The Bourgeois, “Liberal” Democratic Party ignores the white working class at its peril
By
David Gottfried
You may believe that the Democratic Party has not ignored working class Americans. Indeed, not too long ago, we learned that Medicare will finally start bargaining with Pig Pharma for better prices. It’s a whole lot less than what we had wanted, but it certainly is a lot better than what we got from Mr. Obama, but then again Obama got more money from Big Pharma than either Hillary Clinton or John Mc Cain.
(Obama used to say that he didn’t take contributions from lobbyists, and that was true. He didn’t take money from lobbyists; he and his pacs took contributions directly from corporations which wanted favors from Washington. Ah, but the child-like, gullible, pseudo-liberal, precious and pretty people were utterly enamored by Obama’s narcotic speeches and didn’t realize that black homeownership was cut in half during his administration because he caved into financiers from Goldman Sachs who made a fortune, with credit default swaps, by thrusting half of America into the worst downturn since the dirty Thirties)
Even when the Democratic Party endeavors to aid working people, it still reeks with the sardonic stench of ballrooms where the dukes and duchesses of bourgeois liberalism get their cheap thrills by dissing poor white people:
Consider the case of the elite, anti-white racist Sarah Jeong
In 2018, Sarah Jeong ascended to the rarified heights of Media and Politics. She became a member of the editorial board of the New York Times, where she shapes and molds the opinions of well read and powerful people on America’s eastern and western gold coasts.
And this is one of the revelations of her excellency, Queen Sarah Jeong:
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins? . . . Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”
AND SHE SAID THIS:
"White people (are) marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,"
MY SOURCES:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/white-privilege-debate-elizabeth-warren/
AND
The Washington Post article by
Erin B. Logan August 3, 2018
Of course, erstwhile apologists of decadent, pseudo-liberals will say that the radical fringes of the left will not be given prominent positions in a Democratic administration and will not have the opportunity to slash and burn people they dislike. However, the federal bureaucracies hire thousands of people and out of those thousands one can be fairly certain that at last a couple of hundred of them will be rabid ideologues whose political mission is waging war in the name of identity politics and doing every thing they can to advance blacks, women, gays and transexuals even if the people whose careers they advance are at best mediocre and at worst moles for foreign antagonists. For example, I knew a very bright girl, at NYU law school, who is the sort of person who could easily get a high-ranking position in the Biden Defense Dept. In that position, she could come into possession of military secrets that could jeopardize Israel. I think she would love to give those secrets to Iran. (Hell, Henry Wallace, a third-party leftist candidate for President in 1948, said that the United States should either share the secrets of the atom bomb with the Soviet Union or give the secrets to a “non partial” U.N. Committee. And Henry Wallace came from within the very core of the Democratic Party as he was FDR’s vice president from January of 41 until January of 45, when he was replaced by Truman)
The scorn of the Cappuccino and Cannoli Left, toward poor white people, is everywhere.
One or two days after the Presidential primary in West Virginia, in 2016, Charles Blow, a ponderous, preacher-like black op ed writer for the New York Times, wrote that Bernie Sanders swept West Virginia because the people of West Virgina were a bunch of stupid, bigoted Hillbillies.
Of course, it could have never entered Mr. Blow’s mini-sized cerebrum that West Virginia had a long history of identification with the working class and that Sanders’ resounding speeches about workers lit-up the backwoods of West Virginia like Mother Jones (a labor leader from the beginning of the 20th century) talking sense and raising Cain.
I suppose Charles Blow did not know:
a) that West Virginia never identified with the confederacy as
i) its mountainous topography made it unsuitable for the Southern economy of plantations and slavery and
ii) West Virginia seceded from Virgina when Virgina and other Southern States seceded from the Union,
b) that many West Virginians were deeply committed to organized labor because so many people in the state struggled in coal mines,
c) that West Virginia has, until recently, been more liberal, electorally, that most states in the nation as, for example, it was carried by Michael Dukakis in 1988 when only ten states went Democratic and reliably liberal states such as California, Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut all went for Bush over Dukakis. Also, I suppose that Blow could freely call West Virginia bigoted, at the drop of a hat, because he does not remember that JFK won the West Virginia Primary in 1960, when 96 percent of its citizens identified as Protestant. Also, West Virginia proved that it was not bigoted because it voted for a Jew, Bernie Sanders, over a fellow protestant, Ms. Hillary. But perhaps Charles Blow is averse to thinking kindly about the Jews or West Virginians who will vote for a Jew.
Oliver Anthony: The Old Testament Prophet from Appalachia
Many people get the impression that I am a jaded Motherfucker. That impression might be right on the money. After all, I haven’t heard a song, read a book, seen a movie or viewed a painting that I truly loved in about 20 years. Oh, I can laugh at a few moronic comedic acts, but the laughs are the anemic, giggling laughs of politeness. I have complimented a couple of art works that had a slight semblance of value, but I had to stifle a yawn as the stuff was derivative, dreary, and so invariably dull.
But the other day I heard something new – and something as old as Jeremiah. When John Lennon heard Elton John’s “Your Song,” he allegedly said that that was the first new thing in popular music since the Beatles had come along. I feel the same way about Oliver Anthony’s Rich Men North of Richmond. In that song, I have heard something that blazes brilliantly over all the ugly fucking muck that constitutes contemporary American popular art. Oh, we have heard them all, the bellowing Beyonces, the Justin Biebers so tired that they seem geriatric, the Beastly boys (There may or may not be a group denominated the Beastly Boys. I don’t know contemporary “music.” But there are so many groups of snot-nosed schlemiels who seem like Beastly boys.) the hellacious hip hoppers, the reptilian rappers, the full gamut of garbage guaranteed to make you want to lose your vision and lose your hearing so you can retreat into a blessed world, archived in your mind, of Beethoven, of Byron, of the Beatles and be blessedly divorced from the garish, gaudy vulgarity that some pigs call art.
You might say that Oliver Anthony can’t be discussed in the same breath as Beethoven and the Beatles. You may contend that he lacks the intellectual complexity to rank with them. But art is contingent on much more than intellectual profundity. Spiritual profundity and emotional persuasiveness are just as important, and Anthony has given us one of the most heartfelt songs that I have heard in many decades.
Of course, some parsimonious, persnickety critics have condemned Anthony. Some people hear in his deep, thunderous voice the shadow of the patriarchy and think he is too much of a man to warrant our affections. Other people don’t like a lyric which chastises very fat people. Other people resent a lyric which criticizes high taxes. But these criticisms shouldn’t surprise anyone. Censorship is very in among chic “left” polemicists. I read that an English teacher in London wanted to throw “Romeo and Juliet” into a dustbin of rejected dramas because it was, in her opinion, “blatantly heterosexual.” (By doing that, she would be taking work away from scores of gay ballet dancers who danced that drama.)
Democrats, do not reject Oliver Anthony because of a few caustic comments. Democrats, do not reject the working class.