General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Would the nation be better off if the south would go away? [View all]MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 30, 2012, 03:18 AM - Edit history (2)
The GOP doesn't represent any economic interest except for the very wealthy and professionals somewhat. The trouble is that, with some exceptions, the Democratic Party really isn't very different except that it's more professional oriented. I suspect the major issue with the Democratic Party is the source of funds. If you don't toe the predominant neoliberal line, it gets hard to get funded.
Racism, xenophobia, and general extremism rise in direct proportion to economic instability (instability is not the word I want, but I'm blanking on the correct word). People are more willing to buy into these ideals when they don't feel that they're on firm ground. Racism is tried and true way of assigning false blame while hiding the real culprits. I think of that end speech of "The American President" where Michael Douglas talks about taking a group of middle class voters and telling them that some scapegoat is responsible for their problems. Sorkin really nailed that one perfectly.
We're cool. I don't like seeing the south singled out for national problems because I think it's a cop-out. All too often it's been used as a means of showing one's liberal credentials, by south bashing, while conveniently ignoring the same problems outside the south. I don't mind if people address these issues on a national scale, but scapegoating will never be productive if we really want to address the actual problems.
Read economic instability as economic insecurity. Wow, it took a long while for that word to finally come to me.