What if the populist wings of both parties started working together?

By Rubashov
In its political usage, the term “dog-whistle” has developed into something quite apart from what it originally meant. Wikipedia defines its use in politics as… “coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition… Dog whistles use language which appears normal to the majority, but which communicate specific things to intended audiences.”

Wikipedia cites popular writer and etymologist William Safire’s opinion that the term “dog whistle" may have been derived from its use in opinion polling. Safire quotes Richard Morin, director of polling for The Washington Post, as writing in 1988, “subtle changes in question-wording sometimes produce remarkably different results... researchers call this the 'Dog Whistle Effect': Respondents hear something in the question that researchers do not”. Safire’s Political Dictionary (2008) speculates that campaign workers adopted the phrase from political pollsters.

This usage doesn’t quite make sense. Apart from the fact that nearly all dogs can hear standard dog whistles, the idea of it being a secret “code” is fanciful, more a case of anthropomorphism. The dog whistle is a training tool. Period. By the repetitive use of a “dog whistle” (sometimes combined with other inducements) a dog can be trained to respond in a predictable way each time the whistle is used.

This knowledge allows us to see the term “dog whistle” in an entirely new way. For example, the use of the term “racist” may be seen as a “dog whistle” – by the use of which the “dog” can be trained to respond in a predictable and prescribed way. “Homophobe” is likewise a “dog whistle” – a training tool – the use of which will enable the user to obtain a predictable conformity from the “dog”.

This kind of “dog whistling” has long enabled corporate Democrats to prevent the party’s base from working with people of the same economic class. In the manner of an over-bearing mother, the Democrats tell their voters to “stay away” from “those bad people” because they are… (fill in the blank).

All this “dog whistling” about race and gender and sexual preference has divided America into camps based on surface “identity” markers and not on what really matters – economic power, the only “privilege” that matters. The scam goes like this: While most Americans want a future where the billionaire and the working person have an equal say in the process, the “identity” groups (funded by billionaires) distract from this and insist that it is the poor person of a different color or gender or sexuality who is the oppressor and the proper focus of group anger.

Because of this “dog whistling”, America has the least diverse political representation in its history. The lack of diversity with regards to economic class is an under-reported fact of American political life.

In his book, White-Collar Government: The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy Making (2013), Duke University Professor Nick Carnes reports on studies showing that while a majority of Americans work in blue-collar employment, only 2% of Congress were blue-collar workers before being elected and only 3% of State Legislators are employed as blue-collar workers. Carnes and others hold that this disparity reflects the economic decisions and priorities of legislative bodies in America – and it is an explanation of the gulf between the rhetoric and reality of legislation like the Cares Act. And it might explain why Governors like Phil Murphy appear so disconnected from the realities of working people, when they issue executive orders that destroy small businesses and jobs without a thought to how people will pay for health insurance and housing.

It is the disparity in economic power that led a Princeton University study (Gilens & Page, 2014) to conclude: "The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." Americans believe in the ideal of democracy but increasingly understand that they do not have it.

The 2016 presidential election saw the rise of populist movements in both major political parties. Journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi extensively reported on Establishment efforts by both parties to contain and dismiss the working class uprisings in their respective voting bases. The election of Donald Trump only confirmed the intensity of the pain being experienced by working Americans of all races, genders, and preferences. That pain has not gone away… it has only grown worse under government’s prescriptions to address the COVID pandemic.

Increasingly, populists on both the Left and Right are coming to understand – despite the designs of those who “dog whistle” identity – that their battle is not with each other, but rather with a political Establishment that screws all of them, while trying to stoke the fires of conflict and hatred between them. Here is a great video by Honest Left commentator and comedian Jimmy Dore…

In the post (from yesterday), Jimmy Dore includes some interesting videos from business owners who are suffering under the rules imposed on them by Democrat governors. He posted a recent article by The Intercept, titled, “The Unemployment Crisis is a True National Emergency: The incompetent criminals ruling the U.S. are about to push millions of Americans off a terrifying financial cliff”.

Another headline posted by Dore: “Yelp data shows 60% of business closures due to the coronavirus pandemic are now permanent”.

And another, from TIME magazine: “No Lessons Have Been Learned. Why the Trillion-Dollar Coronavirus Bailout Benefited the Rich.”

Dore notes: “We are turning America into Brazil… You want to know how you fight against fascism? You make sure people have a job.”

In the video, Dore blames Democrats like Tom Malinowski and Josh Gottheimer, who call suffering workers “white extremists” and “terrorists” – while voting for the very policies that cause the pain they are reacting to. Watch the video.

Dore points out that, according to PBS, the Federal Reserve plans to lend an additional $1 trillion a day to large banks. Dore then goes on to compare the support other nations are providing small to mid-sized businesses. He produces a graph from Public Citizen, showing the percentage of wages currently subsidized by governments for businesses closed due to COVID:

Japan – 100% for small Businesses. 80% for larger firms.
Netherlands – Up to 90%.
Norway – Up to 90%.
Germany – Up to 87%.
France – Up to 84%.
Italy – 80%.
United Kingdom – Up to 80%.
Canada – Up to 75%.
United States – 0%.

Dore also notes that billionaires have used the pandemic to increase their wealth by over a trillion dollars. He posts the following numbers:

Amazon profits up 100%.
Walmart profits up 80%.
Target profits up 80%.

All while 50 million Americans are facing food insecurity and 21% of small businesses have already closed permanently. Watch the video to see a list of the bonuses handed out to the CEO’s of major corporations during the COVID pandemic. Dore calls it a “rigged system in action.”

Are we getting closer to the predictions made about "fusion politics" by Ralph Nader, in his book Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State (2014)? Watch the video… Jimmy Dore is priceless!

“The entire business model of the Democratic Party is to avoid dealing with its own populists’ concerns, so they’ve never seen the Sanders wing of the party as anything but a threat to what they do for a living, which is basically take corporate money and then sell themselves as socially progressive. That’s what they do for a living. That’s their business.”

Matt Taibbi
Journalist and author of Hate, Inc. (amongst other books)

N.B. We welcome a conversation on this and all topics raised on this website. Jersey Conservative is entirely open to your ideas and opinions. To submit a column for publication, please contact us at info@JerseyConservative.org.

Of Rat Finks and Know-Nothings

In Sunday's Bergen Record, columnist Charles Stile wrote touchingly about how the patricians of an earlier incarnation of the GOP used to put down internal dissent.  Yes indeed, that class of folks well described in Tad Friend's memoir, Friendly Money, who in politics are epitomized by former Governor Christie Todd Whitman, certainly did dominate the Republican Party before the likes of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich came along.  They also lost pretty consistently and were responsible for that long dry spell without power in Congress. 

The decline of the GOP's dominance by its patrician class tracks what Friend, a staff writer at the New Yorker, calls "the last days of WASP splendor."  And while we can understand how Stile may long for those days of certainty -- for there is a kind of comfort in knowing who is who and where you stand in relation  -- we think that such a class system, one where the leadership is based on inherited status and wealth, ultimately fails.  In fact, one of the great concerns about this presidential cycle is that the role of unlimited money has led to a new order based on such a system -- where family name (Bush, Clinton) is half the battle.

It's an old debate here in America:  Should a Republic have an aristocracy and, if so, what is the selection process?

Writing in the Spring edition of the Hedgehog Review, the University of Virginia's quarterly on culture, Johann Neem makes a few points about presidential candidate Donald Trump, the voters he has energized, and the 19th century political party they are sometimes compared with.  Neem is Professor of History at Western Washington University and a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture of the University of Virginia. 

In contrast to Stile, Neem makes the case for some serious soul-searching to understand how the GOP -- and the country -- got to where the Trump candidacy "dismissed initially as a joke" became the phenomenon it is.  Neem makes some points worth considering:

"To many Americans facing a changing world and fearing that globalization is depriving them of a fair shot at the good life, not to mention basic security, Trump's promise to do something makes him stand apart from a political establishment, right and left, that seems clueless and adrift."

"The (anti-immigration) Know-Nothings displaced the Whigs as the Democrats' primary opposition in parts of the nation, and elected seventy-five representatives to Congress."

"As the historian Tyler Anbinder makes clear in his book, Nativisim and Slavery (1992), many supporters of the upstart party voted out of frustration and disgust with the political system.  As Trump would do 175 years later, the Know-Nothings promised to do something.  They appealed in particular to antislavery voters who felt that neither the Whigs or Democrats were willing to address what they considered America's most pressing problem."

"But if Know-Nothings focused on immigrants as the main cause of America's ills, they gained a broad following because they tackled problems and concerns that went well beyond the immigrant question.  In Massachusetts, Know-Nothing legislators who sought to encourage unity among Americans mandated racial integration in the same schools in which they had imposed Protestant Bibles.  They passed laws to protect people from creditors and, in Massachusetts, abolished imprisonment for debt and passed child labor legislation.  In Connecticut, they passed a law stating that ten hours was the de facto workday."

"Know-Nothings also pushed for greater regulation of banks, railroads, and other corporations.  Whether successfully or not,  Know-Nothings brought working people's concerns to the legislative floor.  They also sought to render government more accountable to voters by making more offices elective, increasing punishment for corruption, and promising to curb patronage."

"Know-Nothing legislators came through with their promise to back U.S. Senators who opposed slavery's expansion. . . In Massachusetts, Know-Nothing legislators passed resolutions calling for the restoration of the Missouri Compromise (to prevent slavery's expansion) and repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act."

In the presidential election of 1856, "most Know-Nothings sided with the new Republican party's candidate John C. Fremont because they considered the issue of slavery more pressing" than the issue of immigration.  Essentially, the Know-Nothings helped destroy the old Whig Party, so that a new Republican Party could emerge.

Neem ends with this salutary warning:

"To the extent that Trump's supporters represent a new Know-Nothing movement, the lesson is clear.  Globalization has resulted in significant cultural and economic changes that many Americans feel have been hurtful not only to themselves but also to the nation as a whole.  Those same voters feel betrayed by a political elite that seems, in their view, more committed to cosmopolitanism and the international order than to national self-interest. "

"The loss of jobs and even of whole industries, drug use, violent crime, the spread of terrorism, and the challenges of an increasingly diverse society -- all of these can be connected with some of the disruptive and dislocating effects of globalization.   Trump's brand of nativism shifts all the blame for these and other problems to people and nations beyond our borders.  But it would be wrong to see his supporters' attraction to such nativism as simple xenophobia, though of course it can easily become that.  Above all, Trump's supporters want someone who will do something, almost anything, about problems they think are growing worse."