I often feel baffled by Amanda Marcotte’s posts. Take this most recent one where she argues that anti-choicers promote their policies in order to keep people poor and deny them social mobility.
I don’t know how to make this analysis make sense outside of the childish belief that evil Republicans do evil things for no other reason than their profound evilness. Why would the Republicans be interested in expanding the underclass that doesn’t pay taxes, needs social welfare, adds to crime rates, and is unlikely to vote Republican? This would make at least some sense if there existed a need for a huge number of people to work in unqualified low-paying jobs. Such jobs, however, have all gone overseas. The ones that are left are much fewer than what the minimally educated people need to avoid constant and crushing unemployment.
No, there is definitely no economic advantage to keeping so many people poor. The Republicans also accuse the Democrats of keeping people poor so that they depend on the government and vote Democratic. And these accusations are just as meaningless because Marxism doesn’t work. Irrespective of who advances these Marxist explanations that ideology is driven by economics, they always fail. Ideology trumps money every single time.
Thank you, el, for leaving this link here.
Clarissa's Blog 
“No, there is definitely no economic advantage to keeping so many people poor. The Republicans also accuse the Democrats of keeping people poor so that they depend on the government and vote Democratic. And these accusations are just as meaningless because Marxism doesn’t work.”
More than that, these accusations are meaningless because they’re accusations. It’s not a good when people argue by speculating on the motivations of their opponents, full stop. It encourages people to believe the silliest narratives about their enemies and distracts them from actually criticising their opponents position, neither of which are of any use to anybody.
LikeLike
That’s exactly what I’m saying! This is distracting and ultimately useless.
LikeLike
It makes sense in terms of Reaganism, I believe. I used to know a guy who was deeply into that philosophy and he expressed that he felt threatened by too many people in society having too much. He thought it removed his platform to speak and to spread his own views.
LikeLike
The economy changed dramatically since Reagan’s times, though. All the industrial jobs have shipped overseas.
LikeLike
Reaganism is more about a psychological state than about anything real.
LikeLike
Republicans want the people to remain poor is, of course, an oversimplification. But at the same time it must be understood that businesses want to cut costs wherever they can (as an aside, this is why we need regulation). Let’s take immigration of highly skilled workers. Hi-tech companies here are all for it; they regularly lobby the government to increase the number of H1-B visas, for example. However, nobody gives a shit about them once they’re here. They make less money than their american counterparts, they’re always in a position of job insecurity. Get fired and you have to leave the country in 30 days, jesus christ. Imagine working 5 years, having a family, then having to wrap up your life in 30 days. Years and years of waiting for permanent residence status, and until then you’re at the absolute mercy of your employer. I’m sure N has faced all this. Maybe more.
So the point is that, no, republicans may not want the poor to remain poor, or that they are inherently evil, but they will absolutely support laws that maintain the status quo of workers being exploited by their employers. Note that the class of the worker themselves is not the issue here. Low-skilled employees are exploited differently than highly-skilled employees, but the exploitation remains. In both cases, republicans *will* side with the corporation/management. Every time.
That’s why they’re called the party of big business (even though in the US the democrats aren’t *that* much different). You can call it ideology or economics or whatever.
LikeLike
” Get fired and you have to leave the country in 30 days, jesus christ. Imagine working 5 years, having a family, then having to wrap up your life in 30 days. Years and years of waiting for permanent residence status, and until then you’re at the absolute mercy of your employer. I’m sure N has faced all this. Maybe more.”
– Yes, this is exactly what we experienced. I have no idea who sponsors this kind of legislation in the US but in all other countries this is done to protect the local workers and is considered a highly progressive measure.
” Let’s take immigration of highly skilled workers. Hi-tech companies here are all for it; they regularly lobby the government to increase the number of H1-B visas, for example. ”
– But is it exclusively the Republican government that refuses?
“So the point is that, no, republicans may not want the poor to remain poor, or that they are inherently evil, but they will absolutely support laws that maintain the status quo of workers being exploited by their employers. ”
– I agree with that. But I still don’t think that anti-choicers are moved by economic considerations. I am convinced that they would tank the economy and forget all about deficits, etc. if that would help destroy the right to choose.
LikeLike
“Yes, this is exactly what we experienced. I have no idea who sponsors this kind of legislation in the US but in all other countries this is done to protect the local workers and is considered a highly progressive measure.”
At least other countries are consistent in their shittyness towards immigrants, haha. Hard to get in, hard to stay in. Australia until recently allowed only white immigration. UK and other european countries are massively un-friendly to immigrants, no matter how qualified they are. The only students they care for are rich idiot arabs who have no problem paying full tuition. So, the upside is that nobody in their right mind would even bother immigrating to these countries.
US on the other hand, easy to get in but once you do, they have you by the balls so they can extract maximum value out of you and you’d better shut the fuck up and work like your life depends on it, whether you’re picking strawberries or writing code.
This is all a general commentary, by the way. On this *specific* issue of abortion, I completely agree with you. The christian ideology trumps economic considerations all day.
LikeLike
Yes, there is hardly anything more stupid than the US immigration laws. And the funniest part is how eager are those who got off the boat yesterday to persecute those who came here 15 minutes later.
LikeLike
Republicans want the people to remain poor is, of course, an oversimplification. But at the same time it must be understood that businesses want to cut costs wherever they can (as an aside, this is why we need regulation).
Let’s take immigration of highly skilled workers. Hi-tech companies here are all for it; they regularly lobby the government to increase the number of H1-B visas, for example. However, nobody gives a shit about them once they’re here. They make less money than their american counterparts and always in a position of job insecurity. Get fired and you have to leave the country in 30 days, jesus christ. Imagine working 5 years, having a family, then having to wrap up your life in 30 days. Years and years of waiting for permanent residence status, and until then you’re at the absolute mercy of your employer. I’m sure N has faced all this. Maybe more.
So the point is that, no, republicans may not want the poor to remain poor, or that they are inherently evil, but they will absolutely support laws that maintain the status quo of workers being exploited by their employers. Note that the class of the worker themselves is not the issue here. Low-skilled employees are exploited differently than highly-skilled employees, but the exploitation remains. In both cases, republicans *will* side with the corporation/management. Every time.
That’s why they’re called the party of big business (even though in the US the democrats aren’t *that* much different). You can call it ideology or economics or whatever.
LikeLike
Oops, double post. Feel free to delete this one. Thanks!
LikeLike
Obliquely related, and deliberately provocative: http://www.fem2pt0.com/2012/08/07/i-wish-my-mother-had-aborted-me/
LikeLike
There are no republicans or democrats among the policy-setting elite. There is broad agreement about what should be done and only minor disagreements about how to get there.
LikeLike
Conservatives in general appear to care for more about relative status than progressives in general.
There are two ways to obtain high relative status differentials: 1) Raise your status. 2) Lower someone else’s status.
Due to forces in the world (globalization, etc.) and general proclivities, Republicans, being also generally conservative, seem to be choosing the second method.
Many conservatives don’t seem to care if the world is reduced to rubble and they are standing on the tallest piece of debris, as long as they are in fact on top.
A more nuanced Marcotte analysis would’ve realized and included this, as well as the research that backs it up.
LikeLike
I would have never made such an analysis as you are making. It’s very interesting. It’s also curious how I never think of such things because, for me, status doesn’t exist, so I don’t see it in other people’s lives
LikeLike
If the anti-abortion were purely class warfare, why are so many poor people against abortion? And loads of them are. This is a problem that atheists have (I’m guessing that Marcotte is either an atheist or an a-religious person): they forget how important religion is to other people.
LikeLike
If I oppose pedophilia, is it because, perhaps, I am forgetting how important child sex is to some people?
LikeLike
Are you actually comparing being religious to being a pedophile? (Note: I am an atheist.)
LikeLike
And I’m religious. But I hate pedophiles, nonetheless. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
No, it’s purely formal and abstract.
LikeLike
“This is a problem that atheists have (I’m guessing that Marcotte is either an atheist or an a-religious person): they forget how important religion is to other people.”
– You are right! It is very easy not to take into account something that you don’t get but that defines other people’s existence.
LikeLike
I mean, I’m sure that class is an element in this, but it’s not the only one, and playing the trick (which is what I’ve seen this argument devolve into on many a subject) that “you THINK you believe X because of one thing but you REALLY believe X because of this other thing” isn’t helping anyone. You can go up a a low-income rural white woman carrying one of those fetus signs and tell her she only thinks zygotes are babies because The Man wants to keep her down, and even if she understands you she won’t believe you, and will dismiss you as one of those God-hating baby murderers.
I don’t know what the answer is to getting through to religious people, but we can start by taking them seriously instead of treating them as stupid children (even if they are stupid adults) who don’t really believe what they believe, they’re just doing it to be mean or to mess with you. It can feel empowering to dismiss your opposition that way, but it ultimately just perpetuates the problem. See Muslims and rightwingers who rant about their “Moon god!”
LikeLike