The battle of the elite professors!

MONDAY, MAY 29, 2017

Williams, pleading with Krugman:
Professor Williams offered good sound advice in yesterday's New York Times. Her piece appeared beneath am eye-grabbing headline in the Sunday Review:

"The Dumb Politics of Elite Condescension"

Our liberal elites are engaged in dumb politics! That's what her headline said!

Given the long-standing rules of the game, are ranking professors like Williams allowed to say such things? Is she allowed to say such sensible things as this?
WILLIAMS (5/28/17): Two changes are required for Democrats to diminish the 39-point margin by which whites without college degrees voted for Mr. Trump over Hillary Clinton.

This first concerns social honor. Too often in otherwise polite society, elites (progressives emphatically included) unselfconsciously belittle working-class whites. We hear talk of “trailer trash” in “flyover states” afflicted by “plumber’s butt”—open class insults that pass for wit. This condescension affects political campaigns, as in Hillary Clinton’s comment about “deplorables” and Barack Obama’s about people who “cling to guns or religion.”

“My biggest boneheaded move,” Mr. Obama mused. He was right. Democrats should stop insulting people. The high cost of doing so is dramatized by “I’m deplorable” T-shirts and Inaugural DeploraBalls.

There’s no need to accept racism, sexism or homophobia from working-class whites or anyone else. Just live up to our progressive ideals by acknowledging social disadvantage more consistently. If class-based insults were as politically incorrect as racial or homophobic slurs, Rush Limbaugh’s rants against P.C. elites might hold less appeal. Mr. Limbaugh, like Mr. Trump, feeds off class resentment. Let’s stop making their jobs easier.
"Democrats should stop insulting people?" Is Williams allowed to say that? Is she allowed to say that class condescension helps explains how liberals and Democrats lose?

Just so you'll know, Professor Williams graduated from Yale; got a master's degree from MIT; then graduated from Harvard Law School. Today, she's a Distinguished Professor at Hastings College, the University of California's law school.

"Democrats should stop insulting people?" Progressive elites should stop "belittling working-class whites?" Given her pedigree, is Williams permitted to say that?

Apparently, she is! With compliments to the New York Times for putting her sound advice in print, we'll suggest that Professor Williams should wing her way east to speak with Professor Krugman.

On Friday, Krugman did it again, for perhaps the ten millionth time. For perhaps the twenty millionth time, he wrote a column accusing [white] West Virginians of being a gang of racists.

Krugman won't stop writing this column. Let's place this situation in context:

For several decades, Krugman has been the liberal world's most valuable player in the realm of policy discussion. In the realm of politics, he increasingly displays a tin ear and a "cold, cold heart."

(We're quoting a different Williams.)

Krugman can't seem to stop writing the column he wrote again on Friday. Remarkably, the column was flat unintelligent. In a different cultural realm, people might even drop a B-bomb or two on our MVP's head.

There he (and we) went again! For perhaps the thirty millionth time, Krugman explained why (white) West Virginians cast so many votes for Candidate Trump last year.

In this lengthy chunk of Krugman's column, you see the kind of generalization which we were taught, as freshmen in high school, that journalists should avoid:
KRUGMAN (5/26/17): [L]et’s talk about West Virginia, which went Trump by more than 40 percentage points, topped only by Wyoming. What did West Virginians think they were voting for?

They are, after all, residents of a poor state that benefits immensely from federal programs: 29 percent of the population is on Medicaid, almost 19 percent on food stamps. The expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare is the main reason the percentage of West Virginians without health insurance has halved since 2013.

Beyond that, more than 4 percent of the population, the highest share in the nation, receives Social Security disability payments, partly because of the legacy of unhealthy working conditions, partly because a high fraction of the population consists of people who suffer from chronic diseases, like diabetics—whom Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director, thinks we shouldn’t take care of because it’s their own fault for eating poorly.

And just to be clear, we’re talking about white people here: At 93 percent white, West Virginia is one of the most minority- and immigrant-free states in America.

So what did the state’s residents think they were voting for? Partly, presumably, they supported Trump because he promised—falsely, of course—that he could bring back the well-paying coal-mining jobs of yore.

But they also believed that he was a different kind of Republican. Maybe he would take benefits away from Those People, but he would protect the programs white working-class voters, in West Virginia and elsewhere, depend on.

What they got instead was the mother of all sucker punches.
We think that's very unwise. We also think it's the kind of thing Williams is talking about when she says, at the end of her column, that "Democrats need to...stop sleepwalking our way to the next electoral defeat."

For the record, hundreds of thousands of West Virginians voted for Candidate Trump last year—489,371 to be exact. As Professor Krugman is eager to note, the vast majority of those people were "white."

Professor Krugman can think of two reasons why all those people voted for Trump. He uses the world's most dangerous four-letter word, "they," as he generalizes about Them.

Partly, Krugman says that "they" got fooled by Trump's promises about coal. And certainly, some undetermined percentage of those voters were responding to Candidate Trump's improbable claims in that area.

Krugman also says that Those People are racists—and yes, that's basically what he's saying in the passage posted above Why did "they" vote for Trump in such numbers? These are the only two reasons he's able to imagine!

Over the course of the past few months, Krugman has rarely stopped offering some form of this "analysis." Not only does he offer sweeping claims about why these ofays voted the way they did. In several columns, he has complained about the way journalists have been asking voters like these to explain their votes for Trump.

As Professor Williams suggests, Democrats should be searching hard for the answer(s) to that question. Incredibly, Professor Krugman keeps complaining when the question get asked!

Professor Krugman's incessant conduct takes him remarkably close to the traditional lair of the bigot. He hasn't gone to West Virginia to ask people why they voted for Trump. Instead, he sits on his tuffet in "elite" "progressive" society and drops his bombs on the white working class, much as Williams describes.

Why did West Virginians vote for Trump? We can think of many possible reasons—and no, we don't think that Those People are all alike, as Krugman rather plainly does.

Why did ("white") West Virginians vote for Candidate Trump? We can think of such reasons as these:

Coal: Krugman has heard about this.

Guns: On the presidential level, West Virginia moved from blue to red in the 2000 election. That flip was widely attributed to guns. On the presidential level, West Virginia has gotten redder and redder from there.

Health care: We're going to guess that West Virginia voters had heard all kinds of things about Obamacare. Beyond that, we're going to guess that they'd had all kinds of experiences. (They'd also heard all kinds of stupid claims by Candidate Trump.)

Last December, Sarah Kliff actually went to Kentucky coal country to ask Obamacare recipients why they voted for Trump. On the ground, speaking to people, Kliff heard about, then described, some very sad states of affairs. In his seat on the Acela, Krugman speeds past such thoughts.

The relentlessly demonized Clinton: Hillary Clinton has been demonized, on a national basis, since 1992. Many people who voted for Trump were actually voting against the demon Clinton.

As of last November, West Virginia voters had heard 24 years of crazy claims about Clinton. Starting in 1992, people at Krugman's own newspaper played a persistent role in this demonization; liberal elites politely sat by and watched. Last July, the Maddow Show cheered James B. Comey on when he jumped into the fray, guest host Kornacki presiding. (Upon her return from vacation, Maddow didn't even mention Comey until the last week in October.)

Krugman rarely discusses this demonization when he's bashing the white working-class. Instead, he kicks down, lobbing his "elite liberal" bombs in much the way Williams describes.

Above, we noted the headline atop Professor Williams' column:

"The Dumb Politics of Elite Condescension"

Professor Krugman's column carried a striking headline too:

"It’s All About Trump’s Contempt"

Krugman's headline refers to the contempt Trump has shown for his own working-class supporters. Ironically, Krugman keeps displaying contempt for those "white" voters too. Contempt—and condescension!

Our question:

Could someone fly Williams to the east coast so she can stage an intervention? From his seat on the Acela, our long-standing most valuable player may be teaching us how to kick future elections away.

Let them come to Berlin: Last fall, while the campaign was still on, The New Yorker's Larissa McFarquhar got off her aspic and journeyed to deepest West Virginia.

She spoke to (some) Trump voters in great detail. For what it's worth, click here.


  1. "... Hastings College, the University of California's law school."

    Uh, no. The University of California Hastings College of the Law is one of five University of California law schools.

  2. Demonizing any chosen group is easy for liberals, because they make the rules. And they change the rules at will. Look how Comey immediately swung from hero to goat when he re-opened the Hillary investigation, then immediately back to hero again when Trump fired him.

    Today Muslims are liberal heroes, Those who criticize Muslims and Sharia Law are goats. To reach this position, liberals have to ignore the extreme misogyny and religious bigotry that are part of Sharia and part of Islam. OTOH when Romney was running for President, liberals attacked the Mormon religion for "magic underpants" and other unfamiliar features.

    I hope the Republicans some day run a Muslim candidate for President. It would be amusing to see liberals twist themselves into pretzels, complaining about the intolerant aspects of Islam.

    1. Go away you stupid troll.

    2. easy for liberals, because they make the rules.

      Are you ever going to stop whining and playing the fucking victim, you little chickenshit lying coward? poor poor Comrade DinC, having to live under liberal "rules" his whole fucking charmed life, living in luxurious retirement now.

      Everything you fucking wrote above is a LIE, Comrade.

      You know who "makes the rules" asshole. In my state of Virginia, in 2016, Democrats running for Congress won almost 54% of the total votes. And they were awarded just 4 out of the 11 Congressional seats. That's how you fuckers run the country. The tyranny of the minority. so fuck off you whiney little crybaby.

    3. This is about conservatives losing the culture wars. New ideas come out of universities and because of science, they are based on truth not tradition or superstition or religion or simple ignorance. Those new ideas take over because they represent an advance, an improvement in our way of life. But conservatives, by definition, resist change and they cannot accept that things are different now. So they blame the elites and professors and liberals for ruining their lives. Those kids with their damned music! Look what it has led to!

      Conservatives may have gerrymandered to maintain political power but they cannot force our cultural back into its old ways. That is their frustration. I would pity them if they weren't doing so much harm to our planet, our kids, and the less fortunate who have trouble competing in Ayn Rand's economic paradise.

    4. Tom O'ShanterMay 29, 2017 at 5:02 PM

      " ... the extreme misogyny and religious bigotry that are part of Sharia and part of Islam."

      Jeremy Christian would be proud of you.

    5. mm -- ironically that VA result was a result of rules made by liberals. Liberals wanted to get more blacks in Congress. They achieved that by gerrymandering solid black districts. Dems won these districts in a landslide, but Reps won more close elections in other districts

    6. Not surprisingly you're full of shit.

      Virginia Republicans drew an aggressive gerrymander shown below that comfortably secured them an eight-to-three majority of seats in 2012 and 2014, even though President Obama carried the state by 4 percent in 2012. A court later struck down the GOP map for unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, which led to a new map in 2016 that created an extra heavily black (and Democratic) 4th District. Still, major elements of the Republican gerrymander remained, and Team Red maintained a seven-to-four majority in 2016 even as Hillary Clinton won the state by 5 percent.

      You support a party that works night and day devising ever more clever and devious ways to suppress minority voting.

  3. Richard Hofstadter in "Anti-intellectualism in American Life" for which he won the Pulitzer prize in nonfiction, describes the longstanding hostility toward intellectual elites in our country. Somerby carries on that grand tradition.

    By linking intellectualism with liberalism, Republicans have successfully channeled that animosity against their political rivals. But the dislike of the educated and academics crosses both parties and has been a factor since our country's founding.

    By abetting it, Somerby attacks Democrats. There is no justification for his ongoing vendetta against professors, MSNBC cable stars with PhDs (arguably the smartest voice in cable news), and now Krugman too. Somerby misses no opportunity for quoting professorial silliness and blaming liberals for it, as if we owned academia. Conservatives love it when he does this.

    Clinton was referring to homophobes, racists and sexists -- bigots -- not low income people or West Virginians, not rank and file Trump voters. Trump's campaign broadened her clearly limited remarks to include the entire downtrodden white minority. Somerby knows better, but he quotes this wrong-headed stuff anyway. He pretends liberals like to mock the poor, especially white poor folks with Southern accents.

    I know white people who voted for Trump for exactly the reason Krugman cites. I've heard their rants about the freebies and handouts the undeserving black people get when they are too lazy to work hard, like they did. The fear of other people getting something for nothing is a real motiving force among conservatives. It is ugly, wrong, but it is also real. They do believe this stuff. (And I say "they" because I do not share their belief.)

    There is no virtue in being undereducated, too stupid to dissect propaganda, too naïve to see Trump for what he is. Somerby's attack on intellectuals is also an attack on the small group of voices trying to preserve the integrity of truth against a flood of misinformation. He attacks that segment at his peril (and ours).

    1. Very well said, Corby. Somerby might as well audition to be a Fox News commentator, all he does day in and out is trash liberals and Democrats. Out of some weird psychological thing, I think. It's batty and tiresome, he NEVER has a bad WORD to say about the Republican mafia and the Trump crime syndicate. No, he thinks it's his job to attack the likes of Paul Krugman, a man of esteem who is pretty much correct in everything he writes about the dire state of our nation. Somerby ought to go write for Breitbart at this point, his masochism -"we liberals, our tribe, are the worst people on earth!!"- is psychotic. Fuck you Bob, get help.

    2. There is no virtue in being undereducated, too stupid to dissect propaganda, too naïve to see Trump for what he is.

      And therein lies the problem with Somerby's analysis.

      There simply was no rational basis for these folks to support rTump. Anyone who watched trump for more than 2 minutes and couldn't figure out what a despicable flim flam man he is not really being honest about why they chose to vote for him.

      Bob speculates that GUNS was one reason. However, he fails to mention that these morons just witnessed 8 years of a Democrat in the WH and still the jackbooted gubmint didn't come to their homes to confiscate their precious arms, even while this county witnessed repeated horrendous mass killings.

      I would submit, if "GUNS" was really a factor, than it was an irrational reason.

      Somerby next suggests "HEALTH care" to be a reason. Really? Anyone who had watched the conman trump talk about health care for even 30 seconds should have understood that he had no fucking idea what he was talking about, and had no fucking shred of a plan.

      Let me say, now after witnessing the complete clusterfuck of the trump actual plan that doesn't remotely achieve his false promises, you would think they would finally wise up and abandon their unconditional support for the treasonous lying bastard. But no, that's not what we're seeing. As the NY Times reminds us daily, his support is holding fast and strong amongst these people.

      So again, I would submit, if HEALTH care was a reason, it was an irrational reason.

      It was Hillary Clinton who had studied the problem more than anyone ever and who was offering real proposals to actually address the problems with the ACA.

      I am sick of listening Trump voters explain their irrational reasons for supporting Trump. I think it is now a regular daily feature on CNN - the Trump voter segment, comes right after the weather reports.

      They're lying and irrational.

    3. It was the sweet, sweet sound of Trump's bigotry on the campaign trail which won him their undying support.
      All the other excuses you hear/ read are from a corporate media who don't want you to realize this truth.

  4. The downside to being afraid of using certain terms about white working-class voters is that it reinforces the stereotype of liberals as politically correct namby-pambys who are afraid of offending anybody.
    Bob Gardner
    Randolph, MA

  5. I have pushed this book here before, and I will do so again...

  6. As always, Bob makes some excellent points. But good god, could he use a different springboard than a half-sentence in a Krugman column -- a column which overwhelmingly was NOT about anyone's alleged racism but about the massive con Trump seems to have pulled on his supporters and the devastating consequences that would occur if his agenda gets enacted? It was an excellent column.

  7. Who is Joan C. Williams, aside from being a law professor? She is not a social scientist, not an economist, not even an anthropologist or historian. What does she know about the "white working class"? I would bet nothing beyond her own roots and political beliefs.

    She states confidently that the white working class is middle class, but then she differentiates them from the upper middle class who have different values. It is as though she wants to redefine working class as middle class, or as if she wishes to define the entire middle class as legitimately only the lower middle class.

    Here we see the same kind of hostility toward the upper middle class as is embodied in this essay:

    Who is hating on the upper middle class? In this case Libertarians and conservatives. I would bet Professor Williams inhabits that category too, despite being a professor (of Law) and thus running counter to stereotypes.

    Williams accuses liberals of being unaware that the white working class is working, is not poor. Williams ignores that they are one paycheck away from being poor. She ignores that they are also less educated (hence their lower middle class status despite working). Respecting the voters doesn't include buying into their tradition (except philly cheesesteaks), religion, superstitions or stupidities. Trump encourages the worst aspects of being a low information person in a high tech world. He lives there himself. He harms his voters because he has no interest in their well-being. Liberals tell hard truths and get blamed for being disrespectful. It is hard to change but those lower middle class voters will remain stuck and struggling as long as they resist the inevitable. It is too bad, but elite and educated liberals didn't make the world this way. They just figured out the rules a little sooner.

  8. I agree with those who have been asking, where are the interviews with all those disaffected and disappointed Hillary voters?

    Trump didn't pull off a surprise win against Hillary because he understand his voters. He had the help of Comey and Russia and voter suppression and Hillary still won by over 3 million votes. So we don't need to obsess over why Hillary didn't win. It is obvious. And we especially don't need to treat Trump voters as if they had some sort of electoral magic that liberals need to get them some.

    Somerby needs to get off his rant about how misunderstood those West Virginians are. We understand them just fine. So did Hillary. They aren't her base because of the way they are. Apparently neither is Somerby.

    He needs to stop pretending liberals are too stupid to win elections. He needs to focus instead on how we remove the traitor who colluded with the Russians to steal the presidency from the majority -- who are not residents of West Virginia.

  9. It's not belittling to point out factual matters, though it can be done in better ways and worse. Bob, would you reject the entire book "What's the Matter with Kansas"?

  10. "For perhaps the twenty millionth time, he wrote a column accusing [white] West Virginians of being a gang of racists. Krugman won't stop writing this column."

    This is a mischaracterization of "the column." "The column" was not about West Virginians being a gang of racists. One sentence implied this. But overall, "the column" was about Trump's massive dishonesty and the negative impact his agenda would have (if enacted) on the non-wealthy voters who voted for him.

    "Remarkably, the column was flat unintelligent." Read the entire column, and judge for yourself whether this is an honest assessment of it and whether you think Bob actually believes that the entire "column" was "flat unintelligent." It would be much more honest/accurate to say that that one sentence is flat unintelligent. The rest of it was packed with information and excellent points.

    "He hasn't gone to West Virginia to ask people why they voted for Trump." What a ridiculous line of reasoning is implied in this statement. Presumably, Bob hasn't gone to West Virginia either. Does that mean he's disqualified from saying anything about the topic at hand, as he does in the last third of his post?

    "Professor Krugman can think of two reasons why all those people voted for Trump.... Partly, Krugman says that 'they' got fooled by Trump's promises about coal.... Krugman also says that Those People are racists—and yes, that's basically what he's saying in the passage posted above. Why did 'they' vote for Trump in such numbers? These are the only two reasons he's able to imagine!"

    This isn't exactly accurate, in my reading of the relevant paragraph. The first reason Krugman gives as to why West Virginians voted for Trump is indeed coal. But the second reason is as follows: "But they also believed that he was a different kind of Republican. Maybe he would take benefits away from Those People, but he would protect the programs white working-class voters, in West Virginia and elsewhere, depend on."

    While Krugman does imply here that "they" are racist in a certain regard, he doesn't say this is the reason for their support of Trump. The reason is that their medicaid, social security, etc., would be protected by Trump.

  11. All Krugman was pointing out was that what Trump said to these voters was a crock. His question is "Why did they believe Trump?" And no, the answer isn't "Well, the media has beat up on Clinton for 25 years." There are other forces at work here, and they are not nice. My father was a factory worker and my mother a waitress, so I grew up with working class people. Much of the talk of the adults in the neighborhood was "When are "they" going to move in and take over.?"
    Also, I saw a report on PBS about an unemployed coal miner who said that all he ever wanted to do was be a coal miner. He is unmarried and has kids and is currently unemployed. So, many of the voters in West Virginia are delusional, and cannot blame their support for Trump on the alleged condescension of liberals.

  12. I like to masrurbate to Corby's posts.

  13. Men would rather subject the nation to Trump than share political power with a woman.

  14. Are we supposed to take it as ironic that Bob trots out Professor Williams impressive academic credentials as a mark in her FAVOR, when he spends half his time berating academia? I guess it's not, since he goes on to cackle about a position people "may not be allowed to have," a position that has been given vigorous exposure in the last six months and beyond, which Bob constantly links to and explores? Does Bob still think his constant repetition is validated by his lone-wolf-against-the-Gore-bashers thing that is not at all true in this case?
    Whatever. The above posters do a pretty good job pointing out the disconnect between what Professor Williams writes and what Krugman writes. Does Bob dispute that Trump is abusing the very people he lied into voting for him? It would appear, sadly, that he doesn't really care.
    Beyond that, Williams tired talking points are threadbare, it's an old troupe, poorly supported. Is "fly over states" really an insult, or a phrase noting the general neglect of those who live there? Can Williams site a major left pundit who would dream of writing about "trailer trash" in the insulting fashion right pundits ( "O"Reilly Gets a Pass!!") write about liberals in all the time? Does Williams present any concrete evidence that suggests freakish people like the fake Greg above become more reasonable or decent when they are argued with in reasoned and respectable fashion? Please.
    We don't need to help Rush Limbaugh and his billion dollar industry because he and his ilk have done quite fine, thank you, appealing to the scum on the bottom of the barrel of the human spirit. Those who follow are pretty oblivious to their treatment from our side. They have been convinced they are victims of our wars on Christmas and all things beyond. That is the evil and hypocrisy in the pass Bob doles out.
    Are left people some times insufferable? Absolutely. But Paul Krugman has spent years presenting facts and arguments, as well as invective against horror stories like Trump. He has only condescended to those who are offered by writers who have the temerity to be correct. This is why Bill O"Reilly, work place sex predator, once became enraged and shouted at him on the air. Bad manners and rudeness, conservative condescension, Bob Somerby gave A PASS.
    Bad conscience? You bet. That is what drives Bob Somerby at this point, not crocodile tears over working class America.

  15. Our liberal elites are engaged in dumb politics!

    Ivanka Trump HQ tweet this morning to the country:

    "Make champagne popsicles this #MemorialDay"

    Damn liberal elites.

  16. "Democrats should stop insulting people?" Is Williams allowed to say that? Is she allowed to say that class condescension helps explains how liberals and Democrats lose?"

    Why yes Bob. She is. And she was. By the New York Times. You know the New York Times, don't you Bob?
    They are the pinnacle of the "guild" you have told people for eighteeen years does not allow this.

    Which is why your readership is primarily a handful of trolls who scorn your work.

  17. Hey guys, I'm so excited of getting my husband back after he left me and our 3 kids for another woman. After 2 years of marriage, me and my husband has been into one quarrel or the other until he finally left me and moved to California to be with another woman. i felt my life was over and my kids thought they would never see their father again. i tried to be strong just for the kids but i could not control the pains that torments my heart, my heart was filled with sorrows and pains because i was really in love with my husband. Every day and night i think of him and always wish he would come back to me, I was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help get ex back fast. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a (Love spell) for me. 28 hours later, my husband really called me and told me that he miss me and the kids so much, So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and the kids. Then from that day,our Marriage was now stronger than how it were before,All thanks to Dr Unity. he is so powerful and i decided to share my story on the internet that Dr Unity real and powerful spell caster who i will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble, if you are here and you need your Ex back or your husband moved to another woman, do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster now. Here’s his contact: Email him at: ,
    you can also call him or add him on Whats-app: +2348071622464 ,
    his website: ,
    Jessica, 26 years, Texas, USA

  18. Well, I had a completely different inference to Trump's comment that WVA's are mostly white. I don't think his inclusion of their race was intended to call them racist. It appeared to me that it was intended to counter the inherent belief and underlying assertion that the benefactors of social programs are mostly African-American.

    1. Tom O'ShanterMay 30, 2017 at 11:31 AM

      Speaking of WVA [from Juan Cole}:

      "China and India have knocked the United States off the top spot of the index of best places to invest in renewables. Analysts cite the impact of Trump’s policies in favor of coal and petroleum.

      Meanwhile, as Trump talks up a return of coal in the US, global coal markets have been shaken to the core by the Indian government’s decision to cancel planned 14 gigawatts of coal plants. They took the decision because solar power has fallen in price so dramatically that the coal plants were no longer competitive."

      Those of us not fixated for months at a time on the GOP meme of liberal condescension toward the white working class remember that Hillary Clinton's plan to revitalize the coal/rust belt states involved redirection and development of renewable energy to boost the economy(read: jobs)in those areas.

  19. It seems to me that Professor Williams wants to extend the courtesies of identity politics to the white, working class. Yes, you white working class are no longer "privileged"; you are the newest oppressed minority group. And, therefore, we liberals must attend to the etiquette of language, as we do for other oppressed groups, defined by race, religion or gender.

    Williams' op-ed is remarkable for marrying identity politics's concern for linguistic etiquette to an economic agenda. Krugman, despite a faux Nobel in the subject, is notable for his shyness concerning an economic agenda for the Democrats.

    But, what economic cause does Williams take up? Training for the handicapped, that is, for high school graduates. Liberals love to praise education, training and skills -- the credentials of the liberal classes.

    She could take up a $15 minimum wage -- a policy Hillary Clinton conspicuously undermined -- or trade reform or -- here's an oldie but a goodie: laws prohibiting usury. (I wonder how that would go down with Goldman Sachs?)

    Williams' opinion piece is a step in the right direction, but it is still far from a new confession of faith for the party of the people.

  20. Trump explicitly stated he was against increasing the minimum wage.

    ***"We have to become competitive with the world. Our taxes are too high, our wages are too high. Everything is too high. We have to compete with other countries."

    The leading Republican presidential candidate raised eyebrows with his initial comment, which was in response to a question about raising the minimum wage.

    But Trump held his ground Wednesday despite "Morning Joe" host Mika Brzezinski telling him that "nobody can live" on the federal minimum wage of $7.50 an hour.

    "We have got to do something to compete with the rest of the world," Trump said. "Our country is not competitive anymore. That's why we're losing all of the manufacturers. Now, it's currency manipulation and all of those things that I talked about last night."

    That must be why the WWC supported him so strongly.

    Nice cheap shot on Hillary Clinton also.

  21. Whites with college degrees also voted for Trump over Clinton.

    1. yes, but that is not why trump won.

      College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980. For example, in 2012, there was hardly any difference between the two groups: College graduates backed Obama over Romney by 50%-48%, and those without a college degree also supported Obama 51%-47%.

  22. Once again Bob Somerby reads what he wants to into a column in order to further a meme he wants to run into the ground. In doing so he both distorts the columnist's intent and true topic.

    Mr. Somerby uses a dangerous two letter word way too often, "we."

    Bob Somerby would rather jump off the Golden Gate bridge than mention that Donald Trump policies will devastate the people who voted for him.


    i sincerely want to thank a great spell caster called Dr joy for helping me to bring back my husband to me and my kids. after many years of marriage, my husband left me and my kid, and ran away with his new girlfriend to san francisco to start up their life without thinking about me and my son.I felt like my life was about to end, and was falling apart.after years of our separation i could not take it anymore so i decided to visit a friend who also encounter similar issue but she is living happily with her man now , to seek advice from her on how she get her ex husband back again.when i get there i explain everything to her and she told me not to worry that she will link me up with the spell caster who cast a spell on her husband that make him to come back to her. i pick her advice and i strongly hold onto it.then I contacted fortune spell caster ( OR and after I explained my problem,he told me not to worry that i have no problem in getting my husband back again.he gave me 2 days assurance that my husband will come looking for me that when he come i should accept him back. i told him that i will whole heatedly welcome him back. In just 3 days my husband came back to us and apologize for all the pain he have bring to the family. We solved our issues, and we are even happy more than ever before. fortune spell caster is the best spell caster to solve any kind of problem and sickness you have.. I really appreciate the love spell you cast for me to get the man back to my life i will keep sharing more testimonies to people about your good work. if you want your ex back and you don,t know what to do kindly email for your ex to come back whats app him :+2348100452479.