@HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead Oh my goodness. Economic interests -absolutely- tie into this. You need to think about 1) that there are different factions involved & 2) people see economic interest more broadly than just govt spending. On the first point, evangelicals have been part of the Republican base B1/X

@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead since the party became identical with movement conservatism, but movement conservatism only became significant as an ideology because of coalition building. Movement conservatism brought together the hawks, laissez faire economics, and cultural conservatives. B2/X
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead Evangelicals have always been the best organized element of the cultural conservative faction. Trump's coalition is a new one and it includes cultural conservatives, but that is the only element that is unchanged - and really even it is somewhat different.
B3/X
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead A minor difference is accepting Obergefell (which has made it possible for openly gay people to be highly visible members of the new coalition), but the main difference is that social conservatives no longer make a priority of the politician as an individual
B4/X
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead as opposed to focusing on politicians merely as conduits through which government is affected. The foreign policy contingent changed completely. The hawks are just gone from Trump's coalition. Instead there's a deep skepticism of interventionism, but without the desire B5/x
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead to cut defense spending that usually goes with that skepticism because o a belief in military strengths' deterrent effect. Finally, the 3rd faction of the Trump coalition isn't the doctrinaire small govt free marketeers from movement conservatism. It's a different group
B6/x
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead which doesn't see the success of the economy in terms of GDP growth but in terms of employment. Govt intervention in the economy isn't seen as a bad thing and neither is higher spending/deficits. .That's an explicit rejection of the 2012 GOP's endorsement of the Ryan budget B7/X
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead and cutting Medicare & Soc. Security. It's also why many in the Trump camp wanted $2k COVID checks when establishment Republicans opposed it. The fullest realization of the values of the econ segment of the Trump coalition would be for America to adopt an industrial policy.
B8/X
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead That is a profound departure from the economic views advocated by the modern Republican party and it accounts for people with below avg income/wealth who see Trump as forwarding their economic interests. This relates in an indirect way to Democrats' B9/x
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead embrace of (what I think you mean by) "PC stuff" and rural white voters in terms of demographics. Large cities are growing; they attract people with college degrees and are racially diverse. This is the same population that endorses intersectionality (ie, PC culture). B10/X
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead There are some rare exceptions, but on the whole, these people in the large cities aren't concerned about their communities withering away, but those Trump people are worried about that. The city cohort expect the local economies to maintain an upward trajectory B11/x
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead and for those who don't share in the benefits from that they have a cultural perspective which believes that the problem can be solved via finanvial aid & expansion of entitlements. The rural cohort sees maintaining the status quo for their local economies as intolerable.
B12/X
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead Lower prices for consumers when production goes overseas is a huge issue for them in a way that isn't the case for the city cohort. Plus, the support for Trump doesn't just trend rural and white, but male. Not only is this the group most hostile to intersectionality B13/x
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead but another cultural difference is that this is a group which will reject the liberal perspective on how to solve the problem of people left behind when others reap the rewards of economic growth. Whether it's reasonable or not, they would see adopting that approach B14/X
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead as compelling them to abandon a sense of self worth. They don't have such a sense of loss from an economic approach which produces jobs by granting various benefits to corporations and manipulating trade in ways that increase consumer prices.
B15/15
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead PS: Support of $2k aid seems incompat w/ what I said about culture & taking money from govt, but this demo sees COVID policies throttling economy as unnecessarily aggressive & akin to being robbed of income they'd otherwise earn (also explains hostility to public health orders).
@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead @threadreaderapp unroll

More from Economy

Long rant: This @WSJ article bemoaning the decline of price theory is really worth highlighting. The economic theories and so called "laws of economics" that the WSJ consistently and religiously defends, are the source of their authority, power and privilege.


So called economic "theories" like "you get paid exactly what you are worth" and "markets are perfectly efficient" and "when wages rise, jobs fall" and "raising taxes on the rich kills jobs and growth" and "increasing justice decreases economic efficiency" and...

"Government intervention in markets always creates more harm than good" and "any regulation that constrains corporations kills growth and productivity", etc etc are effectively a protection racket for the rich. It is a set of internally consistent and mathematized conjectures...

That are all demonstrably nonsense. But getting people to accept these "theories" as laws of nature and immutable, timeless truths is the most effective way our current economic elites have found to maintain and enhance the status of the powerful and persuade the weak and poor...

to shut the fuck up and accept their lot in life. Now, FINALLY, some economists- are actually beginning to look at the real world evidence to determine whether these propositions actually describe anything real here on planet earth. Let me save you some time. The answer is NO.

You May Also Like

“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.

Always. No, your company is not an exception.

A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.

Listen to Aditya


And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.

I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.

You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.

Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]