Sorry but why is everybody pussyfooting around the term "racism." Jewish people can be just as cruel and wrong-headed as anyone. This from a person who supports a "two-state" solution to the I/P mess, and who at times views the Arab and other Moslem peoples as even worse than the Israelis are.
I am sorry but I have trouble dealing with the whole white ethnic strategy argument. Certainly Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes won their elections but none of the other Republicans did. All the various areas-white neighborhoods, African-American neighborhoods, suburbs-may have hated each other, but they still voted for the same party. The Democrats remained the majority party until 1994, and even then it was more a matter of them losing their majority than the Republicans gaining theirs. On the presidential level, it may well be the lackluster quality of the Democratic candidates for President that was the factor in the situation. Which, in turn, leads to...
Frankly speaking, Democrats, liberals, and leftists did'nt do anything for anybody except the very poor and the persecuted groups after 1960. It was not just a matter of redressing the balance, no they did not want to do anything for anybody else. However,(a) many people in the other groups were still not well; (b) America still did not have universal social services; (c) those universal social services and a mixed economy would, if put into place, help the poor and the oppressed groups more than targeted programs would. This stated from a person who still supports Affirmative Action and all the rest of their ilk.
Finally, Sugrue and co. are not the greatest of historians. Their basic history is reasonably well stated and taken, but the global interpretations go too far. They fail to account for the pecularities and the "friction" of history, such as bigoted people nevertheless voting for tolerant candidates-a variety, in turn, of the old adage of people saying one thing and doing another. One cannot help but feel, in turn, that this is a result of them being old New Leftists, still consumed with a hatred of the whole society, including the working class, on the grounds that it is hopelessly evil. And actually this hatred for the working class on the part of the left is a much greater reason for the political disasters of late 20th century America than white backlash.
I just hope that these comments are taken in the spirit offered. One does not deny bigotry, one is just unsure of it's political impact.
One wishes that he would stop doing this for a change. He brags too much about himself, even getting a book published-less than a year after it happened-about how he was responsible fot the 2006 democratic electoral victories. Which is actually rather questionable.
This situation is easy enough to solve. Wipe out Ronald Reagan. Restore tax rates and cut defense spending to where they were before his administration. One can do this and still spend plenitifully; indeed, it helps properly finance the boom. Remember, big spenders like FDR and Truman had high tax rates. As for defense spending, there were massive reductions in such spending after the world wars and the Korean war, just as we had 90% top income tax rates once. WE did it once, we can do it again. And, high taxes and low defense spending are as American as mom and apple pie.
I am sorry but we need to renegotiate the trade agreements. They are not helping either the poor or the working class, and it is not clear that they are helping Canada either. Protectionism is not as bad as thought, it could be combined with a moderate free-trade policy.
Build the progressive economy by reviving the manufacturing sector, and thus give good-paying jobs to both the working class and minorities; limit or end 1hb visas and thus protect the white-collar professionals; bring about universal social services, so as to help everybody, including the working and middle classes and not just the poor and minorities all the time; and finally restore the 90% top income tax rate, which FDR founded and which lasted for nearly half a century in this country.
What tax increases did Rubin and Clinton bring about? If I am not mistaken, they involved only increasing the rate by a few percentage points. Tax rates remained far lower than they were before Reagan, and Rubin/Clinton never challenged this. Indeed they sort of comfirmed Reagan's legacy by basically keeping it. And as for that prosperity, let's talk about all those low-wage, part-time, temporary jobs back then.
The time for 90% top income tax rates is now. Americans were always more in favor of these taxes than is commonly supposed, indeed those taxes were around for nearly half of the previous century.
With such populist acts we can rebuild an alliance between the working class and the poor and minorities, such as Truman in 1948-and, more dimly, Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey in 1968-wanted to do.
A problem with the polls. Was not Rasmussen, during the election, considered to be a rather Republican lot? If so, should we be really trusting their numbers? Maybe the opinion polls should be analyzed more carefully, before we jump to conclusions and call the American people a bunch of reactionary dopes.
Well this is what happens when a country uncritically admires Ronald Reagan and slavishly follows whatever he did economically. Hopefully we will see a little less blather about the "Baltic Tigers." Hopefully, too, the East European countries will reconsider the approach of unrestrained free-enterprise capitalism that they have been following so uncritically since 1989-91.
This stimulus program is necessary. It is needed to keep this country from falling into a depression, and also to accomplish those social needs that, despite popular belief, were never funded in the 60's and 70's and that have been festering ever since.
That said, if one wants to deal with the deficit, why not raise taxes, especially upon the rich and big business, and cut defense spending? We used to have 90% top rates, and as for the military, there were decreases in military spending after World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. Just not after the Vietnam War and ever since, which is still mystifying.
Sorry but we need spending on all the problems that our country suffers. We have never spent enough money, including the 60's, and we should start doing it now.
That said, it is true that it should not be done right away, but in a couple of months into the new administration.
Good comments here. The belief that mid-term elections invariably go against the party in power in the executive branch is a myth. Elections have gone as much in favor as they have gone against. Quite simply, if things are going well and people like the policies of the party in power, they will continue to vote for them, but if not, then they won't vote for them.
Basically, the Democrats have a real chance to continue their recent success in 2010, provided they don't blow it.