***Official Political Discussion Thread***

BTW brahs, the piece about Tucker Carlson's monologue that was posted here is a very good read. Here is a piece that adds a bit to this conversation...
The alliance between “family values” conservatives and free-market capitalists has always been a marriage of convenience.
To understand why social conservatives are turning on their fiscally libertarian co-partisans, one must remember why they partnered in the first place. The businessmen whose fortunes built the (literal and figurative) foundations of the conservative movement saw the New Deal state as its primary enemy. But the traditionalist whites (i.e. the overlapping constituencies of Evangelical Christians, culturally conservative white ethnics, and southern segregationists) whose votes put that movement into power never did. When the welfare state appeared compatible with the patriarchal family, traditional social values, and white racial privilege, they happily supported it. Only when the Great Society began undermining those institutions did such voters sour on “big government.”


As the political scientist Melinda Cooper argues in Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism, the New Deal bargain was compatible with social traditionalism in many respects. Male workers secured social insurance largely through private employment — and thus, women secured such insurance largely through their husbands. Meanwhile, by inflating blue-collar wages, strong unions made the conservative family model — a sole male breadwinner and stay-at-home wife — attainable for a much larger share of American households. And the racially exclusive eligibility requirements of many New Deal programs ensured that the median white family enjoyed access to more comprehensive public subsidies and private benefits than the median black one.

But by the 1960s, it became apparent that “big government” could also foster anti-normative behavior and challenges to the social order. As tuition-free colleges proliferated, young adults became less financially dependent on their parents, and thus, more willing to question inherited values. As welfare programs grew more generous, women became less financially dependent on the fathers of their children, and thus, more capable of choosing single motherhood over an unsatisfying or abusive relationship. And as African-Americans migrated North, the welfare state became more racially inclusive.

These developments (among others) made social conservatives amenable to arguments that framed the Great Society as an enemy of the traditional American family, (and in some regions, the traditional American racial order). And right-wing economists were happy to provide some. In fact, libertarian thinkers like Milton Friedman earnestly shared Evangelical Christians’ concerns about the decline of the traditional family — because they saw the family unit as an indispensable substitute for the welfare state that they wished to destroy. As Cooper explains:

Writing at the end of the 1970s, the Chicago school neoliberal Gary Becker remarked that the “family in the Western world has been radically altered — some claim almost destroyed — by events of the last three decades.” … Becker believed that such dramatic changes in the structure of the family had more to do with the expansion of the welfare state in the post-war era than with feminism per se — which could be considered a consequence rather than an instigator of these dynamics … Becker’s abiding concern with the destructive effects of public spending on the family represents a key element of his microeconomics — but one that is consistently overlooked by the critical literature. Indeed, at different times and in different contexts, each of the key figures of American neoliberalism can be found invoking the idea that the “natural obligations” of family should serve as a substitute for the welfare state, that the “altruism” of the family represents a kind of primitive mutual insurance contract and serves as a necessary counterweight to market freedoms.

Thus, the bedrock logic of the alliance between social conservatives and reactionary capitalists was this: One valued “small government” because it (supposedly) enabled the patriarchal family (and/or racial hierarchy), while the other valued the family because it enabled “small government.”

Social Democracy, not better investments, created economic security and wealth for white families. They were for it when black people could be systematically denied access to these programs. When LBJ wanted to stop this and go a step further and use target programs to help the black community, white social conservatives turned on the same type of public policy that helped their communities attain economic prosperity.
 
Last edited:
It must be all those rap songs glorifying CDs and T-bills.
wutangfinancial.gif


Since you're so interested in direct, significant contributions to racial disparities in wealth:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/28/how-white-racism-destroys-black-wealth/
https://www.thenation.com/article/t...-to-build-the-wealth-of-a-white-family-today/
Personally it was C-Note who really changed my financial life.

FearfulGargantuanLangur-max-1mb.gif
 
waitaminute. is it opiates, terrorists, gang members, illegal immigrants, or human trafficking?!
you see trump has been telling everyone he is building a fence to block out the illegal aliens. It's much deeper than that though. The thing is there is a secret acronym Trump uses to categorize his no. 1 target to block out.
T. Terrorists who
H. Human traffic
I. Illegals
A. And
G. Gang Members with
O. Opiates

T.H.I.A.G.O also happens to be a spanish name . It just so happens that Mexico is allegedly a spanish speaking country, It's a coincidence. Trump isn't racist, he watched a Border History documentary by the name of Sicario: Days of Soldado.

So let's just be civil and agree to disagree right off the bat.
 
Back
Top Bottom