside from wedge- or single-issue voters (abortion, anti-gay-rights), I haven’t heard conservatives address the liberal talking point that conservative voters seem willing to vote against their own economic interests.

The rich being enriched, I think, is only part of the problem though. The desire for (moderate) upward mobility of Detroit auto workers’ unionizing for middle-class wages has been one explanation for why the U.S. auto industry lost its competitive edge, from the 70s to present. By the same token, I believe that there are middle-class “elites” in various sectors of the U.S. economy (in education, academia, health care, the ownership side of real estate, corporate America, government employees, etc.). Like the auto workers of the 60s-70s, regular working folks in those sectors are better able to “feather their nests” relative to their counterparts in more vulnerable economic sectors, like retail, construction, small business, and less-unionized factory work, etc. The former retain their 401K’s, health insurance, while the latter don’t.

]]> By: Jim Z. http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746&cpage=1#comment-387946 Jim Z. Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:54:53 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746#comment-387946 This is somewhat related: There are "Self-Sufficiency" wage standards that have been calculated for many of the states, Virginia included. Here is the website for Virginia's Department of Social Services' Self-Sufficiency data page: http://www.dss.virginia.gov/geninfo/reports/agency_wide/self_sufficiency.cgi The self sufficiency standard is built from the ground up, by determining what it costs, county by county, for all of the essential needs of households of various sizes and compositions. Things like housing, food, clothing, utilities, health insurance, transportation, etc. No vacations or restaurant meals are included. This approach differs from the federal "poverty line" in that the latter is basically the cost of food times three updated for inflation (a woefully out of date formula from 1963 when food really was about a third of a household's budget). The Virginia matrerial was prepared by the same researcher (Diana Pearce) who has done the same product for a number of other states (incl. Colorado). When one examines the data, it is often stunning how much it costs for various family sizes to afford what anyone would consider normal basic expenses on an ongoing basis. Knowledge of such information, I believe,, helps put a discussion of inequality into perspective. A self-sufficiency wage is typically around three times higher than the federal poverty line (depending on your location). This is somewhat related:

There are “Self-Sufficiency” wage standards that have been calculated for many of the states, Virginia included. Here is the website for Virginia’s Department of Social Services’ Self-Sufficiency data page:

http://www.dss.virginia.gov/geninfo/reports/agency_wide/self_sufficiency.cgi

The self sufficiency standard is built from the ground up, by determining what it costs, county by county, for all of the essential needs of households of various sizes and compositions. Things like housing, food, clothing, utilities, health insurance, transportation, etc. No vacations or restaurant meals are included.

This approach differs from the federal “poverty line” in that the latter is basically the cost of food times three updated for inflation (a woefully out of date formula from 1963 when food really was about a third of a household’s budget).

The Virginia matrerial was prepared by the same researcher (Diana Pearce) who has done the same product for a number of other states (incl. Colorado).

When one examines the data, it is often stunning how much it costs for various family sizes to afford what anyone would consider normal basic expenses on an ongoing basis. Knowledge of such information, I believe,, helps put a discussion of inequality into perspective.

A self-sufficiency wage is typically around three times higher than the federal poverty line (depending on your location).

]]> By: Jim Oberg http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746&cpage=1#comment-387858 Jim Oberg Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:45:19 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746#comment-387858 I do believe that by living outside America from 1968 to 1995 and missing the impact of the forces leading to a gradual evolution of conventional wisdom in this country has allowed me to be somewhat more objective in examining this past period than most who went through it while living here. It does appear to me that about the time I left this milieu in the late 60s, a strategy was formulated by the political right to alter the mindset of our populace, to the benefit of the corporate elites who suffered such setbacks during the years following the collapse of the economy in the 30s and continuing into the 60s. By the end of the 60s, with the emergence of a strong, optimistic and confident liberally inclined middle class influencing our politics, the robber barons realized that this trend had to be derailed, and set about systematically to achieve that. Using the Cold War to undermine our moves in the direction of more progressive policies that could benefit the general population, and through many other efforts, especially during the Reagan administration to undermine the liberal values at the core of their defeat, they have succeeded over many decades to effectively delegitimize for many the left liberal/progressive optimistic attitudes that dominated back when I went overseas. For most, I think the transition was so gradual and pervasive that even the outrageously criminal Bush administration could emerge with only moderate dissent, and for those behind their thrust to expect that their policy directions could survive even the loss to a Democratic administration with little real change. It appears to me that the key to their having achieved this sea change in national attitude towards government has been the destruction of a confident liberal middle class. Also, it appears to me that the very idea of a strong middle class seems a threat to the corporate elites at the top, and what is unfolding around us is an effort to totally disempower the middle class, largely through economic strategies that reduce their struggle as consumers to one of survival of their comfortable way of life. Who really has time now to consider the larger questions of why we are in such a desperate plight, when it takes all our effort to keep up with our own self-important goals? It seems, for the most part, that we all have been successfully marginalized, both emotionally and financially, as to having any influence on the real directions of our government now. With their control of the media and the electoral and the financial systems, we can be made to do just about anything they wish for us to do, including fighting against using any of our resources to meet our own needs. Obama's latest big idea is to freeze (or eliminate) all wasteful domestic spending, and put no limits on what can be spent to implement our global domination project! And to make sure we get no objections from our elected 'representatives', they have made sure (through their SCOTUS appointees) that there are now no limits on spending to get the 'right' representatives the corporate elites wish to implement their objectives. Even our current economic collapse does not seem sufficient to empower our government to buck the forces of the banksters and robber barons. Back in the 30s, with so many truly desperate working people, a champion like FDR of reforms that would benefit the growth of a middle class had a massive constituency of supportive people behind him, and so he could quite boldly take on the robber barons and make some headway. Now, even if Obama were inclined that way, there is no significant constituency for him to count on, particularly with the media and our elected representatives largely in the hands of the robber barons. So, like it or not, it appears that he is essentially reduced to being a pawn in their ongoing effort to secure unchallenged control of the direction of our country, and how it uses its resources for future objectives that serve their interests. In this climate, I think that we are all, left,right or indifferent, pretty frustrated and angry over our situation, and so the politics of NO works well against whichever party is in power. We have so little trust in anyone in government to work for our needs that most don't even bother any more with politics. Those that do are so cynical about it that we will believe the worst of those who are in, and so the lies and refusals to cooperate triumph. I don't think you can appeal to the right on the basis of showing how one party offers us a better way forward. Like Joe says, I think we have to start any conversation with an admission that we don't know much about what it will take to change things, and to really listen to what those on the other side are saying about their deepest concerns. None of us really has any idea how we can get out of this mess we have made of our experiment with governance, I am coming to believe, and we can only find our way forward by admitting it to each other, and then listening to each other as we try to get out of this mire. Somewhere at the bottom of our anger and frustration, perhaps there is a common ground we can find to at least allow us to hold on to one another as the coming crises of energy shortages and climate disaster enfold us all in their grip. I do believe that by living outside America from 1968 to 1995 and missing the impact of the forces leading to a gradual evolution of conventional wisdom in this country has allowed me to be somewhat more objective in examining this past period than most who went through it while living here. It does appear to me that about the time I left this milieu in the late 60s, a strategy was formulated by the political right to alter the mindset of our populace, to the benefit of the corporate elites who suffered such setbacks during the years following the collapse of the economy in the 30s and continuing into the 60s. By the end of the 60s, with the emergence of a strong, optimistic and confident liberally inclined middle class influencing our politics, the robber barons realized that this trend had to be derailed, and set about systematically to achieve that. Using the Cold War to undermine our moves in the direction of more progressive policies that could benefit the general population, and through many other efforts, especially during the Reagan administration to undermine the liberal values at the core of their defeat, they have succeeded over many decades to effectively delegitimize for many the left liberal/progressive optimistic attitudes that dominated back when I went overseas. For most, I think the transition was so gradual and pervasive that even the outrageously criminal Bush administration could emerge with only moderate dissent, and for those behind their thrust to expect that their policy directions could survive even the loss to a Democratic administration with little real change.

It appears to me that the key to their having achieved this sea change in national attitude towards government has been the destruction of a confident liberal middle class. Also, it appears to me that the very idea of a strong middle class seems a threat to the corporate elites at the top, and what is unfolding around us is an effort to totally disempower the middle class, largely through economic strategies that reduce their struggle as consumers to one of survival of their comfortable way of life. Who really has time now to consider the larger questions of why we are in such a desperate plight, when it takes all our effort to keep up with our own self-important goals? It seems, for the most part, that we all have been successfully marginalized, both emotionally and financially, as to having any influence on the real directions of our government now. With their control of the media and the electoral and the financial systems, we can be made to do just about anything they wish for us to do, including fighting against using any of our resources to meet our own needs. Obama’s latest big idea is to freeze (or eliminate) all wasteful domestic spending, and put no limits on what can be spent to implement our global domination project! And to make sure we get no objections from our elected ‘representatives’, they have made sure (through their SCOTUS appointees) that there are now no limits on spending to get the ‘right’ representatives the corporate elites wish to implement their objectives.

Even our current economic collapse does not seem sufficient to empower our government to buck the forces of the banksters and robber barons. Back in the 30s, with so many truly desperate working people, a champion like FDR of reforms that would benefit the growth of a middle class had a massive constituency of supportive people behind him, and so he could quite boldly take on the robber barons and make some headway. Now, even if Obama were inclined that way, there is no significant constituency for him to count on, particularly with the media and our elected representatives largely in the hands of the robber barons. So, like it or not, it appears that he is essentially reduced to being a pawn in their ongoing effort to secure unchallenged control of the direction of our country, and how it uses its resources for future objectives that serve their interests.

In this climate, I think that we are all, left,right or indifferent, pretty frustrated and angry over our situation, and so the politics of NO works well against whichever party is in power. We have so little trust in anyone in government to work for our needs that most don’t even bother any more with politics. Those that do are so cynical about it that we will believe the worst of those who are in, and so the lies and refusals to cooperate triumph. I don’t think you can appeal to the right on the basis of showing how one party offers us a better way forward. Like Joe says, I think we have to start any conversation with an admission that we don’t know much about what it will take to change things, and to really listen to what those on the other side are saying about their deepest concerns. None of us really has any idea how we can get out of this mess we have made of our experiment with governance, I am coming to believe, and we can only find our way forward by admitting it to each other, and then listening to each other as we try to get out of this mire. Somewhere at the bottom of our anger and frustration, perhaps there is a common ground we can find to at least allow us to hold on to one another as the coming crises of energy shortages and climate disaster enfold us all in their grip.

]]> By: Andrew Bard Schmookler http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746&cpage=1#comment-387829 Andrew Bard Schmookler Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:37:52 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746#comment-387829 It sounds as though you know something about the Virginians, Joe, and it is possible that you'd do better at this task than I do. In any event, thanks for your thoughts. For myself, between the factor of "who I am" and the considerable difficulty of dealing about these divisions in this arena, I find that there are not all that many ways in which I can do this work. Stand up and tell it like it is. That's the approach that seems to be what I've got to do, if I'm to do it at all. I have a variety of tones and levels of "like it is" that I can employ, but I do not have a lot of "Aw, shucks" kinds of postures in my repertoire. One advantage of my incapacity to employ many poses, at least I would like to think so: that they can tell that I'm authentic and that I'm honest. But I am not sure that they can. These are people who can think that GW Bush was honest, and that Sarah Palin is authentic. So perhaps they have no difficulty deciding that someone like me, who says things they don't want to hear, is just trying to deceive the gullible. But still, that's who I am and that's how I feel I have to play it. It sounds as though you know something about the Virginians, Joe, and it is possible that you’d do better at this task than I do. In any event, thanks for your thoughts.

For myself, between the factor of “who I am” and the considerable difficulty of dealing about these divisions in this arena, I find that there are not all that many ways in which I can do this work. Stand up and tell it like it is. That’s the approach that seems to be what I’ve got to do, if I’m to do it at all.

I have a variety of tones and levels of “like it is” that I can employ, but I do not have a lot of “Aw, shucks” kinds of postures in my repertoire.

One advantage of my incapacity to employ many poses, at least I would like to think so: that they can tell that I’m authentic and that I’m honest.

But I am not sure that they can. These are people who can think that GW Bush was honest, and that Sarah Palin is authentic. So perhaps they have no difficulty deciding that someone like me, who says things they don’t want to hear, is just trying to deceive the gullible.

But still, that’s who I am and that’s how I feel I have to play it.

]]> By: Joe Bageant http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746&cpage=1#comment-387821 Joe Bageant Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:26:28 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746#comment-387821 Well, I don't know what kind of show you do, but it might be a good idea not to get so deep into the facts and figures, if you are planning to talk to regular folks. It should be clear to us all by now that that these do not change working class conservative hearts and minds. I'd show more interest in their lives than in politics, per se. What has shaped their views. They will tell you if asked. I'd also listen to the deep discontent that has allowed them to be led by the nose into the GOP camp and things like the Tea Party. It's roots are the same as liberal discontent. But we've both been indoctrinated to see different causes. Neither side is completely right and neither side has all the answers. Virginians are by nature conservative. Not just in politics but in life. Many aspects of this conservatism have deep historical roots, and are to be admired. Such as manners. And faith. Others not so much. Manners are paramount and noisy reparte is off-putting. (For instance, NPR's Car Talk is not as popular there because to the Virginian ear it sounds like rudeness.) Go deep into the Valley, down past Harrisonburg at least. The northern end of the valley is highly affected by its proximity to DC. Don't let the usual local GOP bigmouths get on the mic. When challenged aggressively or rudely, do an "Aw shucks, I don't know about that." Opening a sentence with "I don't know about that" is Virginia code for "I am a modest person who does not like to argue. Interestingly, "I don't know about that is always followed with a "But...." and then a calm rebuttal. Just as in the rest of the nation, views vary according to generation. I'd say the younger they are, the stupider they are. But then, I'm an old guy. In art and labor, joe Well, I don’t know what kind of show you do, but it might be a good idea not to get so deep into the facts and figures, if you are planning to talk to regular folks. It should be clear to us all by now that that these do not change working class conservative hearts and minds. I’d show more interest in their lives than in politics, per se. What has shaped their views. They will tell you if asked. I’d also listen to the deep discontent that has allowed them to be led by the nose into the GOP camp and things like the Tea Party. It’s roots are the same as liberal discontent. But we’ve both been indoctrinated to see different causes. Neither side is completely right and neither side has all the answers.

Virginians are by nature conservative. Not just in politics but in life. Many aspects of this conservatism have deep historical roots, and are to be admired. Such as manners. And faith. Others not so much. Manners are paramount and noisy reparte is off-putting. (For instance, NPR’s Car Talk is not as popular there because to the Virginian ear it sounds like rudeness.)

Go deep into the Valley, down past Harrisonburg at least. The northern end of the valley is highly affected by its proximity to DC.

Don’t let the usual local GOP bigmouths get on the mic. When challenged aggressively or rudely, do an “Aw shucks, I don’t know about that.” Opening a sentence with “I don’t know about that” is Virginia code for “I am a modest person who does not like to argue. Interestingly, “I don’t know about that is always followed with a “But….” and then a calm rebuttal.

Just as in the rest of the nation, views vary according to generation. I’d say the younger they are, the stupider they are.

But then, I’m an old guy.

In art and labor,
joe

]]> By: Dean http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746&cpage=1#comment-387819 Dean Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:52:58 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5746#comment-387819 Andy, I am sure that other responders will be able to provide specific data on the stagnant income growth of the middle class and the WORKING POOR during the past 30-40 years. I would suggest that you make it a practice to find out from local republicans why they are or how they became republicans and what the republican party means to them. It is a longer process but I think the only road to change of party affiliation would be to help your callers define themselves and their values. Then show them how the leadership of the republican party is not serving their values or needs but instead are serving the needs of wall street, international, corporations, too big to fail banks and insurance companies, etc. It seems almost like a "one-person-at-a-time" conversion process and I fear that most of your audience will not be willing to come to closure with you because it would mean that they would have to actually start doing things and start making the sacrifices that are going to be needed to support the big changes that are going to be necessary to solve our country's problems. It was so much easier when I thought my only obligations as a citizen was to go to polls every 2-4 years and vote for the best candidate and then sit back and watch the good times roll. I think many people are still of that mind set. Andy,

I am sure that other responders will be able to provide specific data on the
stagnant income growth of the middle class and the WORKING POOR during the past 30-40 years.

I would suggest that you make it a practice to find out from local republicans
why they are or how they became republicans and what the republican party means to them. It is a longer process but I think the only road to change of party affiliation would be to help your callers define themselves and their values.

Then show them how the leadership of the republican party is not serving their
values or needs but instead are serving the needs of wall street, international, corporations, too big to fail banks and insurance companies, etc.

It seems almost like a “one-person-at-a-time” conversion process and I fear
that most of your audience will not be willing to come to closure with you
because it would mean that they would have to actually start doing things and
start making the sacrifices that are going to be needed to support the big changes that are going to be necessary to solve our country’s problems.

It was so much easier when I thought my only obligations as a citizen was to
go to polls every 2-4 years and vote for the best candidate and then sit back
and watch the good times roll. I think many people are still of that mind set.

]]>