mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (03/13/84)
Pat Cadell, the Democratic pollster, recently expressed his anger at the inability of the Democratic Party to come up with a real articulation of the anger felt by many in this country at Reagan. Walter F. Mondale is a likeable enough guy, and he is probably sincere in his beliefs, but he lacks fervor. Hart sounds like a commercial for Pepsi or something: "It's the Hart Generation, Comin' at ya, Goin' strong!" Cadell suggested that the reason is that the big powers in the Democratic Party seldom talk to anyone making less than $50,000. Sure, they know on an intellectual level what Reagan has done. They know that the poverty rate has risen, that hundreds of thousands of people have lost food stamps, AFDC, unemployment insurance. But no one they know directly, or speak to regularly, has really felt the brunt of the Reagan attack. It's good to discuss the Reagan pillage over white wine and cheese -- I suggest you do -- but it doesn't exactly give one fervor. I think the net suffers from the same trouble. We all take home our $30,000 and up salaries, live in the suburbs, work in a growing industry where unemployment is practically unknown. It's perhaps natural that this colors our view of the world. Unconsciously, perhaps, we assume in a thousand little ways that everyone has it so good. That anyone could really be where we are if they just tried hard enough. That somehow the victim is to blame. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
jj@rabbit.UUCP (03/13/84)
> "...what Reagan has done..."
A fine example of a stilted world view, Mike.
Some of us come from that "the unfortunates" and we KNOW,
now that we're out of that group, why the group perpetuates
itself.
A healthy economy, with LESS redistribution of wealth, and
an INFORMED populace, would be even better than what we have
now, yes. Going back to what nearly ruined the US economy
five years ago is not what's needed.
The wonder of the Democratic way is that people don't realize
that they're only better off for a little while when the
Democrats give them free money, and that then everything
gets worse, and causes even more poverty and starvation.
There is obviously a LOT of starvation, hardship, etc, especially
in the cities. Let's not forget WHEN the cities died.
--
TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--
HUG YOUR OWN TODAY !
(allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jjken@ihuxq.UUCP (03/14/84)
-- >>> > "...what Reagan has done..." >>> A fine example of a stilted world view, Mike. >>> Some of us come from that "the unfortunates" and we KNOW, >>> now that we're out of that group, why the group perpetuates >>> itself. Oh? Please enlighten us jj. >>> A healthy economy, with LESS redistribution of wealth, and >>> an INFORMED populace, would be even better than what we have >>> now, yes. Going back to what nearly ruined the US economy >>> five years ago is not what's needed. >>> The wonder of the Democratic way is that people don't realize >>> that they're only better off for a little while when the >>> Democrats give them free money, and that then everything >>> gets worse, and causes even more poverty and starvation. Ignoring for the moment that the Dems and Reps differ only in degree, and not much at that, what do you think those poor people do with the money? They don't eat it. Large segments of our economy depend on an unending source of illiterates who will buy articles of the flimsiest quality at ridiculous prices because of some snappy advertisements. You may have grown up poor, jj, but you got the tools to advance yourself. You take them for granted now, of course. We all do. We know how to think. Using this ability, we can see the follies of both political parties. Don't set up the Democrats as the enemy (repugnant though they are). Everybody's spending money like it's going out of style. Some give it to the indigent; others give it to the generals. Personally, I think the indigent show more imagination. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 13 Mar 84 [23 Ventose An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
david@randvax.ARPA (David Shlapak) (03/15/84)
----------
Quoting Mike Kelly:
>I think the net suffers from the same trouble. We all take home our
>$30,000 and up salaries, live in the suburbs, work in a growing industry
>where unemployment is practically unknown. It's perhaps natural that
>this colors our view of theworld. Unconsciously, perhaps, we assume in
>a thousand little ways that everyone has it so good. That anyone could
>really be where we are if they just tried hard enough. That somehow the
>victim is to blame.
In the words of the prophet, "Speak for your own damn self."
Let's see now...salary, DEFINITELY well below $30k...yup, just checked my
pay stub...home, West LA (almost suburban, especially compared to my
former dwelling in Little Saigon, downtown LA)...unemployment an
"unknown"...well, for the past year and a half, yeah...before that I
had been unemployed for the better part of a year (thanks to Mr. Carter?
Or was it Mr. Reagan?? Any votes for Rutherford Hayes??)...before that
I HAD been lucky enough to work for 15 consecutive months...wow...
And, since my father was forced to retire before being laid off from
his job fixing railroad cars and half of my friends from high school
(only 10% of my class went to college, any college, even J.C.) haven't
worked since 1980, I naturally "assume in a thousand little ways that
everyone has it so good." Sure...and I'm deaf and dumb, and never read
the papers or "Newsweek," or watch TV (except of course the sitcoms
about other smug bourgeois bastards like me)...
Yup, Mike, it's too bad that like most broad, unsubstantiated generaliza-
tions, yours doesn't really make the grade when it comes right down to...
what's that abstract obsolete concept again?...oh, yeah, "reality"...
I'm not real happy when you imply that I should feel guilty about
what I've achieved through my own efforts. And, yes, I DO believe that
most people are victims of their own laziness/stupidity/carelessness/
what have you, but that DOESN'T mean I lack sympathy for them...
It's important to help one another, indeed it's a moral imperative to
some extent, but that must not preclude one from making judgments about
the errors of others (if only for self-educational purposes). If
you lose your job because your union nearly bankrupted your employer
by making incredible wage/benefit demands not justified or financed
by any real increase in productivity, I think that (despite my obvious
reactionary attitudes towards economics and outdated notions about
personal responsibility) I'd still probably try to help you buy food
for yourself and your family...I will also suggest that it might help YOU
to think damn hard about why you're in the fix you are and hope earnestly
that you learn something from it.
I agree that one's socio-economic status can contribute to one's
perspective, but it is not necessarily the sole factor, nor need
it even be the driving wheel...to state that the positions adopted by
various folks on this net are primarily the result of a "We got ours,
mate" attitude is ridiculous. Believe it or not, people can disagree
with you for valid intellectual reasons based upon introspection and
cogitation. To say, or even imply, that one's beliefs are somehow
less valid because of his salary (or address, or shoe size) is
the same as suggesting that his opinions are meaningless because he's
black/Polish/female/fill-in-the-blank.
In other words, give me a break....
"Life's a bitch.....
.....and then ya die..."
--- dasbitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/15/84)
[Mike Kelly, suggesting that he feels a bit insulated from the hardships of life, writes:] >I think the net suffers from the same trouble. We all take home our $30,000 >and up salaries, live in the suburbs, work in a growing industry where unemployment >is practically unknown. These statements are false, Mike. Whether or not most users of the net fall into your classification, I don't know, but they certainly don't apply to all of us. In fact, some of us in the "getting by on less than $8000/year [I think that was the statement] " catagory support Reagan over any of the Democratic contenders. You might examine some of your assumptions about "the real world" as well as your assumptions concerning net users. Sounds like a nice life. Sam Hall
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (03/15/84)
-- >>> In fact, some of us in the "getting by >>> on less than $8000/year [I think that was the statement] " catagory >>> support Reagan over any of the Democratic contenders. >>> Sam Hall Why? Surely not for the $1.50 you saved from the tax cut. And surely not because he happened to be in office when the economy started back up. His advisors' foreign policies, perhaps? Or are the Dems merely worse? Just curious, & certainly no Dem-symp. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 15 Mar 84 [25 Ventose An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***