Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
Words matter.
You aren't writing an academic paper. Always use simple direct language.
Don't use complex words.
Reminds me of how many people were really against Obamacare, but loved the Affordable Care Act.
Reagan's smear campaign on welfare is still paying dividends
Why US americans are against welfare ? In europe most nations are pro welfare and pay appropriate taxes. Why are US americans against helping each other ?
Why are US americans against helping each other ?
For many people "freedom" only occurs when you don't (think you) depend on others.
And, maybe it's just a me issue, but I think a lot of Americans dislike receiving help because in their experience it always costs, and often costs more when the person giving it make it seem free.
But, mostly it's Capitalist / Protestant propaganda that anyone that receives assistance is a moral failure due to the "sin" of laziness.
Why are US americans against helping each other?
There is no simple answer to your question. Generally speaking, the US ethic is largely built on a foundation of rogue settlers who were encouraged to take what they wanted by force and duplicity. Whether it was the attempted (and ongoing) ethnic cleansing of the tribes, or total destruction of the environment, or massacring fauna to extinction, or the brutal subjugation of African people, early americans operated at a level of entitlement, ignorance, and the absolute belief in a zero-sum competition.
This mindset has been useful to the people in power, and it has been frequently stoked to manipulate a large minority of the population into a fearful and angry existence, effectively preventing a cultural shift that embraces social enlightenment. Even the US education system is designed to perpetuate the propaganda while preventing critical thinking skills and empathy.
Interestingly, even the most virulent USers, on an individual basis, exhibit selective social welfare tendencies, while still maintaining their cultural bigotries. To be fair, most US americans are in favor of social welfare. The rich in the US, who are in control, will always fight reform, because it isn’t profitable to them.
I'd bet if we started calling them "societal subscription fees" people would be much cooler with taxes.
Nah, gotta go all in with that Battle Pass. Unlock perks like drivers license skins, use of the HOV lane, etc. really gameify the system and get those hardcore competitive type-A executives working on high scores.
That's just associations' war.
Complex words have more specific associations. Except specific associations are easier to change via propaganda than generic associations. And people love to pretend to be smart like I do, so use complex words when they can.
This rule shouldn't be limited to outsiders. It should be used when talking to your own as well. Using compound concepts of simpler ones in discussion helps preserve understanding (and filter the kind of people not better than tankies).
Anyone can be poor, but only they are on welfare.
Publishers note: They usually refers to African Americans, but can be used for any suspicious minorities.
its almost always used as negative connation against blacks, or unsavory demographics. while the people, white conservatives railing on these people are the biggest welfare queens.
don't forget wall street and corporations. if you fuck up, congratulations now you're homeless. if they fuck up, congratulations you're gonna bail them out.
That actually follows from the traditional argument against possibility of welfare - if the state can do such help, it'll first give it to closest to it, which are the people who need it the least.
But I think with direct democracy it'd be fine. At least some middle ground would be found between those voting for "free money" and those voting so that others wouldn't get "free money". Unlike now when depending on who you are it's either always free money or always fuck you.
EDIT: In general radical political models are better thought through fundamentally. Real world ones work in arcane ways, usually not the ones publicly declared, and rely on lots of inertia to be functional. But both radical marxism (direct democracy and full on social involvement) and radical ancap (no common decisions at all, no common social involvement at all) lack such vulnerabilities. That's unfortunately the reason people with real world power don't need them. If you have real world power, you'd support the change that gives you more power or preserves what you have. So for a model to be plausible it needs to have vulnerabilities, to attract real-world support. Only disadvantaged people really want a perfect model, and they are not the ones deciding.
Hence another radical variant - radical agnosticism of political systems, try to always keep as variable and diverse mix as possible, so that power, advantage and disadvantage were more or less equally spread, allowing people to live maybe not in heaven, but not in hell too. Decision-making systems as mixed as possible, legal spaces as diverse as possible, and so on.
Don't use the buzzwords Republicans have spent decades poisoning.
yup, including entitlements, Woke,,,,etc.
Entitlements is a weird one. A person who wrongly believes they are entitled to money/power/respect is "entitled" in a derogatory sense. A person who has paid into the Social Security and Medicare programs for three or four decades is truly, genuinely, entitled to the payout of those programs.
And Republicans believing entitlement programs are bad, when so many of them are dependent on these programs to maintain a basic standard of living, is an astounding level of doublethink.
As someone that works with the general public.
People are fucking dumb. Like not I'm not even kidding, there's a skill gap to even get to a site like this...and not everyone has the ability to do it...I'm not even kidding. People are just stupid.
Yep. Never use a ten dollar word when a 50 cent one does the job better. The left wing needs to dump it's highbrow (and cringe celebrity endorsements) and use the language of the common people in simple terms that cannot be demonised (or would sound insane to try).
Also, this is a prime example of how demonising words, especially buzzwords, is the strategy they use to make it lose all rationality with the public... the notion of being "woke" originally a good thing, welfare a good thing, etc...
They managed to make DEI a divisive word, I presume because they always used the abbreviation, because how else can you poison these words.
Doesn't work, they take the cheap words too. "Fake news" was originally used for right-wing propaganda. The only solution is education so that future generations are more aware of and resistant to dog whistles and doublespeak.
Psychological damage is present.
Nobody is immune to propaganda
Yup, I consider myself better than most at critical thinking, playing devil's advocate, and identifying sources of propaganda. I'll still find myself getting overly agitated and upset when I read five articles and posts within thirty minutes that all tell me why to be upset and who to be upset with.
Just want to point out that this negative association is based on racist dog whistles like the, "welfare queen," which were propagated by right-wingers to convince low-income whites to hate the programs designed to help them.
And I think theres a place to break that association, but .aybe candidates that are running to change our system dont need to be the ones to do it.
I would actually say that would he a great strategy in building working-class solidarity. Making poor whites realize that their declining standard of living isn't caused by minorities accessing social programs but the ruling-class gutting the those programs is key to building a progressive coalition.
Welfare isn't assistance to the poor. Welfare in the US is those efforts specifically designed to denigrate and humiliate the poor.
Means testing increases costs and decreases effectiveness and should not be included in these programs. But it always is.
We need to start thinking of ourselves as "shareholders". We invest our individual political authority in out government, who uses that authority to provide essential services to business and individual customer, while charging for those services via taxation. Without the political authority of the citizenry, they would have no ability to provide those services.
We are each individually owed a return on our investment, separate and apart from any of the services we receive from the government. UBI should be thought of as a citizenship dividend, owed to the "shareholders" of government. It is not "charity".
The issue is entirely a media problem. Can you tell yet?
One of many lasting “gifts” of Reagan.
Wym? Just a few more decades, and the trickling down will surely start. I can already taste it on their boots
I get the critical comments here, but I think there's a basic association of the word "welfare" with the CURRENT system of assistance which leaves too many people out. Democrats have made the current apparati too hard to qualify for with their means-testing. If they were sincere in working for the masses, they would push more universal programs, but at least on the national level, they are bought out by the same corporations as the Republicans.
Democrats have made the current apparati too hard to qualify for with their means-testing.
I kind of doubt that democrats are the ones who MADE it too hard, but they definitely are the ones that preserve it's difficulty.
One of Clinton's major accomplishments was working with Republicans to "reform" welfare.
Republicans wrote the bill, but a Democrat signed it.
One of the main reasons why USAID was the first part of the government targeted was because of things like this.
If you frame their work as "Assistance to disasters" or other variations, plus the context of it being under 1% of the Federal budget, Americans were find with it. If you call it "giving taxpayer money to foreigners" then it's wildly unpopular.
Which is to say that the lesson is that most people are idiots and have no idea what's going on in the world. Framing a narrative can get the same individual to simultaneously support and hate literally the same thing. It can get people to support policies and actions that directly harm them.
IIRC "ACA" and "Obamacare" had similar divides. Propaganda is a helluva drug.