ext_306469 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2014-04-18 12:26 pm
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2014-04-18 12:26 pm
Entry tags:
The "Grievance Industry"
Many years ago, just after the end of Reagan’s first term, I was listening to a local Talk Radio host, Ronn Owens, doing a sort of “summing up” of the Reagan administration so far. He brought up Reagan’s question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” and he said, “I gotta tell ya. Yes, I am. And everyone I know is better off too.”
Ronn invited his mostly white, middle-class listeners to weigh in. One after another they lined up to chirp about how well they were doing in Reagan’s America.
Then, he got a black caller, who informed the host, “I’m not better off. I’m not better off at all. In fact, things have gotten worse. And I don’t know one single black American who’s not doing worse.”
“Oh now sir,” Ronn said, with the air of someone calming down a hysteric. “don’t you feel you’re being a little myopic?”
I guess the farsighted, non-myopic approach would have been for the caller and all those other black Americans to think happy thoughts about how well Ronn Owens and the other white folks were doing, rather than focusing on their own petty concerns.
There has long been in the United States mainstream the unspoken assumption that a poor, female, gay, non-Christian or non-white person voting in his or her own interest is a form of whining rather than common sense, even though the stakes for these voters tend to be higher than the concerns of wealthy folks who don’t want to pay those extra taxes that could price them out of that second house in the Hamptons. The rule of thumb is, apparently – if you have a real grievance influencing your vote, like “I could lose my healthcare if the Republicans have their way” or “I could end up unable to afford birth control or unable to get access to an abortion” or “As a black American, I don’t want a guy who’s taking advice from Charles Murray deciding policy that’s going to affect my kids” or “My family could go hungry” or “I could end up in jail for having consensual sex with another adult” or “this guy wants to pass legislation that would endanger my right to vote” you are part of the “Grievance Industry.” And that’s a bad thing.
This attitude has recently been kicked into overdrive by the passing of ACA. The right wing is now in full panic mode over the horrifying discovery that people like being able to afford healthcare and are not going to like having that access taken away. Worse, these same people will actually vote in favor of their own physical and civic well-being. The right seems to think this is awfully unfair, and they believe it’s even more unfair for Democratic politicians to point out to these voters how much is at stake.
Joan Walsh at Salon puts it beautifully:
So let me make sure I understand. Telling your voters, accurately, that Republicans are trying to make it harder for them to vote, and are blocking action on pay equity, the minimum wage and immigration reform is unfair “grievance politics”? Likewise, any effort to deal with the scandal of $1 trillion in student loan debt? Oliphant compares it to the grievance politics practiced by Republicans under Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But that form of grievance politics mainly relied on inflaming white voters’ fears of cultural and racial change with false or highly exaggerated claims about Democrats. (emphasis added.)
The difference between accusations that are accurate and accusations that are highly exaggerated or quite simply untrue is apparently unimportant, as far as some in the media are concerned.
I mean really, it’s all about whether or not they make people get all emotional. All that arm-waving and emoting about “I want to cast a ballot” or “I want my heart medication” or “I don’t want to end up homeless after my unemployment benefits run out” is JUST like those Republicans who said that black people were going to take over and John Kerry didn’t deserve his medals and gay people were going to kidnap your little boy and marry him. So vulgar!
Why can’t people directly affected by these policies stop horning into conversations that should really be conducted as abstract conundrums over cocktails at a DC reception?
*
Ronn invited his mostly white, middle-class listeners to weigh in. One after another they lined up to chirp about how well they were doing in Reagan’s America.
Then, he got a black caller, who informed the host, “I’m not better off. I’m not better off at all. In fact, things have gotten worse. And I don’t know one single black American who’s not doing worse.”
“Oh now sir,” Ronn said, with the air of someone calming down a hysteric. “don’t you feel you’re being a little myopic?”
I guess the farsighted, non-myopic approach would have been for the caller and all those other black Americans to think happy thoughts about how well Ronn Owens and the other white folks were doing, rather than focusing on their own petty concerns.
There has long been in the United States mainstream the unspoken assumption that a poor, female, gay, non-Christian or non-white person voting in his or her own interest is a form of whining rather than common sense, even though the stakes for these voters tend to be higher than the concerns of wealthy folks who don’t want to pay those extra taxes that could price them out of that second house in the Hamptons. The rule of thumb is, apparently – if you have a real grievance influencing your vote, like “I could lose my healthcare if the Republicans have their way” or “I could end up unable to afford birth control or unable to get access to an abortion” or “As a black American, I don’t want a guy who’s taking advice from Charles Murray deciding policy that’s going to affect my kids” or “My family could go hungry” or “I could end up in jail for having consensual sex with another adult” or “this guy wants to pass legislation that would endanger my right to vote” you are part of the “Grievance Industry.” And that’s a bad thing.
This attitude has recently been kicked into overdrive by the passing of ACA. The right wing is now in full panic mode over the horrifying discovery that people like being able to afford healthcare and are not going to like having that access taken away. Worse, these same people will actually vote in favor of their own physical and civic well-being. The right seems to think this is awfully unfair, and they believe it’s even more unfair for Democratic politicians to point out to these voters how much is at stake.
Joan Walsh at Salon puts it beautifully:
So let me make sure I understand. Telling your voters, accurately, that Republicans are trying to make it harder for them to vote, and are blocking action on pay equity, the minimum wage and immigration reform is unfair “grievance politics”? Likewise, any effort to deal with the scandal of $1 trillion in student loan debt? Oliphant compares it to the grievance politics practiced by Republicans under Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But that form of grievance politics mainly relied on inflaming white voters’ fears of cultural and racial change with false or highly exaggerated claims about Democrats. (emphasis added.)
The difference between accusations that are accurate and accusations that are highly exaggerated or quite simply untrue is apparently unimportant, as far as some in the media are concerned.
I mean really, it’s all about whether or not they make people get all emotional. All that arm-waving and emoting about “I want to cast a ballot” or “I want my heart medication” or “I don’t want to end up homeless after my unemployment benefits run out” is JUST like those Republicans who said that black people were going to take over and John Kerry didn’t deserve his medals and gay people were going to kidnap your little boy and marry him. So vulgar!
Why can’t people directly affected by these policies stop horning into conversations that should really be conducted as abstract conundrums over cocktails at a DC reception?
*
no subject
I just explained why doing so is mathematically fallacious and misleading but apparently expecting numerical literacy and the ability to parse basic logic from the general population is a bridge too far.
no subject
I'm unstung.
It's in the damn legend of the graph, and in the wiki article it links to
No it's not; and your link goes to the President's website. And some oblique reference to a Wikipedia "Gender pay gap" is pretty much a zero (and for what its worth, that section of the "gender pay gap" also clearly states there is an unexplained pay gap for women and some studies have shown discrimination could be a factor and in fact comparing apples to apples found examples of wage differences due to discrimination, but nothing mentioned about crab fisherman and barristas.
no subject
If I had been trying to burn you I would have done so in the form of a silly .gif, preferably one with sparkles.
That said you do read english, don't you?
"US women's weekly earnings as a percentage of men's"
In a world where all trades paid the same, or the genders were equally distributed between trades, "women's weekly earnings as a percentage of men" might come close meaning something. But we don't live in that world so it doesn't.
Barristas and crab fishermen were simply one example out of many. I could have just as easily used school-teachers and auto mechanics, or any other 2 occupations with a lop-sided gender distribution to illustrate the same point.
Namely that Apples != Oranges.
ETA:
Using paft's own source cited here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1851460.html?thread=146066500#t146066500), the average gap, once you start comparing apples to apples is actually less than 5%.
Maybe the president should get his own house in order (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/04/09/how-the-white-house-and-democrats-stepped-on-their-own-equal-pay-message/) before he starts telling others how they should run theirs.
no subject
As if that's the only way you could do it. SO limiting!
That said you do read english [sic], don't you?
Case in point, But to answer your query: Why sure I do! Every day, I speak, read, sing, recite poetry and reenact episodes of Games of Thrones--all of it in English.
Barristas and crab fishermen were simply one example out of many. I could have just as easily used school-teachers and auto mechanics, or any other 2 occupations with a lop-sided gender distribution to illustrate the same point.
You didn't illustrate the point though did you? Particularly in your original comment since you made no explanation and just posted a graph, with absolutely no explanation or context or anything else. So naturally you're going to be asked some follow-ups.
Using paft's own source cited here, the average gap, once you start comparing apples to apples is actually less than 5%.
No, Paft's source says a lot more you've deliberately left out. But let's take your comment at face value. 95 percent is NOT 100 percent. The graph (nor does your "linked" article suggest this). And guess what, your own Wikipedia "linked" article (you never provided a link) in the section mentions an overall 7 percent wage difference, with up to 16 percent between CFO/CEOS (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/31/cmi-equal-pay-report)(and you can't get more apples-to-apples than that).