Fake populists like Elise Stefanik (Harvard ’06) and Josh Hawley (Yale ’06) attack higher ed to protect corporations and the rich
More than a third of Harvard’s graduating seniors are heading into finance or management consulting – two professions notable for how quickly their practitioners “make a bag”, or make money, reports the New York Times*.*
Similar percentages show up in other prestigious universities.
…
In this era of raging income inequality and billionaire robber barons, the bags are gigantic. At Goldman Sachs they start at $105,000 to $164,000. At McKinsey, $100,000 to $140,000.
And that’s just the first year.
…
America’s corporate and financial elites have flooded American politics with money in order to receive government subsidies, bailouts, tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks – all of which ratchet up their wealth, entrench their power and make it harder for average working people to advance.
Trump and much of his Republican party are deploying criticisms of the educated class to pose as populists on the side of the people.
Consider Elise Stefanik, Harvard class of ’06 and chair of the House Republican Conference, who doesn’t miss an opportunity to attack elite universities and their presidents. Or Senator Josh Hawley, Stanford class of ’02 and Yale Law ’06, who calls the recent student demonstrations signs of “moral rot”.
It’s all a thinly veiled cover for their efforts to help the wealthy make even bigger bags while keeping everyone else – especially average workers – down.
David Brooks is the perfect example of the ‘moderate’ Republicans who gave us Donald Trump.
If people like him cared one whit about the country they would have abandoned the party the day Trump said that he “liked soldiers who didn’t get captured.”
Lots of folks have been yelling this since the dawn of the new populist movement era. Sowing and inflaming interclass division is the best way to keep the people from uniting to take down the ultra rich and their corporations.
Look how much more effort went into it after 2008. That shit show woke up a lot of people to just how fucked up the financial system is, especially after seeing almost no one face any sort of real justice. I’d say the rise of the “tea party” (who eventually transformed into MAGA) came about right around that crisis. A black person being elected also certainly played a part, especially when that black person started trying to lay the groundwork for universal healthcare (the original Affordable Healthcare plan was far better than the extremely neutered, butchered version that eventually got passed).
Sorry, bit of a tangent. I just get so angry about the extreme polarization, because it’s so damn effective at dividing us against the true enemies of the people.
The only way to address this, short of a revolution, is by voting blue no matter who. I know plenty of people are unhappy comparing current Democrats to their ideals, myself included.
However, with enough sustained Democratic control of Congress and President, the candidates would be forced to move further left in order to capture more of the vote. We’d also experience less backsliding from every flip to Republican control due to low Democratic voter turnout.
However, with enough sustained Democratic control of Congress and President, the candidates would be forced to move further left
I keep seeing people say this and I never see it happen. Unless you count Fetterman pretending to be a progressive for the election.
That’s because it’s exceedingly rare for Democrats. Republicans had two terms of Reagan followed by H.W. Bush not long ago.
The last Democrat elected to succeed a Democratic president was Lyndon B. Johnson, who succeeded John F. Kennedy in 1963 following Kennedy’s assassination. Johnson was then elected in his own right in 1964.
You’d have to go back even further in history to find the most recent instance of a Democrat being elected to succeed a two-term president from the same party. The last time that happened was in 1836 when voters elected Martin Van Buren to follow Andrew Jackson.
https://www.thoughtco.com/two-consecutive-democratic-presidents-3368109
There’s a reason it’s one of the main strategies in this book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
Which heavily influnce(d|s) Russia’s use of social media to attempt to destabilize the US both socially and politically
Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States and Canada to fuel instability and separatism against neoliberal globalist Western hegemony, such as, for instance, provoke “Afro-American racists” to create severe backlash against the rotten political state of affairs in the current present-day system of the United States and Canada.
Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social, and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S.
It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".
Nononono The problem is definitely woke elitists, emigrants, LGBTQ, colored people, Jews, poor people, foreigners, and of course liberals. They are not heartland America.
The good guys are money grabbing corrupt criminals and criminal politicians, Christian fanatics, Totalitarians, Nazis and Russians.
Because how isn’t that obvious??? At least that seems true to about half of America!!!
MAGA
/s
This is the best summary I could come up with:
One of the least-discussed but most profound consequences of America’s surging inequality is the number of talented young people now devoting themselves to making bags.
Brooks thinks the gen Z cohort at prestigious universities is so tormented by the cognitive dissonance between their positions of privilege and their commitments to social justice that they must “prove to themselves and others” that they’re “on the side of the oppressed”.
It doesn’t seem to have dawned on Brooks that, at least since the start of Donald Trump’s presidency in January 2017, the meaning of “progressive” has shifted from someone who wants a more just society to someone who simply wants to preserve democracy.
America’s corporate and financial elites have flooded American politics with money in order to receive government subsidies, bailouts, tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks – all of which ratchet up their wealth, entrench their power and make it harder for average working people to advance.
Consider Elise Stefanik, Harvard class of ’06 and chair of the House Republican Conference, who doesn’t miss an opportunity to attack elite universities and their presidents.
Or Senator Josh Hawley, Stanford class of ’02 and Yale Law ’06, who calls the recent student demonstrations signs of “moral rot”.
The original article contains 911 words, the summary contains 203 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
