I know I've posted on this before, but I want to revisit this notion that the DFL can keep their coalition together when so many of the groups have agendas that are diametrically opposed.
For example, the Keystone pipeline and the large mine project up in the Iron range are great examples. For years the DFL has had the unquestioned support of labor unions (I'm not talking about public sector unions). Of late the DFL has been increasingly in the thrall of the environmental groups and those groups have gotten much more power. In both of these cases the environmental groups have stopped the projects, which have damaged thousands of union workers. As we move forward, what is the likelihood that the labor unions (more specifically the members of labor unions) will continue to support a political party that is costing them high paying jobs and stopping economic growth in areas that need it? Or, how long can the DFL continue to pretend to be the party of labor, while regularly doing things that harm labor? By the same token, can the DFL keep the environmental groups in the fold if they decide to give the labor unions what they want?
This is probably the most obvious example, and the situation in Canada reinforces it. If Blackface is seriously going to invoke martial law to break up an incredibly peaceful protest by labor, do American labor union members think Biden is going to have their best interests at heart.
While this example is top mind because of current events, I'll probably look at some others down the road as well.
10 comments:
It IS true that when you try to represent a wide range of people with a wide range of interests and priorities, it becomes trickier to keep everyone on board.
You can see this in the GOP, as well. You have flat-earthers who might conflict with the KKK types who might conflict with the far right evangelicals who might conflict with the libertarians who might conflict with Qanon and on it goes.
Hell, look at all the leading GOP conservative traditionalists who are no longer welcome in Trump's GOP - the Cheneys, the Reagans, George Will, Colin Powell, Mitt Romney... maybe even Mitch McConnell and Mike Pence!
Ideally, people can find common ground on notions of "Let's work for the common good and if that means that coal jobs go away in favor of solar and wind jobs, well, that's ultimately good for all of us and we recognize that's a burden on coal miners to switch careers, but coal miners want a clean earth and intact mountains, too..." The common good, health, a clean environment, peace, justice for the traditionally oppressed... these need to be the goals instead of "save my specific job."
Interesting take. I'm not sure what the point is (beyond bland generalities and shots at the GOP), but interesting.
For example, do enough jobs in "solar and wind" exist for every coal miner to get one? How are all of those coal miners going to be retrained to be qualified for these alleged jobs? How does pointing out the undeniable reality that the DFL expects two constituencies who are diametrically opposed to pull together for some illusory "common good"?
Because, obviously, removing the livelihood of an entire region and telling the people who live there that losing everything they've worked for their entire lives is just a sacrifice for the "common good", is an excellent plan.
Do you realize what happens when a region where the entire economy is built on mining, loses the basis for their economy?
Unemployment.
Real Estate values drop.
Local businesses go out of business.
Just to start with. But, by all means, tell the folks on the iron range that they'll have to sell their homes at a loss, move their families out of state, and learn an entirely new job (with a resultant loss on income), just so a bunch of urban liberals and environmentalists can get what they want. Or, they can vote for candidates that value what they do, and will fight FOR them.
Tough choice.
Please, let's see the "flat earthers" and "KKK types" that have significant roles in the GOP?
The difference is that none of those groups (except the "KKK types) are diametrically opposed to the others. None of those groups are intent on depriving the others of their livelihood. All of those (except the alleged "KKK Types") can coexist in a political big tent, without conflict.
But please continue to downplay the potential fractures in the DFL coalition.
I would submit two disparate voters types:
1. The right-leaning voter, which may only be a single issue voter where the lives of children, including about to be born children, are at risk. Few would support a GOP candidate who is "pro-choice-to-murder-one's-unborn-child". Aside from that, most will balance out the positives and negatives of the larger party platform and still find a place within the party. This may include "flat-earthers" or Klansmen who find the more to like about the GOP than the America-destroying Democrat party, even if the GOP rejects the notion of a flat earth or white supremacy.
2. The left-leaning voter. This animal has little interest in that which truly makes America a better place than any other country, believing satisfying their feelings actually makes America better...as if satisfying a desire to have the "right" to murder one's own unborn, to pretend one is a woman when the biological fact is such a person is a man, that even "religions" such as Satanism must be respected as legitimate faiths like the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this nation was founded, etc., etc., etc. But while each lefty lunatic believes their unsupported positions are valid, they are willing to throw in with whatever the Democratic Party wants to do, because the Dem Party patronizes anyone they think will cast a vote for them, and lefty voters are stupid enough to think the Dems actually care about them.
So when there are conflicts, as in the example of Craig's post, labor unions will still vote Dem, even if the people they represent do not, and environmental wackjobs will, too.
Art,
That's why I differentiated between labor unions, and union members. The labor unions will support the DFL as long as the DFL gives lip service to supporting unions. The union members, who are the ones affected by these policies, are the ones I'm interested in. As has been said before, "All politics is local.". If you live in the iron range and see the denial of mining permits by Biden as devastating to your job, family, city, and region, how could you possibly vote for a candidate that is promising that kind of economic devastation?
First, I suspect that the minuscule numbers of "flat earthers and KKK types" are not limited to either political party. I further suspect, that their tiny numbers and outlier positions render them insignificant in terms of influence on the direction of either party. Given that, I see no point in focusing on those groups as if they are critical components of either party.
In my example, however, we see to major and actively pursued constituency of the DFL with agendas that are diametrically opposed. Yet somehow the DFL seems to think that labor unions will continue to toe the line, even as they are put out of work.
I think the pro life voters are interesting. Given the active hostility of the DFL to the pro life position, the chances of a pro life voter voting DFL are minuscule. The GOP concern is to keep them from sitting out. The DFL problem is that eventually the pro life voters who've traditionally voted DFL for other reasons will be pushed out of the party. I think the number of pro life dems was between 10-20 million, and if the DFL loses those votes along with the labor unions, then they'll be facing difficulty.
Marshal... "The left-leaning voter. This animal has little interest in that which truly makes America a better place than any other country, believing satisfying their feelings actually makes America better."
Craig... "If you live in the iron range and see the denial of mining permits by Biden as devastating to your job, family, city, and region, how could you possibly vote for a candidate that is promising that kind of economic devastation?"
? You all do recognize how irrational that sounds, don't you? I mean sure, there are SOME one issue voters (as in the case of anti-abortion types). But I don't know any progressive types who are "one issue voters," nor do I know any who don't want our nation to live up to our ideals. I'm sure they exist out there, but I've never met one.
You recognize that we social workers, mental health workers, environmentalists, teachers, Sunday School teachers, activists, justice workers, etc, etc, do what we do precisely because we want our nation to be better. We want our nation to be safe for children, for LGBTQ folk. We want poor folk to have access to quality jobs. We want a clean environment for all of us, especially the poor and marginalized who are so often harmed by negative environmental impacts. AND we recognize how so many of these issues are cross-connected. Hell, we invented intersectionality, where we recognize that the concerns of poor people of color living in urban centers or rural areas intersect with the concerns of coal miners intersect with the concerns of environmentalists, intersect with freedom of religion concerns, intersect with the concerns of LGBTQ folk. We have so much more in common than not.
And yes, I'm sure (I've met them) there are people who only care about their job and if a policy negatively impacts their jobs, but I've also talked with, listened to coal miners who live in Appalachia who desperately want a clean environment for their homes, which is right where the mines are. I've seen the water running brown and orange from the taps of their sinks, due to mountaintop removal for instance. Yes, they want jobs, but they also want clean water and they don't want to have to choose between the two.
When you all act as if progressives aren't concerned about the needs of all of us and living in a great nation and world, well, you are acting from a place of ignorance. There is no data to suggest that this is accurate.
Just fyi.
Craig... "Given the active hostility of the DFL to the pro life position, the chances of a pro life voter voting DFL are minuscule"
It happens rarely, perhaps, but it happens. I was a pro-life (in the extreme) GOP who eventually had to quit voting for the GOP because of the failures of their policies in other areas and I started voting Democrat, even while I was still strongly pro-life. I was a part of a Democratic movement that called ourselves "Consistently Pro-Life" who often found ourselves without a home but for many of us, we had to start voting Democrat because the GOP positions were so vastly inconsistent with our pro-life values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic
Craig... "The DFL problem is that eventually the pro life voters who've traditionally voted DFL for other reasons will be pushed out of the party."
With 58-66% of the nation supporting Roe v Wade/abortion protections while only ~25-36% support overturning RvW, I don't know that it can be seen that being anti-abortion is a winning position for the GOP. It's contrary to the values of the majority of the nation.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/350804/americans-opposed-overturning-roe-wade.aspx
"You all do recognize how irrational that sounds, don't you?"
Yes, I do realize how irrational it sounds to change one's voting pattern to vote against the party that is actively causing economic damage to one's home. Of course, I don;t care how thing sound to you as you are not the arbiter of rationality.
"I mean sure, there are SOME one issue voters (as in the case of anti-abortion types)."
Yes, I'm sure there are. Especially one's who's very way of life is threatened by a particular party ans it's policies. Or those who support abortion on demand under any and all circumstances.
"But I don't know any progressive types who are "one issue voters," nor do I know any who don't want our nation to live up to our ideals. I'm sure they exist out there, but I've never met one."
Since your relatively small, insular, group of acquaintances doesn't represent the nation as a whole, and since no one gives any credence to any pronouncements based on "people you know", I simply don't care. This comment is simply you parading your biases and prejudices as if they represent some broad consensus. It's simply one more time you've chosen a logical fallacy as your response.
"When you all act as if progressives aren't concerned about the needs of all of us and living in a great nation and world, well, you are acting from a place of ignorance."
We're not acting. We're stating fact. Here, you once again presume that because you say something it is then truth. The real ignorance is in you believing progressives actually do good. I don't mean giving a man a fish, but teaching him how and with who's money. Enabling immorality and bad behavior doesn't make for a better world.
And I don't think the point is "one issue" voting. I spoke to abortion because people of honor and character can't vote for someone who enables murdering children. Indeed, I set that aside. The point concerns conflicts such as Dem voters who are also unwilling to support baby murder and are cast out by the Dem party for daring to affirm abortion "rights" is not about "women's rights" but the right to life of human beings, particularly the most innocent and vulnerable. There are those on the right who support abortion, but they are not cast out in the same way if at all.
I'm pretty sure this was Craig's point.
I always appreciate it when Dan uses a source that doesn't address the claim he's trying to disprove.
The reality is that the DFL is hostile to those who express pro-life views. Eventually, this could/should lead to those who are pro-life to stop voting for a party that doesn't even give lip service to supporting their position.
That would depend upon just how dedicated they are to protecting the unborn. Lefties say all sorts of things which don't align with their actions...or reality. So a lefty may indeed believe that life begins at conception, but that won't necessarily mean they're so convicted in the proposition that they'll reject Dem candidates who support murdering the unborn. I have to believe there are some, but if Dan's poll data is correct, then it's clear it's a very small percentage of them. More's the pity.
Post a Comment