The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
T.A. Frank's "Why Democrats Are Becoming the Party of the 1 Percent"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In Vanity Fair, T.A. Frank (who is not exactly the same person as Thomas Frank, author of What’s the Matter with Kansas?, but also not wholly dissimilar) writes:

Why Democrats Are Becoming the Party of the 1 Percent

In a world of Trumpism and Clintonism, there’s only one place for globalist-minded elites to go.
BY T.A. FRANK

… In a world of Trumpism and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, while Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats would win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while Republicans would win the support of those who prefer less of both. Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they are already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative.

The combination of super-rich Democrats and poor Democrats would exacerbate internal party tensions, but the party would probably resort to forms of appeasement that are already in use. To their rich constituents, Democrats offer more trade, more immigration, and general globalism. To their non-rich constituents, they offer the promise of social justice, which critics might call identity politics. That’s one reason why Democrats have devoted so much attention to issues such as transgender rights, sexual assault on campus, racial disparities in criminal justice, and immigration reform. The causes may be worthy—and they attract sincere advocates—but politically they’re also useful. They don’t bother rich people.

It’s a costly arrangement. The more that Democrats write off the white working class, which has been experiencing a drastic decline in living standards, the harder it is for them to call themselves a party of the little guy. The more that the rich can frame various business practices as blows to privilege or oppression—predatory lending as a way to expand minority home ownership, outsourcing as a way to uplift the world’s poor, etc.—the more they get a pass from Democrats on practices that hurt poorer Americans. Worst of all, the more that interest groups within the Democratic Party quarrel among themselves, the more they rely upon loathing of a common enemy, Republicans, in order to stay united.

Things get darker still, for, if the G.O.P. becomes ever whiter, failing to peel away working-class voters of other races, then partisan conflict could look more and more like racial conflict. That is the nightmare. Our politics are bad enough when voters are mobilized mainly by culture-war issues, such as abortion, because compromise is often impossible. But when voters are mobilized by issues of identity, something most people can’t change, then nothing works. It’s just war.

Seen in this light, Bernie Sanders suddenly looks quite different from his counterpart, and quite shrewder a politician than many give him credit for. One effect of focusing on economic conflict, as Sanders has done, is that it helps reduce other types of conflict. With his calls for breaking up Wall Street banks and helping young people with tuition, Sanders is uniting people across lines of identity by directing them to a cause that has nothing directly to do with identity. Moreover, while economics cause serious and passionate fights, compromise is possible. Maybe Bernie supporters will have to settle for less tuition help than they wanted, or Wall Street will have to give up more than it expected. But people will be left standing. With economic negotiations, adversaries can arrive at something other than total victory or annihilation.

Of course, to be a credible player at all, Bernie has had to signal fealty to Black Lives Matter and effectively vow to stop enforcing the border. But Bernie’s worldview and visions still feel like products of a different time, probably of Bernie’s own youth. His popularity may be a fluke, ill-suited to the politics of today. I doubt Bernie would be an effective president. Nevertheless, Sandersism is starting to look better and better in light of Trumpism and Clintonism. Though I presume the rich might disagree.

 
Hide 46 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Except for the part where he elides how not enforcing the border would make all of Bernie’s policies less feasible, this is quite Sailerish.

    Frank’s piece also raises an obvious question: how different is Sandersism from Trumpism once you strip away the policies Frank says Sanders had to tack on to compete as a Dem (Black Lives Matter and open borders)? I suspect a non-trivial percentage of Bernie bros will end up answering, “not much”.

    • Replies: @biz

    how different is Sandersism from Trumpism once you strip away the policies Frank says Sanders had to tack on to compete as a Dem (Black Lives Matter and open borders)? I suspect a non-trivial percentage of Bernie bros will end up answering, “not much”.
     
    In my experience, and you can see a lot of videos and interviews to this effect, the Bernie Bros and Gals are most attracted to, excited about, and vocal about, the promise of "free college" and the spectre of student debt relief, even though funny enough Sanders has not explicitly proposed the latter. It is hard for me to see a lot of these people getting excited about Trump because he is not even talking about these freebies.
    , @Anonymous
    how different is Sandersism from Trumpism once you strip away the policies Frank says Sanders had to tack on to compete as a Dem (Black Lives Matter and open borders)? I suspect a non-trivial percentage of Bernie bros will end up answering, “not much”.

    Pretty different. The "Bernie bros" are 6th- or 7th-year grad-student betas or guys who couldn't either play sports or laze about smoking weed for most of the school day so they did student council instead. They record Morning Joe and subscribe to at least 1 D.C.-based magazine. Trump's supporters seem to have contempt for higher education in general and do not understand the delegate selection process.
  2. The diagnosis of the problem is quite good, but the proffered cure is ridiculous (and likely self-serving).

    With leftists the solution is always materialist in nature, predictably class warfare.

    • Replies: @27 year old
    When the upper classes actually go to war to crush the lower classes you refer to it as "normal and good".

    Then when the lower classes try to claw something back suddenly its "class warfare" and it's a bad thing.
    , @iffen
    Yes, the overwhelming success of the First Estate and adherents in leading our societies no doubt explains why we have so few social problems in our time. It's definitely not open to questions or tampering.

    The question is not whether we have class warfare, but whether one will fight back.

    Anyway, he was talking about a logical and sensible re-alignment of the political coalitions.
  3. “But when voters are mobilized by issues of identity, something most people can’t change, then nothing works. It’s just war.”

    Well I guess mixed-race people (like Hispanics) could identify with the white side of their racial makeup and stop calling Trump Hitler. But that’s not very likely in a culture where white males are constantly vilified and there are social, economic and political benefits to identifying as non-white.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Well I guess mixed-race people (like Hispanics) could identify with the white side of their racial makeup and stop calling Trump Hitler."

    In Trump's case, his anti-Mexer rhetoric was a bit extreme.

    Trump was fun in the beginning cuz there were lots of candidates and he got to bash everyone.
    It was esp fun to see him go after bush and rubber.
    Now, it's just him and cruzisch. So, his showmanship will wear thin if he's just talking to himself.

    He has to find the weak spots of hillary, globalism, illegal invasion, koch bros, and etc and stick the knife in in a fun way.
    , @Jefferson
    "Well I guess mixed-race people (like Hispanics) could identify with the white side of their racial makeup and stop calling Trump Hitler. But that’s not very likely in a culture where white males are constantly vilified and there are social, economic and political benefits to identifying as non-white."

    It's not about social, economic, and political benefits. Historically this country has always discouraged Mixed Race people with White ancestry to not self identify as White. It goes way back to The Founding Fathers of this country who adopted a one drop rule in regards to Amerindian, Asian, and African ancestry. If you had even just 0.1 percent of these groups in your blood, you could never be White.

    And since the vast majority of Hispanics in The U.S have way more than 0.1 percent Nonwhite blood, they easily qualify as Nonwhites.

  4. If the Republican Party were to become the Labor Party it would rule for generations. But there is no money in that. Ask Bill Clinton.

  5. @Twinkie
    The diagnosis of the problem is quite good, but the proffered cure is ridiculous (and likely self-serving).

    With leftists the solution is always materialist in nature, predictably class warfare.

    When the upper classes actually go to war to crush the lower classes you refer to it as “normal and good”.

    Then when the lower classes try to claw something back suddenly its “class warfare” and it’s a bad thing.

    • Agree: Guy De Champlagne
    • Replies: @Jesse
    "When the upper classes actually go to war to crush the lower classes you refer to it as “normal and good”.

    "Then when the lower classes try to claw something back suddenly its “class warfare” and it’s a bad thing."


    This is a wonderful comment. Conservatives are morons.
  6. @Dave Pinsen
    Except for the part where he elides how not enforcing the border would make all of Bernie's policies less feasible, this is quite Sailerish.

    Frank's piece also raises an obvious question: how different is Sandersism from Trumpism once you strip away the policies Frank says Sanders had to tack on to compete as a Dem (Black Lives Matter and open borders)? I suspect a non-trivial percentage of Bernie bros will end up answering, "not much".

    how different is Sandersism from Trumpism once you strip away the policies Frank says Sanders had to tack on to compete as a Dem (Black Lives Matter and open borders)? I suspect a non-trivial percentage of Bernie bros will end up answering, “not much”.

    In my experience, and you can see a lot of videos and interviews to this effect, the Bernie Bros and Gals are most attracted to, excited about, and vocal about, the promise of “free college” and the spectre of student debt relief, even though funny enough Sanders has not explicitly proposed the latter. It is hard for me to see a lot of these people getting excited about Trump because he is not even talking about these freebies.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    free college.

    if it's good enough for harvard, why not for all colleges?

    trump should say free college and free beer.
  7. @Twinkie
    The diagnosis of the problem is quite good, but the proffered cure is ridiculous (and likely self-serving).

    With leftists the solution is always materialist in nature, predictably class warfare.

    Yes, the overwhelming success of the First Estate and adherents in leading our societies no doubt explains why we have so few social problems in our time. It’s definitely not open to questions or tampering.

    The question is not whether we have class warfare, but whether one will fight back.

    Anyway, he was talking about a logical and sensible re-alignment of the political coalitions.

  8. Half of this Frank article was ripped off from Sailer.

    • Replies: @SFG
    They do that a lot. David Brooks got soft and cited Steve about natalism and everyone piled on him. So now they just wait three months and steal.
  9. attilathehen [AKA "rosieposie"] says:

    “Things get darker still, for, if the G.O.P. becomes ever whiter, failing to peel away working-class voters of other races, then partisan conflict could look more and more like racial conflict.” Love the “things get darker…GOP…whiter,” encapsulates why the GOP is losing its mind. It couldn’ t fool Caucasians since they have the highest i.q.s (90+) into committing white genocide. It’s hysterically funny to see 2 elderly whites trying to lead a non-white, non-Christian political party. It’s the Dems that have to worry about their party. I’ve got to give alot of non-white Dems credit though. First of all, they are seeing through the Clinton hypocrisy. Second, if Dems claim to be the party of the poor, working class, their candidates and leaders can only be plumbers, receptionists, non-Christians, non-whites. No more rich Caucasian Christians in the Democratic party. Pass the popcorn.

  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Except for the part where he elides how not enforcing the border would make all of Bernie's policies less feasible, this is quite Sailerish.

    Frank's piece also raises an obvious question: how different is Sandersism from Trumpism once you strip away the policies Frank says Sanders had to tack on to compete as a Dem (Black Lives Matter and open borders)? I suspect a non-trivial percentage of Bernie bros will end up answering, "not much".

    how different is Sandersism from Trumpism once you strip away the policies Frank says Sanders had to tack on to compete as a Dem (Black Lives Matter and open borders)? I suspect a non-trivial percentage of Bernie bros will end up answering, “not much”.

    Pretty different. The “Bernie bros” are 6th- or 7th-year grad-student betas or guys who couldn’t either play sports or laze about smoking weed for most of the school day so they did student council instead. They record Morning Joe and subscribe to at least 1 D.C.-based magazine. Trump’s supporters seem to have contempt for higher education in general and do not understand the delegate selection process.

  11. My guess is Frank is not keeping up with his Chateau Heartiste reading.

    Diversity + proximity = war

    You can try to ameliorate it as the Democrats have for years, but that just makes it worse when the dam breaks. It’s breaking.

    • Replies: @celt darnell
    In fairness to Frank, it seems to me he's actually concerned about a race war, he's just not quite ready to state that explicitly.

    Heartiste is, shall we say, somewhat more blunt about these matters.
  12. Of course, to be a credible player at all, Bernie has had to signal fealty to Black Lives Matter and effectively vow to stop enforcing the border.

    I absolutely reject this premise. If Bernie had stood up to the race hustlers and open borders advocates then a great deal of wind might have been taken out of Trump’s sails. The GOP would have ceased to be a player at all in the election and the results of the general election would have been entirely a function of the Democrat primary election, as has been the case in many subnational jurisdictions for subnational political office. But instead he chose to be a cuck, and self-respecting whites have been totally turned off by him.

  13. Don’t understand why pundits like Frank think Trump’s appeal is mainly to the white working-class when it is clearly aimed at the working-class in general. Interestingly, yesterday Trump predicted (not for the first time) that he would win the African-American and Hispanic votes. That may be an exaggeration — Trump always exaggerates — but as usual it highlights an essential reality, in this case that he will win a significantly bigger share of the minority vote than the Democrats are expecting. That plus the millions of new voters, of all colors, he his drawing into the election process is why he stands a much better chance of beating Hillary than out-of-touch pundits like Frank seem to realize.

    I can hardly wait until the fall. This is going to be the most consequential election in my lifetime. As Sen. Session’s chief aid Stephen Miller (a political talent in his own right btw) is now saying on the campaign trail, it will be a once in a lifetime opportunity that will never come again for ordinary Americans to make themselves heard on the twin pocketbook issues of trade and immigration.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Well Trump is more specifically appealing to the white working-class than Sanders, who is making a more general appeal to the working class. Trump knows that the white working class is electorally larger, and can be more easily galvanized on issues of immigration and trade, since the white working class is at least a generation or two removed from immigration and knows fewer immigrants personally and has had declining economic prospects from increased trade. trump is also running as a Republican, which has more white voters.
  14. Priss Factor [AKA "Polly Perkins"] says:

    Why should privilege and elitism be a problem for a magazine called Vanity Fair?

  15. Priss Factor [AKA "Polly Perkins"] says:
    @unpc downunder
    "But when voters are mobilized by issues of identity, something most people can’t change, then nothing works. It’s just war."

    Well I guess mixed-race people (like Hispanics) could identify with the white side of their racial makeup and stop calling Trump Hitler. But that's not very likely in a culture where white males are constantly vilified and there are social, economic and political benefits to identifying as non-white.

    “Well I guess mixed-race people (like Hispanics) could identify with the white side of their racial makeup and stop calling Trump Hitler.”

    In Trump’s case, his anti-Mexer rhetoric was a bit extreme.

    Trump was fun in the beginning cuz there were lots of candidates and he got to bash everyone.
    It was esp fun to see him go after bush and rubber.
    Now, it’s just him and cruzisch. So, his showmanship will wear thin if he’s just talking to himself.

    He has to find the weak spots of hillary, globalism, illegal invasion, koch bros, and etc and stick the knife in in a fun way.

    • Replies: @Eric Novak
    Rapes by illegals cut loose by the Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Obama; and rapes along the US-Mexico border as reported relentlessly by ethnic political agitators such as La Raza and MALDEF, for use as a tool for open borders are extreme to no one, especially not the mass media, which has been reporting on it for decades. The uproar by the leftist media is that Trump's solution is diametrically opposed to their politics, which is to open the borders wide and to accept the collateral damage of rape. As with the invasion of Europe, grotesque feminist activists say nothing about facts that everyone knows about.
    , @Jefferson
    "Well I guess mixed-race people (like Hispanics) could identify with the white side of their racial makeup and stop calling Trump Hitler.”

    Even racially pure unmixed White Gringos are calling Donald Trump Adolf Hitler. So what makes you think racial mystery meat Hispanics will stop calling him Adolf Hitler.
  16. Priss Factor [AKA "Polly Perkins"] says:
    @biz

    how different is Sandersism from Trumpism once you strip away the policies Frank says Sanders had to tack on to compete as a Dem (Black Lives Matter and open borders)? I suspect a non-trivial percentage of Bernie bros will end up answering, “not much”.
     
    In my experience, and you can see a lot of videos and interviews to this effect, the Bernie Bros and Gals are most attracted to, excited about, and vocal about, the promise of "free college" and the spectre of student debt relief, even though funny enough Sanders has not explicitly proposed the latter. It is hard for me to see a lot of these people getting excited about Trump because he is not even talking about these freebies.

    free college.

    if it’s good enough for harvard, why not for all colleges?

    trump should say free college and free beer.

    • Replies: @biz
    Well 'free college' it is terrible public policy, unless it is combined with making college extremely selective and rigorous, which isn't what Bernie or anyone else is proposing and won't happen.
    , @antipater_1
    "trump should say free college and free beer"

    And free pussy! Never forget that!
  17. Priss Factor [AKA "Polly Perkins"] says:

    Globalism favors the fluid economy over the solid economy.

    Masters of the fluid economy who can play the entire world with data, words, and info have a huge advantage over workers of the solid economy whose jobs aren’t ‘Mercurian’.

    I wouldn’t say the working class is ‘Apollonian’. Them guys, the keepers of order, in the state and government and military are secure too.

    Working class is Vulcanian. American vulcanians are losing out cuz Mercurians prefer globalist Nibelungen for cheaper labor and almost no benefits.

    Working class with lower-skills are also under threat from Talos-ian rise of robots.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Mercury is vulnerable, starting with the wings.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(mythology)

  18. To their non-rich constituents, they offer the promise of social justice, which critics might call identity politics. That’s one reason why Democrats have devoted so much attention to issues such as transgender rights, sexual assault on campus, racial disparities in criminal justice, and immigration reform. The causes may be worthy—and they attract sincere advocates—but politically they’re also useful. They don’t bother rich people.

    Nicely put.

  19. I can’t help but think that the internecine battle within the Democratic party now between Clinton partisans and Sanders partisans, as well as the conflict in our politics in a broader sense is animated by a generational conflict between the two behemoth generational demographics – Baby Boomers and Millennials. Baby Boomers have cycled through their socially rebellious phase, a “me” decade, booming 90s, looted the housing market as lenders, borrowers, and policy-makers (while inflating the cost of housing), were the administrators and professors as college tuition and fees rose precipitously, and have accumulated savings and wealth and benefit from the economic status quo. They also happen in large degree to be the actual parents of the Millennials. The Millennials, by contrast, have no stake in the economic status quo, carry massive non-dishargeable debt and have poor career prospects. Home ownership, retirement savings, marriage and traditional family life seems like a remote possibility.

    I suppose the Obama coalition was able to capture Millennials and harness their inchoate energy against Republicans (the “Dad” party) at their political coming of age by parceling out provocations and wins on social issues, but now they’ve seemed to come around to demanding economic spoils. It seems that Hillary will stave off Millennials within the Democratic party in the primary, but I wonder whether she’ll be able to mobilize them as Obama did after defeating Sanders in this cycle. I also wonder without a drastically improved economy whether Baby Boomer Democrats will be able to defeat a future Sanders type candidacy in their primary assuming they don’t do something to exclude them.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @celt darnell
    You might also want to add that the Millennials contain a large non-white contingent, while the Boomers are are decidedly whiter.

    Interesting times lie ahead. I'm curious as to what extent an increasingly non-white youth feels in terms of obligations to their white elders.

  20. @Priss Factor
    free college.

    if it's good enough for harvard, why not for all colleges?

    trump should say free college and free beer.

    Well ‘free college’ it is terrible public policy, unless it is combined with making college extremely selective and rigorous, which isn’t what Bernie or anyone else is proposing and won’t happen.

  21. Isn’t Vanity Fair a Conde Nast magazine, full of ads for items that only the 1% can afford?

    Since Graydon Carter took it over Vanity Fair has written lots of anti-Elite articles for the Elite to read, and he’s gotten quite rich doing that. If Carter really cared for ordinary folks he would be doing something else (albeit for less pay).

    There’s a lesson there, but I’m not sure what it is. Be an uglier Warren Beatty?

  22. My neighbor is a Bernie Bro; I would estimate him to be in his later fifties.

    The problem with subsidized education is that you’re rewarding a bad system. Think about how much our public and private educational systems have eroded in the last half century. Do we really want to reward the system that wreaked this havoc, and make it even stronger? It’s not difficult to predict the long term outcome of more capital made available to the indoctrination system.

  23. @Chase
    My guess is Frank is not keeping up with his Chateau Heartiste reading.

    Diversity + proximity = war

    You can try to ameliorate it as the Democrats have for years, but that just makes it worse when the dam breaks. It's breaking.

    In fairness to Frank, it seems to me he’s actually concerned about a race war, he’s just not quite ready to state that explicitly.

    Heartiste is, shall we say, somewhat more blunt about these matters.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    We're already in a cold state race war - if one defines a war to include a struggle for resources, while more than occasionally punctuated by violence. He seems to be more concerned that whites will notice this, develop the vocabulary to speak about it openly, and organize themselves to push back against non-white aggression via the political process - as Sailer would put it, become "allowed to have a side."
  24. @Alec Leamas
    I can't help but think that the internecine battle within the Democratic party now between Clinton partisans and Sanders partisans, as well as the conflict in our politics in a broader sense is animated by a generational conflict between the two behemoth generational demographics - Baby Boomers and Millennials. Baby Boomers have cycled through their socially rebellious phase, a "me" decade, booming 90s, looted the housing market as lenders, borrowers, and policy-makers (while inflating the cost of housing), were the administrators and professors as college tuition and fees rose precipitously, and have accumulated savings and wealth and benefit from the economic status quo. They also happen in large degree to be the actual parents of the Millennials. The Millennials, by contrast, have no stake in the economic status quo, carry massive non-dishargeable debt and have poor career prospects. Home ownership, retirement savings, marriage and traditional family life seems like a remote possibility.

    I suppose the Obama coalition was able to capture Millennials and harness their inchoate energy against Republicans (the "Dad" party) at their political coming of age by parceling out provocations and wins on social issues, but now they've seemed to come around to demanding economic spoils. It seems that Hillary will stave off Millennials within the Democratic party in the primary, but I wonder whether she'll be able to mobilize them as Obama did after defeating Sanders in this cycle. I also wonder without a drastically improved economy whether Baby Boomer Democrats will be able to defeat a future Sanders type candidacy in their primary assuming they don't do something to exclude them.

    You might also want to add that the Millennials contain a large non-white contingent, while the Boomers are are decidedly whiter.

    Interesting times lie ahead. I’m curious as to what extent an increasingly non-white youth feels in terms of obligations to their white elders.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    Good point and one I've been ruminating on lately. My mother is a Hillary person who is insistent that she get every red penny of Social Security and "Red White and Blue" due to her when she comes of age. We've had heated arguments where I've essentially explained to her that politicians (many of whom she voted for) have already spent the money, that both are economically unsustainable, etc. Also that it's not fair or equitable that I, together with my siblings and her grandchildren should continue to pay into a system which will not meet its promises to us in order to meet promises of benefits to her. She's just not having any of it. She does, however, hate Millennials and Bernie and their demands for free stuff (she is a Boomer on the young end herself).

    Maybe another way to approach the issue is to ask whether she really thinks Millennials and especially those brainwashed to believe they've been oppressed by old white people are going to vote for politicians who will continue to make payments from the treasury to old white people who own homes and retirement accounts and whatnot.
  25. @celt darnell
    You might also want to add that the Millennials contain a large non-white contingent, while the Boomers are are decidedly whiter.

    Interesting times lie ahead. I'm curious as to what extent an increasingly non-white youth feels in terms of obligations to their white elders.

    Good point and one I’ve been ruminating on lately. My mother is a Hillary person who is insistent that she get every red penny of Social Security and “Red White and Blue” due to her when she comes of age. We’ve had heated arguments where I’ve essentially explained to her that politicians (many of whom she voted for) have already spent the money, that both are economically unsustainable, etc. Also that it’s not fair or equitable that I, together with my siblings and her grandchildren should continue to pay into a system which will not meet its promises to us in order to meet promises of benefits to her. She’s just not having any of it. She does, however, hate Millennials and Bernie and their demands for free stuff (she is a Boomer on the young end herself).

    Maybe another way to approach the issue is to ask whether she really thinks Millennials and especially those brainwashed to believe they’ve been oppressed by old white people are going to vote for politicians who will continue to make payments from the treasury to old white people who own homes and retirement accounts and whatnot.

    • Replies: @jack o'fire
    Then you'll be happy caring for her in her old age. Mom's moving in soon. Unless of course you're still living at her home that is...
    , @Reg Cæsar
    How old was your mom in 1964, when the Draconian fate awaiting any politician who dared question any aspect of the Social Security setup was vividly displayed before the then-adolescent pig in the national python? How can you blame your mother yet let your grandmother off the hook?

    It's telling that the only state in which any "boomers" could vote at all (and only the oldest, at that) was carried by Barry Goldwater.
    , @Brutusale
    You need to do what I did with my left-leaning, open-borders mom: ask her where her SS COLA went last year.

    She has finally admitted that the things I've been saying for the last 15 years doesn't sound nearly as silly as she originally thought.
  26. @celt darnell
    In fairness to Frank, it seems to me he's actually concerned about a race war, he's just not quite ready to state that explicitly.

    Heartiste is, shall we say, somewhat more blunt about these matters.

    We’re already in a cold state race war – if one defines a war to include a struggle for resources, while more than occasionally punctuated by violence. He seems to be more concerned that whites will notice this, develop the vocabulary to speak about it openly, and organize themselves to push back against non-white aggression via the political process – as Sailer would put it, become “allowed to have a side.”

  27. @Priss Factor
    "Well I guess mixed-race people (like Hispanics) could identify with the white side of their racial makeup and stop calling Trump Hitler."

    In Trump's case, his anti-Mexer rhetoric was a bit extreme.

    Trump was fun in the beginning cuz there were lots of candidates and he got to bash everyone.
    It was esp fun to see him go after bush and rubber.
    Now, it's just him and cruzisch. So, his showmanship will wear thin if he's just talking to himself.

    He has to find the weak spots of hillary, globalism, illegal invasion, koch bros, and etc and stick the knife in in a fun way.

    Rapes by illegals cut loose by the Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Obama; and rapes along the US-Mexico border as reported relentlessly by ethnic political agitators such as La Raza and MALDEF, for use as a tool for open borders are extreme to no one, especially not the mass media, which has been reporting on it for decades. The uproar by the leftist media is that Trump’s solution is diametrically opposed to their politics, which is to open the borders wide and to accept the collateral damage of rape. As with the invasion of Europe, grotesque feminist activists say nothing about facts that everyone knows about.

  28. @Alec Leamas
    Good point and one I've been ruminating on lately. My mother is a Hillary person who is insistent that she get every red penny of Social Security and "Red White and Blue" due to her when she comes of age. We've had heated arguments where I've essentially explained to her that politicians (many of whom she voted for) have already spent the money, that both are economically unsustainable, etc. Also that it's not fair or equitable that I, together with my siblings and her grandchildren should continue to pay into a system which will not meet its promises to us in order to meet promises of benefits to her. She's just not having any of it. She does, however, hate Millennials and Bernie and their demands for free stuff (she is a Boomer on the young end herself).

    Maybe another way to approach the issue is to ask whether she really thinks Millennials and especially those brainwashed to believe they've been oppressed by old white people are going to vote for politicians who will continue to make payments from the treasury to old white people who own homes and retirement accounts and whatnot.

    Then you’ll be happy caring for her in her old age. Mom’s moving in soon. Unless of course you’re still living at her home that is…

  29. @27 year old
    When the upper classes actually go to war to crush the lower classes you refer to it as "normal and good".

    Then when the lower classes try to claw something back suddenly its "class warfare" and it's a bad thing.

    “When the upper classes actually go to war to crush the lower classes you refer to it as “normal and good”.

    “Then when the lower classes try to claw something back suddenly its “class warfare” and it’s a bad thing.”

    This is a wonderful comment. Conservatives are morons.

  30. Things get darker still, for, if the G.O.P. becomes ever whiter . . .It’s just war.

    The inevitable result of multiculturalism and multi-racialism regardless of policy, unless a dictatorship is laid on to prevent it. What’s neat is how he lays the blame on the victims of racist colonialism instead of the colonialism itself.

    Oh well, demographics is destiny, a third-world population means a third world country, and the thing will only really sort itself out once the third-worlders start voting in real numbers and produce the same sort of stupid, corrupt, and incompetent societies they fled back home. We won’t see the real nature of the beast until the money is gone.

  31. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Luke Lea
    Don't understand why pundits like Frank think Trump's appeal is mainly to the white working-class when it is clearly aimed at the working-class in general. Interestingly, yesterday Trump predicted (not for the first time) that he would win the African-American and Hispanic votes. That may be an exaggeration -- Trump always exaggerates -- but as usual it highlights an essential reality, in this case that he will win a significantly bigger share of the minority vote than the Democrats are expecting. That plus the millions of new voters, of all colors, he his drawing into the election process is why he stands a much better chance of beating Hillary than out-of-touch pundits like Frank seem to realize.

    I can hardly wait until the fall. This is going to be the most consequential election in my lifetime. As Sen. Session's chief aid Stephen Miller (a political talent in his own right btw) is now saying on the campaign trail, it will be a once in a lifetime opportunity that will never come again for ordinary Americans to make themselves heard on the twin pocketbook issues of trade and immigration.

    Well Trump is more specifically appealing to the white working-class than Sanders, who is making a more general appeal to the working class. Trump knows that the white working class is electorally larger, and can be more easily galvanized on issues of immigration and trade, since the white working class is at least a generation or two removed from immigration and knows fewer immigrants personally and has had declining economic prospects from increased trade. trump is also running as a Republican, which has more white voters.

  32. @Priss Factor
    "Well I guess mixed-race people (like Hispanics) could identify with the white side of their racial makeup and stop calling Trump Hitler."

    In Trump's case, his anti-Mexer rhetoric was a bit extreme.

    Trump was fun in the beginning cuz there were lots of candidates and he got to bash everyone.
    It was esp fun to see him go after bush and rubber.
    Now, it's just him and cruzisch. So, his showmanship will wear thin if he's just talking to himself.

    He has to find the weak spots of hillary, globalism, illegal invasion, koch bros, and etc and stick the knife in in a fun way.

    “Well I guess mixed-race people (like Hispanics) could identify with the white side of their racial makeup and stop calling Trump Hitler.”

    Even racially pure unmixed White Gringos are calling Donald Trump Adolf Hitler. So what makes you think racial mystery meat Hispanics will stop calling him Adolf Hitler.

  33. @unpc downunder
    "But when voters are mobilized by issues of identity, something most people can’t change, then nothing works. It’s just war."

    Well I guess mixed-race people (like Hispanics) could identify with the white side of their racial makeup and stop calling Trump Hitler. But that's not very likely in a culture where white males are constantly vilified and there are social, economic and political benefits to identifying as non-white.

    “Well I guess mixed-race people (like Hispanics) could identify with the white side of their racial makeup and stop calling Trump Hitler. But that’s not very likely in a culture where white males are constantly vilified and there are social, economic and political benefits to identifying as non-white.”

    It’s not about social, economic, and political benefits. Historically this country has always discouraged Mixed Race people with White ancestry to not self identify as White. It goes way back to The Founding Fathers of this country who adopted a one drop rule in regards to Amerindian, Asian, and African ancestry. If you had even just 0.1 percent of these groups in your blood, you could never be White.

    And since the vast majority of Hispanics in The U.S have way more than 0.1 percent Nonwhite blood, they easily qualify as Nonwhites.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    It goes way back to The Founding Fathers of this country who adopted a one drop rule in regards to Amerindian, Asian, and African ancestry. If you had even just 0.1 percent of these groups in your blood, you could never be White.
     
    Indians? Are you sure? I find that extremely dubious. And Chang and Eng's descendants turned white before too long.
  34. What does he mean, “becoming?” The Republicans are also the party of the Fat Cats. But Democrats have been the Inner Party for longer than I’ve been alive, and Fat Cats aren’t stupid enough to go where the power isn’t.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Exactly.

    The Democrats are the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy and Hollywood and academia and the arts... They have been the party of elites for a long time.

    I think it is a more true thing to say that the Republicans had been turning into the party of the 1% since the 80s but faltered on the rocks of the white workers.

    This election is just clarifying some muddling that has gone on recently. It's been the top and bottom against the middle for a long time.
  35. Most Nonwhites in this country do not see The Democratic Party as the party of the 1 percent, they see it as the party that is looking out for the well being of people who live in poverty. Most Nonwhites do not associate The Democratic Party with Wall Street and the big banks, hence why Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders type populism does not appeal to most Nonwhites. They see Hildabeast as the true defender champion of the poor. Most Nonwhites do not believe Wall Street and the big banks can easily buy the services of Hildabeast. They think she is an honest politcian who can not be bought. She is not capable of corruption in their eyes. They see her as a special snowflake with a heart of gold.

  36. The Democrats are playing with fire. The glue that keeps the minorities from burning down the cities and eating these professional urban whites for lunch is a endless stream of costly social services and EBT cards.

    It’s not really hating whitey, oh that plays a role. But money buys compliance and votes.

    Of course the 1% never thinks the music will stop. Nor do they consider they are the architects of demise with the self-destructive policies they support.

    They don’t stop and think there are tipping points to immigration, how long before the Mexican cartels fully spread their wings here as the Hispanic population mushrooms. How long before the Muzzies get the sort of political clout they do in Europe and dictate social policy. How much more can our hollowed out economy(thanks to the 1%) support before collapsing.

    Then there are the black swans. We may be close to another one that the cool kids from the Ivies can’t paper over again. When that happens it will get interesting.

  37. @countenance
    Half of this Frank article was ripped off from Sailer.

    They do that a lot. David Brooks got soft and cited Steve about natalism and everyone piled on him. So now they just wait three months and steal.

  38. @Priss Factor
    free college.

    if it's good enough for harvard, why not for all colleges?

    trump should say free college and free beer.

    “trump should say free college and free beer”

    And free pussy! Never forget that!

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    What! You mean I don't have to pay for it!?
  39. @Priss Factor
    Globalism favors the fluid economy over the solid economy.

    Masters of the fluid economy who can play the entire world with data, words, and info have a huge advantage over workers of the solid economy whose jobs aren't 'Mercurian'.

    I wouldn't say the working class is 'Apollonian'. Them guys, the keepers of order, in the state and government and military are secure too.

    Working class is Vulcanian. American vulcanians are losing out cuz Mercurians prefer globalist Nibelungen for cheaper labor and almost no benefits.

    Working class with lower-skills are also under threat from Talos-ian rise of robots.

    Mercury is vulnerable, starting with the wings.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(mythology)

  40. @Alec Leamas
    Good point and one I've been ruminating on lately. My mother is a Hillary person who is insistent that she get every red penny of Social Security and "Red White and Blue" due to her when she comes of age. We've had heated arguments where I've essentially explained to her that politicians (many of whom she voted for) have already spent the money, that both are economically unsustainable, etc. Also that it's not fair or equitable that I, together with my siblings and her grandchildren should continue to pay into a system which will not meet its promises to us in order to meet promises of benefits to her. She's just not having any of it. She does, however, hate Millennials and Bernie and their demands for free stuff (she is a Boomer on the young end herself).

    Maybe another way to approach the issue is to ask whether she really thinks Millennials and especially those brainwashed to believe they've been oppressed by old white people are going to vote for politicians who will continue to make payments from the treasury to old white people who own homes and retirement accounts and whatnot.

    How old was your mom in 1964, when the Draconian fate awaiting any politician who dared question any aspect of the Social Security setup was vividly displayed before the then-adolescent pig in the national python? How can you blame your mother yet let your grandmother off the hook?

    It’s telling that the only state in which any “boomers” could vote at all (and only the oldest, at that) was carried by Barry Goldwater.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    To answer your first question, she was five years old in 1964, so my guess is that she wasn't fundamentally aware of the program or politics at that time regardless of the state of her residence.

    I think the point I made to her is that the political choice isn't between full Social Security benefits and lessened Social Security benefits, but rather between lessened Social Security benefits and no benefits at all from a failed system. It is estimated that within the decade debt service will be the Federal government's third largest program by the dollar, and note that Social Security expenditures are still appropriations within the discretion of Congress. Obvious solutions to future Congresses to the increasing share of debt service and demands by younger (and more numerous, "diverse") voters for new programs (transfer payments to them instead of old rich white people) is simply to dishonor the payment obligations of Social Security, while continuing to collect the payroll taxes (which are "taxes" and therefore paid into the treasury).

    That is of course a different question from whether Social Security and Medicare is a good program for new payees. It is demonstrably not when one accounts for the opportunity costs of their forgone contributions against future payments received.
  41. @Reg Cæsar
    How old was your mom in 1964, when the Draconian fate awaiting any politician who dared question any aspect of the Social Security setup was vividly displayed before the then-adolescent pig in the national python? How can you blame your mother yet let your grandmother off the hook?

    It's telling that the only state in which any "boomers" could vote at all (and only the oldest, at that) was carried by Barry Goldwater.

    To answer your first question, she was five years old in 1964, so my guess is that she wasn’t fundamentally aware of the program or politics at that time regardless of the state of her residence.

    I think the point I made to her is that the political choice isn’t between full Social Security benefits and lessened Social Security benefits, but rather between lessened Social Security benefits and no benefits at all from a failed system. It is estimated that within the decade debt service will be the Federal government’s third largest program by the dollar, and note that Social Security expenditures are still appropriations within the discretion of Congress. Obvious solutions to future Congresses to the increasing share of debt service and demands by younger (and more numerous, “diverse”) voters for new programs (transfer payments to them instead of old rich white people) is simply to dishonor the payment obligations of Social Security, while continuing to collect the payroll taxes (which are “taxes” and therefore paid into the treasury).

    That is of course a different question from whether Social Security and Medicare is a good program for new payees. It is demonstrably not when one accounts for the opportunity costs of their forgone contributions against future payments received.

  42. @guest
    What does he mean, "becoming?" The Republicans are also the party of the Fat Cats. But Democrats have been the Inner Party for longer than I've been alive, and Fat Cats aren't stupid enough to go where the power isn't.

    Exactly.

    The Democrats are the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy and Hollywood and academia and the arts… They have been the party of elites for a long time.

    I think it is a more true thing to say that the Republicans had been turning into the party of the 1% since the 80s but faltered on the rocks of the white workers.

    This election is just clarifying some muddling that has gone on recently. It’s been the top and bottom against the middle for a long time.

  43. The more interesting questions are what should Trump do if he wins and what will happen if he doesn’t.

    If he’s smart, he’ll use his bully pulpit to change the electoral system.

    If he doesn’t win, will the 1% try to pocket the GOP again or abandon it?

  44. @antipater_1
    "trump should say free college and free beer"

    And free pussy! Never forget that!

    What! You mean I don’t have to pay for it!?

  45. @Jefferson
    "Well I guess mixed-race people (like Hispanics) could identify with the white side of their racial makeup and stop calling Trump Hitler. But that’s not very likely in a culture where white males are constantly vilified and there are social, economic and political benefits to identifying as non-white."

    It's not about social, economic, and political benefits. Historically this country has always discouraged Mixed Race people with White ancestry to not self identify as White. It goes way back to The Founding Fathers of this country who adopted a one drop rule in regards to Amerindian, Asian, and African ancestry. If you had even just 0.1 percent of these groups in your blood, you could never be White.

    And since the vast majority of Hispanics in The U.S have way more than 0.1 percent Nonwhite blood, they easily qualify as Nonwhites.

    It goes way back to The Founding Fathers of this country who adopted a one drop rule in regards to Amerindian, Asian, and African ancestry. If you had even just 0.1 percent of these groups in your blood, you could never be White.

    Indians? Are you sure? I find that extremely dubious. And Chang and Eng’s descendants turned white before too long.

  46. @Alec Leamas
    Good point and one I've been ruminating on lately. My mother is a Hillary person who is insistent that she get every red penny of Social Security and "Red White and Blue" due to her when she comes of age. We've had heated arguments where I've essentially explained to her that politicians (many of whom she voted for) have already spent the money, that both are economically unsustainable, etc. Also that it's not fair or equitable that I, together with my siblings and her grandchildren should continue to pay into a system which will not meet its promises to us in order to meet promises of benefits to her. She's just not having any of it. She does, however, hate Millennials and Bernie and their demands for free stuff (she is a Boomer on the young end herself).

    Maybe another way to approach the issue is to ask whether she really thinks Millennials and especially those brainwashed to believe they've been oppressed by old white people are going to vote for politicians who will continue to make payments from the treasury to old white people who own homes and retirement accounts and whatnot.

    You need to do what I did with my left-leaning, open-borders mom: ask her where her SS COLA went last year.

    She has finally admitted that the things I’ve been saying for the last 15 years doesn’t sound nearly as silly as she originally thought.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings