A ridiculous claim to be sure. As an Urban Liberal who makes less than $30,000 a year (part of the "working class" I suppose) I disagree. And seeing as the argument on both sides of this issue is purely semantic and drawn from partisan interpretations of what "the working class wants/needs", I suppose my argument and the "proof" is as good as any.
So, which party has helped the working man more? The right answer is neither. Both parties play to the interests of the rich first, the middle class next, and the poor in the end. This is a Democrat saying this.
So when a Democrat like Hillary of Dodd (Mr. Big Banking) says they are for the working class, I roll my eyes. But when Romney tries to say the same, its hard to keep from laughing.
Basically, no one has a claim to the votes of the working class. Democrats have a tenuous one, one that could be strengthened if they would stand up to their backers. Republicans have a much longer road to travel to win back workers. Of course, Republicans will always attract the racists, the gun nuts, the fag-bashers, etc. and be able to claim a large amount of white, male, working class votes. But believe me, it ain't for economics.
Ok Mark & Brian, commence the jiggling.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
When I ran for office I was a UAW Executive Officer and blue collar worker and was kicked out of a Union meeting because I was running as a Republican. How’s that for Democrats supporting the worker? It didn’t matter that I was one of them but what party I was running under. Our local was split probably evenly between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrat members would say the Democrat Party was for the working man, the Republicans would say the same thing and I don’t think for the reasons you outline. Bottom line what they care about is their own personal needs, well except maybe the gun nuts. It is really a matter of perception by the individual. You are right however in that no party is really supporting the average working person as they say.
Post a Comment