There was one passage in Peggy Noonan’s Wall Street Journal column on the Democratic presidential candidates’ debate that I found thought-provoking:
There was also in the debate a kind of detachment from real life. A voter asked: “How will you prioritize accessing quality affordable child care?†The candidates were indignant that women can be held from the workforce by the high cost of child care. Pete Buttigieg vowed to get “federal dollars†involved, and spoke of stunted careers. Ms. Warren said, “My plan is universal child care for everyone.†She told of how she was almost forced “off track†by child care problems. Mr. Sanders said, “Every psychologist in the world knows 0 through 4 are the most important years of human life, intellectually and emotionally.â€
No one spoke with compassion for parents, for mothers who forgo the earnings and status (“I have a jobâ€) and relationships (“I’m not lonely all dayâ€) of having a job to stay home with kids under 4. No one said that actually a lot of parents think the most important thing is to stay home and raise the kids, that many struggle to do it, and we might want to help them. No one noted we don’t give any particular honor to those who stay home, even though our culture depends on them.
What seemed to guide all the answers was a technocratic assumption that it’s best for little children to be raised by well-compensated strangers as mom is absorbed into the workforce, where she’ll finally achieve full self-actualization.
It was all so . . . cold. And detached from real life as many live it.
The reality is that very few Americans have careers. 90% or more have jobs, will never have a career, and do not aspire to careers. Nonetheless there is a focus, as President Clinton might say, like a laser on the top 5% of income earners who do have careers.
We aren’t creating more jobs for professionals at the rate we need to and a lot of the jobs we are creating are being filled by outsourcing companies. We are also requiring educations that used to be required for a career for ordinary jobs and those jobs aren’t paying enough to justify the educational loans that people are taking out. There’s a tragic mismatch.
What today’s politicians are focused on, like that laser, is themselves, their needs, and their aspirations. That must change.
The democrat party has become one of “selfies†and self-indulgence. It’s focus is on power at any cost, and acolytes, who make up it’s core constituencies, are more interested in what their country will do for them, rather than the JFK famous line of, “what will you do for your country.â€
In contrast, when one does a cursory examination of the Trump constituencies you find “families, faith-based people, the working class.†His rallies are orderly, with the exception of protestors or Antifa violence. There’s such a difference of characteristics amplified in blue vs red enclaves across the country – the former encapsulating the greatest percentages of what comprises societal decay —-> homelessness, crime, political corruption, people leaving, while more conservative “red†areas are where blue-state refugees are fleeing to.
However, what really seems to be the great divide between blue/red fractions is the high level of disdain blue district people have for the traditions, history, cultural/employment advancements and advantages this country has. This disdain seems driven by goals mirroring Obama’s vow to “transform†this country into one having greater government control. contrasting those of us who appreciate the constitutional fundamentals this country arose from – improved and empowered from incremental refinements rather than massive transformation, with government directives continuing to being made by and for the people of this country.
I’m wondering if the Dem candidates are still speaking to their donors, not voters. as with H.R.C. and her “deplorables”.
jan- Put down the bong. Its supposed to be for medicinal purposes.
Dave- I find it interesting that child care wasn’t framed as a family issue, not one just for women. That said, it does seem to still mostly affect women. My female providers often earn 3 or 4 times more than their male spouse, but they are still the ones who take a sick day when there are child care issues.
I am not sure what your point about careers is supposed to be making? Are you saying people who have a job, say something like working in retail, are not affected by child career issues because they arent in a “career”? Also, while you may not consider somethings a career, I think that a lot of other people would. Lot os nurses, teachers, electricians, carpenters, plumbers and small business owners probably think of their work as something more like a career, or close enough that the difference is just arguing about semantics.
Finally, I went back and looked at Warren’s response. I suspect I would find similar with the other debaters, but maybe not. Lets not forget that Noonan is a Republican. She is characterizing the responses in a negative way so she can write a column. Warren was advocating for child care that would help everyone, not just those having a career. She then noted how child care was a factor in her own life. That is bad for some reason? When she needed help with child care she was a single mother and teaching law as an assistant/associate professor in Houston. I am guessing that didnt pay a ton of money.
Ok, this isn’t as glamorous as our current POTUS who can talk about going bankrupt and how his father smuggled millions of dollars to him to try and help, but her story is incredibly relevant to families who are working at Walmart, Target, or having professional careers.
Steve
Any woman who would dump her kids at daycare to work at Walmart for a financial wash just wants rid of them. The government should definitely not be complicit in this debacle. Most women who don’t want to be mothers to their children just don’t know how. They should turn to their church for guidance.
Steve, It’s that kind of flippancy that’s a dud in encouraging serious discourse, in the same way that HRC’s “deplorable†comment wa deployed and received by others.
No, I’m saying that the notion of climbing the ladder, advancing in a career, is not the world that most Americans live in.
jan- You begin your rant with “The democrat party has become one of “selfies†and self-indulgence.” Then you cite me for flippancy? Yours is just a longer way of saying that liberals are not real Americans a la Palin. It was pretty clear you didnt want serious discourse. (Just for the record neither the wife nor I have ever taken a selfie.)
Dave- Most teachers, doctors and nurses think they have a career and most never really advance so I am still not sure what you are driving at here. Child care is still an issue even if you are going to teach 6th grade all your working life or remain a regular practicing clinician. (One of my female critical care docs a couple of weeks ago was frantic to find child care. I ended up baby-sitting for her. Got me out of a couple off meetings I wanted to avoid so was well worth it.)
Steve
“What makes 100% ?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?
Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%.
How about achieving 103%?
What makes up 100% in life?
Here’s a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
And
K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%
But,
A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%
And,
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%
AND , look how far ass kissing will take you.
A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty, than while Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there. It is the Bullshit and Ass Kissing that will put you over the top.
Now you know why Politicians are where they are.”
Steve, I was ranting? When did “Palin†get into any dialogue? But, you’re right, my evolving opinion of the democrat party’s leaders is going south, along with my respect for their logic, ethics or sense of honesty. Even, their sense of humor has become flat.
BTW, my husband and I do share one aspect with you and your wife – neither of us has ever taken selfies. And, even though we live in CA, smokes and bongs of any kind are not a family thing with us.
Guarneri:
I once met a man who picked horse races that way, using the names of the fillies. Worked about as well as spending hours pouring over the forms, and added as sense of order to the handicapping process.
BTW, Good one!
jan- You believe in cariacatures of liberals that largely dont exist. Yes, there are some people in CA and NYC that try to live up to the worst stereotypes, but then there really are racist right wingers who think all gay people should be stoned to death. IN reality most are decent, hard working people just like people on the right. Self-indulgent? Would you like to see the lady in our church, very left wing, who as a single mother was the first in the state to adopt a severe cerebral palsy kid who she got through college and now has a real job. Who in her 70s still does time with Habitat for Humanity? Self indulgent? Sure.
Disdain for blue district people? Lots of us go to parties with them, work with them, eat with them and go to school with them. Is there a small group of writers living in NYC/San Fran who like to make fun of people in the Midwest? Yup. Are there plenty of people in the Midwest who like to make fun of city people? You bet. Sit down with that suburban teacher from outside Philly who is a very reliable Dem voter and she does hold those Southern people in disdain? Nope. She might make fun of their Cowboys or Falcons this year, but you arent going to see that disdain you talk about.
Steve
Here in the Midwest we watch contrails in the sky and tell our kids those are the coastal elites flying to fabulous vacation resorts. Children dream of traveling to the coast to wait tables and sleep in their cars, hoping to marry up before youth fades and frail age takes them back to the dry prairie cemetery where their parents lie. Some few succeed, most do not.
Steve, living in CA almost all the people I socialize with are left of center – most far left of center. When we discuss politics, it’s on general terms, not personal ones. IMO, they are great people to be around, but oftentimes aren’t able to see the full ramifications of how what they believe in would effect others, let alone themselves.
Ironically, though, when such policies start to encroach negatively on incomes and personal lifestyles, these same people experience a rhetorical change of direction. For instance, rigid, costly building codes are fine until one friend wasn’t able to subdivide her acreage because of being turned down by local environmental restrictions. Higher taxes is lauded until there is a proposition on a ballot posing a threat to levy higher property taxes on a dear friend of mine. Open borders, empathy and support for homeless encampments are seen in virtuous terms, until a neighborhood is suddenly besieged by unusual increases in crime, trash, tents or RVs parked on their streets.
It’s this kind of hypocrisy that seems to arise more from Leftist orthodoxy, than on the right, that is so frustrating to me. In fact, conservative religious organizations far outpace giving to the poor, helping indigent countries (Food For The Poor comes to mind), or even taking truck-loads of supplies down to the border during the border crisis.
In a way, Steve, it seems you are more bound to caricatures of conservatives, whom you lump all together as â€right wingers†than I am in pointing out liberal foibles. Furthermore, most of my democrat criticism is directed at those in leadership positions (not some liberal church lady), as they are in command of the party’s partisan talking points, policy positions, and in the case of the current Democrat-led House, creating even more divisiveness in the country through their relentless efforts to impeach the president.
Actually, a couple of mathematicians at MIT debunked the charity thing a long time ago. Republicans probably donate a bit more, but when you subtract for donations to the church, liberals give more. Conservative churches dont give that much to the poor. (In our area it is the liberal churches that run the soup kitchens.)
https://galileounchained.com/2012/05/14/are-churches-more-like-charities-or-country-clubs/
“In a way, Steve, it seems you are more bound to caricatures of conservatives, whom you lump all together as â€right wingers—
Uhhh, by definition a conservative is on the right wing. But to your point, some stereotyping is probably unavoidable when you are talking about politics. However the difference between the two of us is that I at least try to avoid making claims about moral superiority of the left or depravity ion the right. I won’t claim that the values of the people on the right are false or not valid. I dont denigrate because they are Christians or live in the Midwest. I won’t claim that you arent a real American because our politics are different. Finally, I won’t say incredibly amnestic things like the following
“creating even more divisiveness in the country through their relentless efforts to impeach the president.”
You guys already impeached a Democrat, for lying about consensual sex. You held non-stop investigations of the Obama admin without ever really finding anything. There is almost nothing that the Democrats could do that would be more divisive than what the GOP has done.
Steve
Steve, that was a lot of revisionist history – omitting the actual impeachable “crimes†cited in Clinton’s trial, and instead laying it on sexual dalliances alone.
Also, what non-stop investigations were done during the Obama Administration? Sure, there was plenty askew in how his administration used departments, such as the IRS, DOJ, and various intelligence agencies, for their own personal purposes. But, other than opposition party criticism, there were no authorized special councils formed nor lengthy investigations instigated that continuously hovered over Obama’s head, threatening his presidency, 24/7. Benghazi was a tragedy that did invoke lengthy committee investigations. However, they were primarily aimed at HRC’s conduct, and were softened by a complicit DOJ who dragged their feet, slow walked documents, and generally stonewalled the best they could. Impeaching Obama was discussed, but fortunately never acted upon during a GOP majority in the House. That precedent certainly has changed, though, under a vindictive Pelosi, who sounded especially hostile when she repeatedly lorded over the fact Trump would be “impeached forever.â€
Finally, any denigration of the left by me is created by example after example of the sheer hypocrisy and double standards demonstrated by the current democrat leadership and the left leaning news media. From cherry-picked news stories, where “good†news is no news to the MSM, to the latest lopsided House impeachment hearings, where republicans were literally shut out of the process, could not call any witnesses of their own, ask only “approved†questions of witnesses called by Dems, have witness transcripts withheld to this day….and, now the Dems are calling for “fairness†from the Senate and accusing them of a “cover-up†before the event has even begun! I just don’t see how such a travesty could be happening, with the eyes of America and the world looking on.