As the middle child, I have an elder sister and a younger sister.
You would think that my elder sister and I came from two different
Galaxies, and were raised by Mad Mutants(my sister's position). But
my kid sister and I have agreed that at least we came from the same
two parents, lived somewhat similar lives, and share the major events
in common. But even my younger sister has been known to suggest to me
that my reality is not the correct one.
I've learned that to disagree, saying "My dear sister, after all you
are almost two years younger than I, and you have the situation all
screwed up", will make the beginnings of a month long effort on both
parts to prove the other person wrong. So I simply say, "Very
interesting. Looks like we have two realities." For the most part it
makes little or no difference in the scheme of things.
Besides, our senses are so limited that whatever the real reality is,
can't begin to be defined by such limited perceptions.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/28/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I just know I'm going to get into trouble if I ask this question which came
to mind after reading about how one knows reality only through scientific
methodology.
But here's my question. Have you ever been sitting around the table after a
holiday meal and a close family member recounts his or her memory of what
happened on a specific occasion in the past. You, too, were also present at
that past occasion and you remember it very clearly. But your memory of what
happened is different from what was just recounted in at least one important
way. So you say, "Oh, I remember that, but what I remember is this...etc."
And that is the beginning of a contentious discussion between the other
person and you. That's happened to me occasionally in the past. I wish I
knew of a way of proving what the reality of that past situation, remembered
so differently by two people who experienced it, really was.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 3:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Will the GOP Become the Party of Blue-Collar
Conservatism?
Carl, you can have the facts as you see them. That implies that you may be
missing some facts or that you are misinterpreting the ones you have.
That applies to all of us. But, sorry, you don't get your own reality.
There is only one reality. I often call it objective reality to emphasize
its apartness?? from what we may perceive or interpret, but the adjective is
not really necessary. Just the word reality will do because there are no
other realities. And reality is going to be what it is no matter how we
perceive it, interpret it, wish it to be, imagine it to be or demand that it
be. If two people insist that reality is certain mutually exclusive ways
then at least one of them have to be wrong and it is not unlikely that both
of them are wrong. We serve ourselves best when we recognize that reality
does not necessarily agree with our subjective impressions and when we
actually try to find out how reality really is. In other words, it is to our
advantage to always remain scientific. That is because the way that any of
us get what we want, either individually or collectively, is by manipulating
reality and we can do the most efficient job of manipulating it if we
understand what it is as clearly and precisely as we can.
---
Albert Einstein
???Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.???
??? Albert Einstein
On 10/28/2019 3:11 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Right on! It's hard for me to say, "Facts". But what other word
might a person use? So I say, "The facts as I see them". At least
anyone challenging them will be confined to debating my understanding.
In speaking of Reality, I always try to say, "My Reality". At least
that's how I think when using the word. What other reality can there
be? Yours? Well, that's good for you, but not necessarily mine. But
actually both can be totally opposite and yet be totally true. In
fact, using terms like true and false, or right and wrong, should have
no part in the individual's reality. My reality has changed
constantly over my 84 years. I add new ideas and information...and
misinformation, but always it is My reality, filled with all sorts of
garbage along with priceless pearls of wisdom, making it very much my
reality, and every bit as real to me as your reality is to you.
And my reality tells me that it is time for a bit of lunch.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/28/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What is most interesting, is hearing a number of people on the far
left, whose opinions I respect, give different takes on the same
issue, or slightly different takes, or sometimes, totally different
takes, and then to listen to people on what the mainstream calls,
"the left", give absolutely different versions. It certainly gives
one pause when people talk about, "facts", or, "reality".
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 11:07 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Will the GOP Become the Party of
Blue-Collar Conservatism?
No insults taken. We're just giving our personal, off the cuff
opinions here.
That makes me think of an email I've received several times asking
for my top three candidates for president. This request has been
popping up for over a month now. It's a year until we're into the
election season.
Already the pollsters are gearing up for the big Popularity Contest.
Now if they want to really challenge folks, how about asking for the
top three issues facing America this coming election. Or, name your
preferred candidate along with the top three issues you want them to take
on.
We've allowed the Media to turn the serious business of Government
into a pop contest. No wonder we get the sorts of pretenders we get
in the top slots.
We need to demand responsible reporting on the part of our news media
During the Second World War, I recall how folks simply could not
understand how the German People could believe the propaganda being
spewed out by the Nazi Masters. And all the while Americans were
buying into our own brand of Brain Washing.
The first step in effective brain washing is to convince the people
that they are not being brain washed. Based on just that one point,
our Brain Washing Machine is a huge success. Another critical point
in an effective Mind Control Plan is to convince the people that the
opponents are all so stupid that we have to be the ones to tell them
that they are being suckered.
There was a time back in my foolish youth, not to be confused with my
current foolish age, when I eagerly sought out confirmation for my
positions. Since my positions were the correct ones, why bother
hearing the foolishness spewed by others?
Today I approach the "news" with an open mind. I attempt to be as
critical of the news with which I agree, as I am with the news I disagree
with.
I do avoid the "evening television news" because it is full of non news.
Also, I seldom listen to the Right Wing talk shows since they do not
teach or inform, and since the broader media actually leans far
enough to the Right that it takes some effort to draw out actual
information. And, as an equal opportunity non listener, I mostly avoid
the Far Left shows, too.
Same reasons, even if I am inclined to want to agree.
Actually, listening to the news, or reading the news, is hard work if
we want to be informed.
The other thing is to not become wed to our current beliefs. When we
do so, we tend to spend our time and efforts in defending positions
that will be ancient history next week.
Carl Jarvis, Futilely seeking knowledge in a Pop Culture.
On 10/27/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't insulting your intelligence. I was just wondering if
you had evidence of his attitude or were just making an assumption
based on what you believe that wealthier people think about less
wealthier people.
And I guess that you have a particular way of using words. You're
talking about all of us without a lot of money or power and you are
giving us a label, "working class". But I think about your life,
your work and your home and compare you to, for example, someone who
works in an Amazon warehouse and that person's home and life and
education, and it just seems to me that the working class label does
not apply to both of you equally. But then, you describe your
thoughts about religion and you insist that you're an agnostic, but
to me, what you're describing sounds like atheism. So my problem is
certainly not with what you say, it's with the particular labels you're
choosing.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2019 3:08 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Will the GOP Become the Party of
Blue-Collar Conservatism?
Miriam and All,
I'd better turn in my rehab teacher membership if I am so
unobservant that I can't pick up on someone with that "Holier than Thou"
attitude.
It's the same whether we call it that, or whether we call it, "I'm
better than you!" We certainly don't have to see in order to sense
the many Human attitudes. Although some folks are better at hiding
their real feelings, than are others.
As far as your thoughts on who is in the Ruling Class and who is in
the Working Class, I sense that I am going back and forth on the
same track, hoping that if I say it just one more time it will make
sense.
I'm missing some key connection and so I will just toss in the
towel, rather than boring everyone with the same repetitious babble.
But all I know for certain is that so long as we folks in the
broader working class form our little specialty groups and bicker
among ourselves, we have lost the struggle.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/25/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, you're not home to answer but I wonder how you know that your
cousin thinks he's better than you. Maybe he just thinks that he's
wealthier than you and, therefore, more financially secure than you.
And he isn't just serving the ruling class, is he? Doesn't he treat
people who are at the same financial level or slightly higher or
lower than he is? The ruling class is Harvey Weissman and Hillary
Clinton and Robert mercer, etc.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 11:25 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Will the GOP Become the Party of
Blue-Collar Conservatism?
Tomorrow(Friday)we head out around 5:00 A.M. to attend the
Washington Council of the Blind annual convention. It's about a
two hour drive to the Double Tree at Seatac. It looks like
another year of more than 250 in attendance.
Every year rates go up and additional charges are added, like a ten
dollar per day for parking. That adds an extra $30 to the tab.
I don't suppose it matters what I define as "Working Class". What
matters is how each of us defines ourselves, and what values we
hold near and dear.
My suggestion that there is really no Middle Class, and that we are
divided into only two Classes...the Working Class and the Ruling
Class, is not meant to reflect how Americans see themselves. I do
it to make clear...although I think I'm failing at that, to make
clear that all who support the Ruling Class are part of the Working
Class, in the sense that nothing in the nature of actual work comes
from the controlling few on top. They are totally dependent on the
rest of us to sustain them. The problem is with the Rest of Us.
My cousin who is a surgeon specializing in matters of the heart,
thinks he is better than the rest of the family because he earns at
least triple what any of the rest of us make. In his mind, he is
closing in on becoming a member of the Ruling Class. That's how he
sees it. But I tell him that he will always be a member of the
Working Class so long as he is performing a service to the Ruling
Class and those others who can afford his skills. But he wants to
believe that he is better than me because he vastly out earns me.
His values are set upon the Gold Standard. Mine are based upon the
Human Standard. I will never convince him that my values are just
as good for me as his values are good for him. The trouble is that
as long as he seeks to validate himself based on earnings and his
technical skills, he will do all he can to ensure that his position on
the Pyramid of Life is secure.
And he will kick me to the curb if necessary. But as bad as we've
become, in how we treat one another, I believe that it is learned
behavior, and it can be altered.
Anyway, i do plan to get up at 4:00 A.M., so I'd better brush my
teeth, wash my face and clamber into my PJ's and turn on a good
TBBL mystery.
I'll even let Cathy listen...if she's really, really good.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/20/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
People, individuals whom you consider to be members of the working
class, want material success. They want what people who have more
money than they, have. They will live in constant debt to have the
things that have been sold to them: I phones, big flat screen
TV's, fashionable clothing, new cars.
That's what a successful life is to them. They don't care all that
much about how the government works, so long as their lives are
comfortable.
Today, I was involved in a discussion about nail salons. When I
was young and concerned about such things, women went to beauty
parlors to get their hair done each week if they could afford it.
If they did, they might also have their nails done while their
hair was drying. I actually opted out of that along time ago, but
many women didn't. Some women did their own nails at home, if they
couldn't afford the beauty parlor. Now, everyone has their nails
done at nail salons, fingers and toes. It's apparently, a luxury
experience. You sit back in the comfortable chair and even get a
foot massage along with the pedicure.
Now, if one reads a lot of books like I do, one knows that those
nail salons employ low paid immigrant labor. Some of the women are
actually trafficked unpaid labor. But, as my daughter keeps
telling me, "times have changed". Most women, a very large number
of whom you would identify as working class, those who live here
on Long Island, go to those nail salons every week, and they don't
care about the conditions of the women who do their nails. So when
you talk about the working class, if you're going to be realistic,
it's important to define just whom you mean, and to look at what
people are actually doing and what really motivates them, rather
than talking about theory and romanticizing the people.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 1:13 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Will the GOP Become the Party of
Blue-Collar Conservatism?
The United States government is now owned by the descendants of
our Founding Fathers. It's not that the Working Class is easily
manipulated, the fact is that the Working Class has been lied to
for over
230 years.
My opinion is that the Working Class will continue to be misled
until such a time as the Working Class quits trying to participate
in the Establishment's Government.
The owners of the governmenment do not want to share that which
they believe belongs to them. We need to get it through our heads.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/19/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The truth is that the working class has no money or power and is
easily manipulated. It may be the backbone of the nation, but
it's controlled by the power elites. And those folks in power
are, to say the least, short sighted.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 3:25 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Will the GOP Become the Party of
Blue-Collar Conservatism?
While the Democrats talked the talk for years, the top leadership
of the Party had turned its back on the working class long before
FDR provided some relief. Maybe at the local, county and state
level the Democratic Party still backed the issues affecting the
working class, but name one president prior to FDR who supported
Labor over Wall Street. Wilson? Cleveland? And following FDR
the Democrats had the likes of Truman, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton
and Obama. Only LBJ took on the establishment in his fight to
bring about social reform.
The truth is that none of the nation's political parties favor
the working class.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/19/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Will the GOP Become the Party of Blue-Collar Conservatism?
Will the GOP Become the Party of Blue-Collar Conservatism?
Washington State Dept of Transportation / Flickr
From the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt onward through to
the 1990s, the Democrats had long been considered the party of
the working class. That perception lingered long after the fact
that by the 1990s, they had more accurately become the party of
Wall Street and Silicon Valley, often embracing policies at
variance with their traditional blue-collar supporters. As
Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen outline in a paper
sponsored by the Institute for New Economic
Thinking: "Within the Democratic Party, the desires of party
leaders who continue to depend on big money from Wall Street,
Silicon Valley, health insurers, and other power centers
collides [sic] head on with the needs of average Americans these
leaders claim to defend." So the Democratic Party, a
historically center-left political grouping, has increasingly
embraced a neoliberal market fundamentalist framework over the
past 40 years, and thereby facilitated the growth of
financialization (whereby the influence and power of a country's
financial sector become vast relative to the overall economy).
Donald Trump exploited that shift during his 2016 campaign: Not
only did he proclaim his love for "the poorly educated," but he
also campaigned as an old Rust Belt Democrat-not only by
attacking illegal immigration and offshoring, but also coming
out against globalization, free trade, Wall Street, and especially
Goldman Sachs.
As president, of course, Trump has proven incapable of "walking
the walk,"
even as he continued to speak about "draining the swamp" and
eliminating business as usual in Washington. But there is
increasing evidence suggesting that some of the more ambitious
and opportunistic politicians in the GOP are seeking to exploit
the material abandonment of working-class voters by the Democrats.
Both Senators Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio are trying to move the
party in a more pro-worker direction, championing a new kind of
blue-collar conservatism that is supportive of unions and
policies that emphasizes the "dignity of work." Likewise,
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has recently introduced a tax
rebate for lower-income Americans to offset the tariffs
President Trump has proposed on Chinese goods-essentially an
annual payment from the federal government to citizens to offset
any increased cost in consumer goods that might arise from
Trump's proposed tariffs, thus neutralizing the economic impact,
and countering the political argument that the president's trade
war on Chinese goods ultimately represents a tax on American
consumers. As Henry Olsen notes in the Washington Post:
"Cotton's approach addresses both the economic and political
challenges arising from Trump's tariffs. Economically, giving
the revenue back to average Americans offsets the expected rise
in prices they will face as a result of the tariffs. Consumer
spending, which was feared would decline in response to the
price hikes, would now likely stay high: Why cut back in
spending when you're not losing any money? That would keep the
economy strong."
In other words, it's a tax-time Universal Basic Income.
Cotton's proposals would augment a little-discussed feature
emerging now in the U.S. labor market, as CNBC's Jeff Cox writes:
for the first time in this cycle (which started in 2009), "the
bottom half of earners are benefiting more than the top half-in
fact, about twice as much, according to calculations by Goldman
Sachs," using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More
recently, Derek Thompson of the Atlantic cites additional work
by labor economist Nick Bunker, who makes the case that "wage
growth is currently strongest for workers in low-wage
industries, such as clothing stores, supermarkets, amusement
parks, and casinos. And earnings are growing most slowly in
higher-wage industries, such as medical labs, law firms, and
broadcasting and telecom companies."
Absent a significant growth slowdown, these workers might
increasingly identify their economic self-interest with
Republicans, not Democrats, particularly given the increasingly
restrictionist stance the GOP is adopting on immigration, which
will further tighten the labor market structurally and enhance
the relative bargaining position of American blue-collar workers.
The one lingering question is whether or not this trend will yet
supersede the power and influence of the GOP's historic
corporate constituencies, notably oil, mining and chemical
companies, Big Pharma, tobacco, the arms industry, and civil
aviation. On the face of it, this could well prove to be a tall
order. But it is conceivable if trade policy is ultimately
rendered subordinate to national security concerns, as
increasingly appears to be the case today. In the words of
Michael Lind, all it would take is a national developmental
industrial strategy predicated on sustaining U.S.
military
supremacy: "to identify and promote not specific companies but
key 'dual-use' industries important in both defense and civilian
commerce."
That
would seem to be a more likely scenario for the GOP, one that
would build on Trump's steady inroads into the Democratic
Party's traditional blue-collar constituencies, while
simultaneously catering to the party's strong links to national
defense interests.
Although a military-industrial strategy might run counter to
some of the interests of the party's traditional corporate
backers (such as Charles Koch), it would likely prove hugely
beneficial to America's manufacturing heartland, particularly
the country's disaffected blue-collar workers.
Historically, these workers have been Democrats, but their
livelihoods have been decimated by decades of trade
liberalization and other neoliberal policies. As Lind points
out, a national industrial policy based on the model of
Alexander Hamilton but married to "Cold War 2.0"
could, therefore, consolidate the GOP's efforts to become more
of a party of the working class. And such a policy is not
historically
anomalous: during the original Cold War, free trade and
globalization were always subject to the constraints of
containing the expansion of Soviet-led communism. A large chunk
of the world under the enemy sphere of influence was off-limits
to American trade and capital.
Today, even with the overriding influence of the Koch brothers,
and the Mercer family, a number of Republicans are geopolitical
hawks first, and economic libertarians second. They increasingly
see that it makes no sense to go to war against wage earners
while claiming to protect the same wage earners from Chinese
competition, especially if Beijing becomes the new locus of an
emerging Cold War 2.0.
Furthermore, if they are in safe, rock-solid GOP districts, they
are less vulnerable to a primary attack from corporate interests
antithetical to those positions. As geo-economics is
increasingly remarried to geopolitics (as it was during the
original Cold War), "blue-collar conservativism" will likely
gain increasing policy traction in certain conservative circles,
even though Republicans still have a ways to go before they can
fully shift their party's agenda toward a modern-day equivalent of
"Bull Moose" progressivism.
Donald Trump is, first and foremost, a wrecker, as opposed to a
builder.
Arguably, that is one of the things that got him elected in the
first place.
But he has set the stage for a further political realignment,
especially as more educated whites and elites migrate to the
Democratic Party, and traditional Southern populists reside in
the GOP. There are very few Fritz Hollings types left in the
party, whose views on trade, immigration and manufacturing are
closer to the Democrats' historic New Deal constituencies.
This theory, though, is not watertight, and new coalitions are
still very much in flux. But as things stand today, ironically,
the Democrats now have trade and open borders policies that are
closer to those of the old Reagan/Bush Republicans and
libertarians such as the Koch brothers, while the GOP policy
under Trump is gravitating toward the old positions of the
AFL/CIO on both trade and immigration, a policy combination that
makes the embrace of a kind of blue-collar conservatism even
more credible for the GOP.
Furthermore, as trade issues (especially in regard to China) are
increasingly conflated with national security concerns, the GOP
may ultimately decide to build on Trump's attempts to
re-domicile key supply chains back to the U.S.
From the national security hawk perspective, this will ensure
that strategic industries necessary to sustain American military
power remain on home shores, even if this conflicts with the
principles of free trade, limited non-interventionist
government. Sustaining permanent production on U.S. soil, not
just innovation in America and production elsewhere, would be
profoundly favorable to blue-collar workers (hitherto among the
biggest casualties of
globalization) and likely consolidate the GOP's efforts to
become the future party of the American working class, unless of
course the Democrats suddenly and unexpectedly reclaim their New
Deal legacy.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the
Independent Media Institute.
Marshall Auerback is a market analyst and commentator.
Marshall Auerback /