It’s really important to understand that ideology does not arise in a vacuum; it is an expression of one’s material conditions. For example if you tell me you believe that taxation is theft and the free market will solve your problems, I can reasonably guess that you are the owner of some business for whom labor is just a cost and taxation to support public goods is going to cost you more than it benefits you. That includes everyone from corporate interests down to small business owners. The rest of the republican base is those who can be induced to be allies of the above on the basis of race. Keep that in mind and all their ideological positions suddenly make sense. They’re just looking out for number one. Even the immigration stuff; labor is at a disadvantage when capital can move freely but labor is stuck.
This is also the reason that the extreme right has often had corporate sponsorship at key moments in history.
>>I can reasonably guess that you are the owner of some business for whom labor is just a cost and taxation to support public goods is going to cost you more than it benefits you. That includes everyone from corporate interests down to small business owners. The rest of the republican base is those who can be induced to be allies of the above on the basis of race.<<
Frankly, this is just an example of the type of polarization the article describes. "If you support some X that I oppose, it is not because you have a principled reason for believing it to be beneficial, but rather because you are racist/sexist/etc."
Sorry but I think you’re terribly naive. Almost as if you believe that the reason big tobacco tried to deny that cigarettes caused cancer was on principle. Don’t make me laugh, it’s pure self interest all the way. Not even racism or sexism since that’s just a way to divide and conquer the enemies of corporate interests. No, it’s about something far more prosaic- money and power. Simple as that.
The right- or at least the portion with all the money and influence to control their narrative- is absolutely not making their case on a good faith basis. Why attack Iraq? Money and power. Why run anti-union campaigns? Money and power. Why insist that health care for everyone is impossible? Money and power. I mean just make the absolute worst assumptions about why they do anything and suddenly the world makes a lot more sense.
I agree with you except on a small point - I don't think restricting labor movement is particularly beneficial to capital - but I don't see much relevance to the article.
I felt that the article was trying to paper over genuine conflicts by making them just look like thinly held opinions. The message is: don’t fight, it’s not a real difference, it’s just slightly different ideas. That’s just false- a hen can’t be allies with a fox. If people are going to fight for themselves they have to know who their enemies are and why those people are their enemies.
To make the point even more explicit- who do you suppose funds More In Common, and why do you suppose they do that?
The message of the article is _we are not enemies_ not "don't fight."
Fellow Americans should be able to disagree and settle the conflict with elections. Enemies wish for each other's destruction, and while it may be how you feel, it is not the right frame of mind to take when attempting exchange of ideas on policy.
See now, that right there is why liberals consistently lose and never learn from it. The right knows they’re at war, and they act accordingly, and the socialist left does too, but nobody listens to them, and then you have all these centrist liberals who think it’s a high school debate club or something. This is win or die stuff man. If the enemy acts like it’s a war and you don’t, you’re going to lose, every time.
Look: I was a conservative when I was a teenager and hadn’t gone out to see the real world yet. But at some point you go out and the ideal collides with the reality and you have to face what those ideas really mean.
I say what I say out of a desire to influence people; I want to influence people out of a desire to make the world better. I have two kids- I don’t want them to be drafted in a war, or go hungry because of climate change. But if the conservatives get their way, that’s what will happen to them. I’ve been in city Council meetings advocating for paid sick leave for local working people. On my side was the vast majority of citizens, together with organized labor, on the other side was the chamber of commerce. The testimony was 20 to 1 in favor. But we lost, because the young lawyer in the expensive suit from the Chamber stood up and reminded the city Council members of who funded their election campaigns. And by defeating paid sick leave, they force people to work preparing food when they have the flu, they force people to choose between watching their sick kids or losing their jobs. I was once a fast food worker and my boss wouldn’t let me go home even though I was barfing in a trash can behind the fryolator. An experience like that changes you. But you know, the Chamber won, and they saved the business owners of the city a lot of money.
Look, your side wants a war with Iran that will necessitate the return of the draft; to do nothing about climate change which is rolling the dice on civilization itself; and to literally put children in cages (while making substantial profit for doing it). I’m sorry but you’re not my brother or sister if you support that kind of violence.
To the point about capital mobility, I was just making a point about the phenomenon where Jeff bezos will come into town and demand millions of dollars in subsidies or else he’ll take his warehouse elsewhere. He can do that because capital is mobile and people are not.
The same phenomenon applies in a different way to Mexico; you want to move your factories to where labor is cheap. But if all those Mexicans can just leave, it defeats the purpose of moving your plant to Mexico.
This is also the reason that the extreme right has often had corporate sponsorship at key moments in history.