A liberal plea for fake liberalism to grow up

ankers, when I started the thread and wrote the title I was quoting what the article said because I had found it an interesting one and thought others might too. You, at least, seem to have found it quite thought-provoking, which was the whole idea. Thought-provoking is good and is my usual motive for posting on Gransnet.

I think the liberal scoffiness that the article refers to is a reference to the American liberal elite. I thought the article made that clear but perhaps not. At any rate, I agree with you that there will be many liberal folk outside of this city-dwelling liberal elite and that some of them will be comparatively poor. I also think that the article is implying, if not outright saying (I read it yesterday so can't remember exactly), that some, possibly many, of those who voted for Trump this time round would have voted for a Democrat in other circumstances. I've certainly picked up from other things I've read recently that some people who voted for Obama in the past voted for Trump this time for the sorts of reasons given in the article.

American liberals are or have been also known as Progressives, except that recently, because of some of the attitudes the article talks about, some whom I'm going to call Real American Liberals (those who stand up for real liberal values, such as freedom of expression) are beginning to refer to "Progressives" as "Regressives" because they are not standing up for real liberal values.

I think these Real American Liberals have never been Republicans or conservatives (small c) but neither do they feel at ease with the current somewhat regressive tendencies of the liberal elite. I recognise the feeling because I think it is occurring here too, e.g. long-time Labour supporters are feeling that their party of preference has lost its way.

For the 2016 postmortem, liberals, because we tend to lean toward compassion, blamed the poor. We didn’t phrase it that way, of course. We blamed hillbillies, rednecks, trailer trash, as though this hasn’t always been prep-school code for poor people. How, we asked, could they vote for someone so opposed to their own interests?

was the bit I was talking about in particular.

Where are, as you call them the "Real American Liberals" in the link please? Or in real life?

As another aside, I thought the writer made a very very good point about weather realted deaths in rural areas, and weather related deaths in cities, and how much media coverage each gets/got.

I still dont understand what the writer means by fake liberalism.

I would call the writer of the article a Real American Liberal. He is recognising the mistakes liberals, including perhaps himself, are making and recognising in addition to that the reasons why Trump got elected. And I think he is pondering, like many another person I imagine, what Real Liberals need to do to get back the support of those they've lost.

The quote you give, ankers, is the essence of the problem. People who voted for Trump are looked down on and spoken of as he says (rednecks, stupid, trailer trash, etc) and, as Hillary Clinton said, "deplorable". Hardly a vote winning strategy. But more than that, it's actually very sad that politicians and media commentators sneer at people in this way, and no bloody wonder someone like Trump, whom they don't see as sneering at them, got voted in instead.

The same sneering attitude exists here in the UK: the "people don't know what's good for them" attitude, and "they should take heed of the experts". That last always makes me laugh because experts' opinions and pronouncements disagree just as much as anyone else's.

Fake liberal to me means a concentration on the wrong things. I think the article spells it out quite well.

BTW, I'm not saying Trump doesn't sneer, only that millions of Americans don't seem to think he's as bad a sneerer as, say, Hillary Clinton and other supposed 'liberals' like her. Fake liberalism is a kind of snobbery, a looking down on people less well educated, less globalised, than oneself.

Trevor Phillips said much the same thing regarding liberals and the left in his programme 'Has politicle correctness gone too far'
He claims that the very people who advocate free speech are the ones who are shutting it down.

This is a different interpretation of the term to that used by European enlightenment and since. I think that it is an American interpretation and not something strictly used by academics in Europe including us.

As it is being used it is a very loose interpretation.

Liberal laissez faire economic theory has been espoused by the Conservatory party for the past 150 years. Liberal values flow from this theory.

I think it could be argued that to many very comfortably off or wealthy American people Trump represents what they see themselves as - the epitome of the American Dream - hardworking, independent and entrepreneurial. Trump has obviously cultivated that image.

Trump has in the same way appealed to those who are really struggling - presenting himself as a self-made and enormously successful business man (both of which are very debatable) who nevertheless has the interests of everyone at heart. To those people who are very low paid or unemployed and living in rural areas he has said it is immigration and globalization that are to blame for their hand-to-mouth existence.

Globalization certainly is a factor. But it could be argued that globalization in itself is not the cause of poverty. It results from the greed of multinational organisations which, in a sense, blackmail their workers into accepting low wages and poor/unsafe working conditions, to prevent their jobs being moved to an even lower wage economy.

At the same time as decrying globalization and exploitation of the poor, he on the other hand has taken advantage of both. He wishes to push forward on de-regulation, and particularly financial de-regulation - which has been identified as the main cause for the 2008 financial meltdown that hurt and continues to hurt the poorest more than anyone else.

It could therefore be argued, I think, that Trump himself has a variety of faces - one of which is most definitely "fake liberal".

Globalization certainly is a factor. But it could be argued that globalization in itself is not the cause of poverty. It results from the greed of multinational organisations which, in a sense, blackmail their workers into accepting low wages and poor/unsafe working conditions, to prevent their jobs being moved to an even lower wage economy.

But is that not the very essence of globilization?
Doesnt your second sentence agree that globilization is the cause of poverty?

Globalization is inevitable if you agree with the logic of capitalism and the profit motive.

Of course the consequences of globalization need not be inevitable, that very much depends on other factors.

The UK was at the forefront of globalisation. As a country, we have never had many natural resources. We have made our money from trade and having the skills to turn raw materials into products we could sell (as well as exploiting our colonies, but we won't go there for the purpose of this thread).

There is nothing inherently wrong with globalisation. It means, for example, that crops can be grown where conditions are favourable, that jobs can be done where there are skilled workers, that ideas can be shared, etc. Globalisation has undoubtedly increased wealth for countries and most individuals. It's one of the main reasons that, on average, people have a better quality of life than they did hundreds of years ago.

BUT

The profits from globalisation have been shared unevenly. Some people, such as the nineteenth century mill owners, became enormously wealthy, while others in the same country were still living in dire poverty.

Fast forward to the 21st century... As a country, the UK has on average a much higher standard of living than 200 years ago, but the profits from globalization are still distributed unevenly. Traditional industries have more or less disappeared, so there needs to be a massive rethink about how profits are distributed and post Brexit how we are even going to earn our money, but it's up to our government (and the people who vote them into power) to decide that. Globalisation in itself is a good thing.

PS. Just realised that I haven't written about the OP, but I've written enough for this post. I have some thoughts about the article, so I'll come back to them.

The profits from globalisation have been shared unevenly

But that always happens doesnt it? So "there is nothing inherently wrong with globilization" is false.

And "crops being grown where conditions are favourable" does naff all or worse for those farmers in the other countries.

^ jobs can be done where there are skilled workers^
Ditto as above.
But actually what happens often is that jobs are done where the workforce is cheapest.

So plenty of things inherently wrong with globilization.

The idea of globilixation cannot be split off from what people do with it. And will always do with it.
Fairtrade had to be introduced, and it is hardly a rip-roaring success in the great scheme of things.
Or even a success that it was needed in the first place.

Ankers Globalisation is a good thing, because it produces goods cheaply and keeps prices down for consumers. Countries become richer. The problem is that countries don't share the profits evenly.

Without globalisation, we would be restricted to locally grown, seasonal crops. It would be possible to grow more exotic crops, but at huge expense in terms of artificial systems. Globalisation has transformed the food we put on our plates and supports the world's population. Without it, people would starve, if (for example) they live in cities or crops fail. Read up about the Corn Laws in the 1830s. British farmers didn't like their abolition, because they couldn't sell their own crops at a huge profit, but it was much cheaper to grow crops, such as wheat, in America, so the poorest benefited from cheap bread.

Yes, work is done where the workforce is cheapest, but only if they have the skills. Robots have reduced the skills needed for jobs, so it's true that they can be done by fewer and less skilled people. Humans have to continue to adapt, which they have done for thousands of years. They cannot turn back the tide. Governments are responsible for strategic thinking and supporting chnage/adaptation.

Globalisation is inevitable, but humans have the power to make it work for them. Countries have become richer, but have not always cared about the people who have lost out - that's the problem! The current inequalities in America are a result of the.

That's rather a sweeping statement DD that 'globalisation is a good thing'

I'm not sure I'd agree.

Pros & Cons of Globilisation

Anya Off course there are disadvantages, particularly for particular groups of people. However, I still maintain that it's a good thing for the world as a whole. The problems arise as a result of the distribution of the benefits.

In any case, it's been an ongoing process for thousands of years, so is virtually inevitable. What we're witnessing now is a very fast pace of change and complicated structures, which few (if any) people understand. If people can't or won't adapt (for whatever reason), they will feel excluded.

Whitewave, re your posts at about 1030: yes. I think that all liberal means in this article, and possibly in general in the US, is not Republican. As I understand it, Republicans call themselves conservatives and Democrats call themselves liberals.

That's OK then DD after all it's only the poor and third world 'groups of people' who are disadvantaged so, providing all the global companies and the USA are wallowing in healthy profit margins and the 'world as a whole' is enjoying the benefits of their cheap labour it's a 'good thing'!

Does socialism stop at Dover perhaps?

It wouldnt be a matter of feeling excluded. They are excluded!
Countless millions of them.

The current inequalities in America are a result.
Hence in part, Trump. And UKIP etc.

All in all, globalization means less jobs. There are not enough of them as it is.
And money and power goes into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Very bad.

To my mind, and I could be wrong, liberals sound more elitist every year. Even if they dont have the actual money themselves. They still become cheerleaders for it all.

Yes bags I know what you mean. Our idea of liberal is very different, although of course we have the Liberal party which is different again of course, but as a rule we use liberal in a very different way. I think that republicans and democrats are if you can compare them at all the centre left and right of the Conservative Party or in the current lot, far right of the Conservative Party probably much nearer Ukip.