I think several of you missed my point about identity politics. When that wasn't the case was when the federal government did not operate massive social programs. We started this with Social Security in the 1930s. But that only benefited the elderly. Then we created medicare in the 1960s, also benefiting (mostly) the elderly. But since then we have expanded those social services and have increasingly targeted them (or at least justified them based on the impact) to specific groups.
That's what I mean by identity politics. Politicians have always pandered to groups of voters. But as the scope of what our government does increases, the degree to which voters are really influenced by such things increase. Promising a chicken in every pot doesn't have the same weight when the government doesn't actually have the power to hand out chickens. It means improving prosperity so that people will be able to obtain their own chickens to fill their own pots. But today, that literally means someone promising that if you vote for them, they'll give you pots with chickens in it (ok, not literally pots and chickens, but hopefully you get the difference). This change affects how people vote and how strongly they are affected by associations between those policies and the identity group they belong to.
That doesn't change the fact that politicians have always ran campaigns to appeal to people and speak on how much better they are in comparison to their opponent regardless if it's true or not. Both parties secretly hope that their opponent fails so they can come in and save the day with some specious politics. When their opponent is failing, they make wild accusations that their opponent WANTS the US to fail. That has never changed.
For example, we've made a whole list of different types of funding into black or latino issues because those groups are most likely to be in poorer neighborhoods needing such funding. But we ignore the problems which cause them to be overrepresented in poor neighborhoods in the first place.
Maybe because the US spent over 100 years trying to hold them back and now all of the sudden you are upset because the people that you oppressed for over 100 years are trying to catch up?
'Twas the rich white man who made them poor in the first place, so what is your plan to make things better? Republicans act as if their heritage weren't part of the problem. I'm not for "lowering the standard". Nor am I about blaming everything on slavery, immigration laws, pre-suffrage time, etc. but this idiotic belief that a few decades of "true freedom" is somehow supposed to level out the playing field is rubbish that conservatives have been ruminating as facts for some time now.
Yes. More specifically, in reference to morals and values which is the claim that Conservatives is being lost.
What do you suppose is behind the whole 98% bit when it comes to taxes? Obama is banking on the idea that a policy which appears to benefit 98% of the people while hurting 2% of them will be supported by a majority of the people. That approach can absolutely only work if over 50% of those in that 98% are looking at the surface level of the promise (higher taxes, but not on them), and not looking at the effect those taxes will have on them secondarily (like say when the 3% of small businesses affected by the tax increase who happen to employ 50% of small business employers start laying people off to cut costs). People have always failed to think things all the way through, I'm not saying that's the change. What has changed is that all one needs to do is to tell people that a given policy or party is best for their group and most people in that group will vote for them.
I'm willing to bet that MOST people do not feel as sorry as you want to believe for millionaires and billionaires being taxed more. That concept applies to all levels from minimum wage on up. When I worked at Mc Donalds, I got taxed $40 or so (iirc), but now I lose a grand easily monthly. I don't complain, because I'm making more money. That's how it works. If you don't want to be taxed more, then earn less. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Think about in terms of welfare. Do you believe that a person on welfare should be able to work and earn money also? NO! Why not? Because if you're able to work, then you shouldn't be on welfare. Well, the same concept applies on the opposite end. I know that you're not in watching links, as you avoided the last link that I provided you, but here is how I believe the US views taxing the rich. http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal
Think about why you just used the phrase "poor and middle class" in that sentence. I'll give you a hint: That's a phrase invented by liberal pundits just in the last couple years and repeated so often that you rattle it off without thinking about it now. Republicans have never attacked middle class people for being lazy and wanting handouts. Some poor people? Sure. But not the middle class.
Have you not been watching T.V. or Facebooking? Republicans may not have been single targeting the middle class, BUT
their comments were that the PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA were fat lazy bums looking for a handout. That, my friend, includes the middle class.
That's somewhat absurd if you stop and think about it
You're right. So, why do Conservatives keep saying it?
But if you can get enough people to repeat "poor and middle class" enough times, then people will associate the two together as one group. Then middle class voters, who've never been the targets of any negative things from Republicans, will start to believe that somehow when Republicans want to cut spending it hurts them. Because they're part of the new group "poor and middle class", and they've heard all sorts of people talking about how cutting that spending will hurt the "poor and middle class".
It's quite literally just word association. The scary thing is that it works. Especially when you have a friendly media, but that's a whole nother topic.
I see your angle, but the problem is the subjectivity of it all. In your mind, "middle class" can be "Very well off, living a realistic dream". To others, "middle class" is "Not poor, making ends meet". There's a huge spectrum of "middle class" and you can't assume that the "middle class" isn't financially effected as well.
And? What does that get you? What exactly do you expect to gain? What changes do you expect to occur? And how will those be "better"? Pretend that Obama and the Democrats are able to pass every single thing they want to pass over the next four years and then honestly ask how this really makes our lives and our country better. IMO the Democrats are absolutely terrific at convincing people that their polices are the best and getting people to vote for them. But they're absolutely terrible at actually making people's lives better. They're like the used cars salesmen of the political world. And as long as you only measure success by how many cars someone sells, you'll think they're doing a great job.
Some of us care about more than that though.
Remember that link of the 3rd debate that I presented to you? It was a compilation of Governor Romney contradicting himself just to win. I win four more years of not that...
Don't confuse me with your "average liberal". I'm a independent. I did NOT support President Obama and slightly considered Romney as a candidate in the primaries in 2008. In this last election, I wanted Romney to win at one point, just to see how much would change. But I was politically ignorant. When I educated myself, I realized that Romney just wanted to win and he was full of trash. I debated if I were going to be a hypocrite and vote for the lesser of two evils, but realized that the reason why I didn't support President Obama in 08 was a lack of experience. Now, in 2012, he has the experience and overall (not all), I support many of his ideas.
But, not to avoid your answer, a big change would be Obamacare.