> On Jun 1, 2018, at 11:36 PM, J.B. Nicholson <jbn+lbo-talk at forestfield.org> wrote:
> Marv Gandall wrote:
>> As this commentary observes, Roseanne was a media vehicle for softening the image of the most backward stratum of the multi-hued US working class.
>> The show's idealized portrait of Trump's white racist supporters has been more widely promoted by hopeful leftists and liberals refusing to accept that they are for the most part politically irredeemable.
> I'm not convinced it's fair or likely to provoke change to describe Trump supporters as that article does. Even xenophobic racists deserve Medicare for All, potable water piped into their lead paint-free home, a national jobs program funded in part by reallocating trillions from warmaking toward programs of public benefit, and more. They don’t deserve the economic military draft either.
AFAIK, it’s never been disputed that a left-wing government would ensure these benefits accrued to all workers, regardless of their political opinions.
> https://www.thenation.com/article/new-study-communities-most-affected-by-war-turned-to-trump-in-2016/ references a critical study which says if three states -- Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin -- "had suffered even a modestly lower casualty rate, all three could have flipped from red to blue and sent Hillary Clinton to the White House" (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2989040). This explanation doesn't rely on namecalling or suggesting that people deserve any less because someone disagrees with their politics. War is clearly hugely significant and the Democrats are just as cravenly pro-war as the Republicans.