[Mick]

Those who are anxious to open up the economy have led harder lives than those holding out for safety.  

https://www.wsj.com/articles/scenes-from...ge=1&pos=1

"Here’s something we should stop. There’s a class element in the public debate. It’s been there the whole time but it’s getting worse, and few in public life are acting as if they’re sensitive to it. Our news professionals the past three months have made plenty of room for medical and professionals warning of the illness. Good, we needed it, it was news. They are not now paying an equal degree of sympathetic attention to those living the economic story, such as the Dallas woman who pushed back, opened her hair salon, and was thrown in jail by a preening judge. He wanted an apology. She said she couldn’t apologize for trying to feed her family. 

"There is a class divide between those who are hard-line on lockdowns and those who are pushing back. We see the professionals on one side—those James Burnham called the managerial elite, and Michael Lind, in “The New Class War,” calls “the overclass”—and regular people on the other. The overclass are highly educated and exert outsize influence as managers and leaders of important institutions—hospitals, companies, statehouses. The normal people aren’t connected through professional or social lines to power structures, and they have regular jobs—service worker, small-business owner. 

"Since the pandemic began, the overclass has been in charge—scientists, doctors, political figures, consultants—calling the shots for the average people. But personally they have less skin in the game. The National Institutes of Health scientist won’t lose his livelihood over what’s happened. Neither will the midday anchor. 

"I’ve called this divide the protected versus the unprotected. "

[Mick]

Those who are anxious to open up the economy have led harder lives than those holding out for safety.  

https://www.wsj.com/articles/scenes-from...ge=1&pos=1

"Here’s something we should stop. There’s a class element in the public debate. It’s been there the whole time but it’s getting worse, and few in public life are acting as if they’re sensitive to it. Our news professionals the past three months have made plenty of room for medical and professionals warning of the illness. Good, we needed it, it was news. They are not now paying an equal degree of sympathetic attention to those living the economic story, such as the Dallas woman who pushed back, opened her hair salon, and was thrown in jail by a preening judge. He wanted an apology. She said she couldn’t apologize for trying to feed her family. 

"There is a class divide between those who are hard-line on lockdowns and those who are pushing back. We see the professionals on one side—those James Burnham called the managerial elite, and Michael Lind, in “The New Class War,” calls “the overclass”—and regular people on the other. The overclass are highly educated and exert outsize influence as managers and leaders of important institutions—hospitals, companies, statehouses. The normal people aren’t connected through professional or social lines to power structures, and they have regular jobs—service worker, small-business owner. 

"Since the pandemic began, the overclass has been in charge—scientists, doctors, political figures, consultants—calling the shots for the average people. But personally they have less skin in the game. The National Institutes of Health scientist won’t lose his livelihood over what’s happened. Neither will the midday anchor. 

"I’ve called this divide the protected versus the unprotected. "

[chrisk]

Many of the working class are suffering economically, but the ones who are working are the ones most exposed health wise. Those “forced” to work are not only spreading the virus to other workers and the customers and they are more likely to spread the virus to family members because of the size of homes and households.

The US has a relatively fragile social safety which puts more pressure on the working class to work in unsafe conditions. The country needs additional/frequent testing of these front-line workers, with rapid/effective contact tracing and isolation. Effective enforcement of the hygiene rules is essential.

As a hotspot, Hayward opened drive-through testing last month. Finally, Santa Clara County is rolling out additional testing in East San Jose and Mountain View to identify more infections.

[chrisk]

Many of the working class are suffering economically, but the ones who are working are the ones most exposed health wise. Those “forced” to work are not only spreading the virus to other workers and the customers and they are more likely to spread the virus to family members because of the size of homes and households.

The US has a relatively fragile social safety which puts more pressure on the working class to work in unsafe conditions. The country needs additional/frequent testing of these front-line workers, with rapid/effective contact tracing and isolation. Effective enforcement of the hygiene rules is essential.

As a hotspot, Hayward opened drive-through testing last month. Finally, Santa Clara County is rolling out additional testing in East San Jose and Mountain View to identify more infections.

[Snorlax94]

I’ve mentioned many times we should be particularly sensitive about industries and workers whose work and specialized training could not be used in a lockdown, and on many occasions I’ve mentioned we should craft specialized programs to assist these people.

It would be tremendously beneficial to all of society — red states, blue states — if we could provide incentives for personal care professionals not to work for the next year, or to alter work to safer situations, like working outdoors, eliminating longer procedures (like complicating coloring), or taking a year off, and permit them to pocket their “not doing nails” funds while also freeing them to also keep money from any work from any other work they might do for a year.


The number of tattooists + licensed hair professionals + licensed manicurists in the US is about 1 million people. Most of the hair stylists would be out of work for just a few months. We could pay them double unemployment — which is what many pf them make anyway — for a year and it’d cost $40B, or I think less than 1% of the current packages thus far. Not only would it help people particularly hard hit, but it would also serve the added benefit of making the re-openings and the country safer.

[Snorlax94]

I’ve mentioned many times we should be particularly sensitive about industries and workers whose work and specialized training could not be used in a lockdown, and on many occasions I’ve mentioned we should craft specialized programs to assist these people.

It would be tremendously beneficial to all of society — red states, blue states — if we could provide incentives for personal care professionals not to work for the next year, or to alter work to safer situations, like working outdoors, eliminating longer procedures (like complicating coloring), or taking a year off, and permit them to pocket their “not doing nails” funds while also freeing them to also keep money from any work from any other work they might do for a year.


The number of tattooists + licensed hair professionals + licensed manicurists in the US is about 1 million people. Most of the hair stylists would be out of work for just a few months. We could pay them double unemployment — which is what many pf them make anyway — for a year and it’d cost $40B, or I think less than 1% of the current packages thus far. Not only would it help people particularly hard hit, but it would also serve the added benefit of making the re-openings and the country safer.

[oregontim]

I’ve mentioned many times we should be particularly sensitive about industries and workers whose work and specialized training could not be used in a lockdown, and on many occasions I’ve mentioned we should craft specialized programs to assist these people.

It would be tremendously beneficial to all of society — red states, blue states — if we could provide incentives for personal care professionals not to work for the next year, or to alter work to safer situations, like working outdoors, eliminating longer procedures (like complicating coloring), or taking a year off, and permit them to pocket their “not doing nails” funds while also freeing them to also keep money from any work from any other work they might do for a year.


The number of tattooists + licensed hair professionals + licensed manicurists in the US is about 1 million people. Most of the hair stylists would be out of work for just a few months. We could pay them double unemployment — which is what many pf them make anyway — for a year and it’d cost $40B, or I think less than 1% of the current packages thus far. Not only would it help people particularly hard hit, but it would also serve the added benefit of making the re-openings and the country safer.

I get what you're saying and basically agree, but I'm having trouble with how narrow the focus here. Why just a million personal care people? What about gig workers, drivers, landscapers, massage therapists, and so many others. Could we broaden this to self employed? Or self employed whose trade can't be executed online?

[oregontim]

I’ve mentioned many times we should be particularly sensitive about industries and workers whose work and specialized training could not be used in a lockdown, and on many occasions I’ve mentioned we should craft specialized programs to assist these people.

It would be tremendously beneficial to all of society — red states, blue states — if we could provide incentives for personal care professionals not to work for the next year, or to alter work to safer situations, like working outdoors, eliminating longer procedures (like complicating coloring), or taking a year off, and permit them to pocket their “not doing nails” funds while also freeing them to also keep money from any work from any other work they might do for a year.


The number of tattooists + licensed hair professionals + licensed manicurists in the US is about 1 million people. Most of the hair stylists would be out of work for just a few months. We could pay them double unemployment — which is what many pf them make anyway — for a year and it’d cost $40B, or I think less than 1% of the current packages thus far. Not only would it help people particularly hard hit, but it would also serve the added benefit of making the re-openings and the country safer.

I get what you're saying and basically agree, but I'm having trouble with how narrow the focus here. Why just a million personal care people? What about gig workers, drivers, landscapers, massage therapists, and so many others. Could we broaden this to self employed? Or self employed whose trade can't be executed online?

[2006alum]

Hah. That column was written by a rich (estimated net worth of $3 million) old white lady (Peggy Noonan) who was a speechwriter for Reagan and who married the chief economist of the Chamber of Commerce. Remind me of her qualifications to speak about the downtrodden everyman vis-a-vis the elite class she has been part of for 40 years? 

And what galls me so much about these kinds of arguments is that the vast majority of the working poor are people of color: "Among the 10.6 million U.S. low-income families with an employed adult in 2013, racial/ethnic minorities constitute 58 percent, despite only making up 40 percent of all working families nationwide." They are also disproportionately the ones who have been the victims of COVID-19. 

Meanwhile, almost every armed protestor I've seen occupying the capital building in Michigan is a white person, many driving large expensive trucks. I don't get the sense that they are on the brink of homelessness - rather, it's the infringement on their entitlement to operate a motor boat or have a low income worker polish their nails or landscape their yard that is bringing them to the edge. 

This in no ways discounts the tremendous economic dislocation that has taken place, but it says a lot that the Wall Street Journal has suddenly decided to take up the ostensible cause of the working poor that has been utterly ruined by the policies they've spent decades advocating for.

[2006alum]

Hah. That column was written by a rich (estimated net worth of $3 million) old white lady (Peggy Noonan) who was a speechwriter for Reagan and who married the chief economist of the Chamber of Commerce. Remind me of her qualifications to speak about the downtrodden everyman vis-a-vis the elite class she has been part of for 40 years? 

And what galls me so much about these kinds of arguments is that the vast majority of the working poor are people of color: "Among the 10.6 million U.S. low-income families with an employed adult in 2013, racial/ethnic minorities constitute 58 percent, despite only making up 40 percent of all working families nationwide." They are also disproportionately the ones who have been the victims of COVID-19. 

Meanwhile, almost every armed protestor I've seen occupying the capital building in Michigan is a white person, many driving large expensive trucks. I don't get the sense that they are on the brink of homelessness - rather, it's the infringement on their entitlement to operate a motor boat or have a low income worker polish their nails or landscape their yard that is bringing them to the edge. 

This in no ways discounts the tremendous economic dislocation that has taken place, but it says a lot that the Wall Street Journal has suddenly decided to take up the ostensible cause of the working poor that has been utterly ruined by the policies they've spent decades advocating for.

[Snorlax94]

I’ve mentioned many times we should be particularly sensitive about industries and workers whose work and specialized training could not be used in a lockdown, and on many occasions I’ve mentioned we should craft specialized programs to assist these people.

It would be tremendously beneficial to all of society — red states, blue states — if we could provide incentives for personal care professionals not to work for the next year, or to alter work to safer situations, like working outdoors, eliminating longer procedures (like complicating coloring), or taking a year off, and permit them to pocket their “not doing nails” funds while also freeing them to also keep money from any work from any other work they might do for a year.


The number of tattooists + licensed hair professionals + licensed manicurists in the US is about 1 million people. Most of the hair stylists would be out of work for just a few months. We could pay them double unemployment — which is what many pf them make anyway — for a year and it’d cost $40B, or I think less than 1% of the current packages thus far. Not only would it help people particularly hard hit, but it would also serve the added benefit of making the re-openings and the country safer.

I get what you're saying and basically agree, but I'm having trouble with how narrow the focus here. Why just a million personal care people? What about gig workers, drivers, landscapers, massage therapists, and so many others. Could we broaden this to self employed? Or self employed whose trade can't be executed online?

In my view, where things are particularly unfair and where things really break down is in the narrow sliver of specialized, licensed work that I fear is intrinsically dangerous. Their incomes will be ruined and the right thing for society is to stop them from working, and then compensate them for that, and there are so few of them that the overall cost would be relatively small.

Actually, I included licensed massage therapists and forgot to mention them — licensed hair stylists, licensed massage therapists, licensed manicurists, tattooists and massage therapists.

Additionally, I mentioned in another posts that we could help intrinsically dangerous businesses (video game rooms, movie theatres, indoor crowded bars and clubs, museums, live theatre, gyms, restaurants that are deemed incapable for serving outside or spacing, call centers that cannot work from home) cover their rent and cover their outstanding capital loans at 0% for a year.

All of these high risk businesses need to close for the public good, and these are also the areas where there is some “revolution” going on, like the hair stylist who was jailed for opening or the activists who “protect” the opening of tattoo parlors in Texas while carrying assault rifles. While I don’t think we should tolerate or cave in to armed lawbreakers, I am sympathetic to their situation because there is an arbitrary handful of skilled professions that will be ruined, and society should help the individuals in a way very similar to insurance.

You asked about other people — landscapers, drivers, and let’s say retail clerks and waiters. For many, like landscapers, I think their work is safe and is already continuing in most areas I know of. As for the others, I’d argue unemployment works well for them. Their work is not in a specialized, licensed field, they did not invest in training and equipment, and arguably they can switch jobs more easily. A waiter at a restaurant without outdoor seating can get a job at a restaurant with outdoor seating. An Uber driver can become a Door Dash driver. A retail clerk can become an Instacart shopper. The normal unemployment insurance should fit their needs fairly well, although we could extend the maximum duration of unemployment insurance, which we often do during recessions, and we can help them afford health coverage, and we can make sure everyone gets paid sick days and is not ruined paying for getting medical treatment for Covid.

My guess is that the cost for all of this would be the smallest stimulus bill yet, it would address a lot of the fairness issues, and it would also be geared toward helping contain Covid and save lives.

[Snorlax94]

I’ve mentioned many times we should be particularly sensitive about industries and workers whose work and specialized training could not be used in a lockdown, and on many occasions I’ve mentioned we should craft specialized programs to assist these people.

It would be tremendously beneficial to all of society — red states, blue states — if we could provide incentives for personal care professionals not to work for the next year, or to alter work to safer situations, like working outdoors, eliminating longer procedures (like complicating coloring), or taking a year off, and permit them to pocket their “not doing nails” funds while also freeing them to also keep money from any work from any other work they might do for a year.


The number of tattooists + licensed hair professionals + licensed manicurists in the US is about 1 million people. Most of the hair stylists would be out of work for just a few months. We could pay them double unemployment — which is what many pf them make anyway — for a year and it’d cost $40B, or I think less than 1% of the current packages thus far. Not only would it help people particularly hard hit, but it would also serve the added benefit of making the re-openings and the country safer.

I get what you're saying and basically agree, but I'm having trouble with how narrow the focus here. Why just a million personal care people? What about gig workers, drivers, landscapers, massage therapists, and so many others. Could we broaden this to self employed? Or self employed whose trade can't be executed online?

In my view, where things are particularly unfair and where things really break down is in the narrow sliver of specialized, licensed work that I fear is intrinsically dangerous. Their incomes will be ruined and the right thing for society is to stop them from working, and then compensate them for that, and there are so few of them that the overall cost would be relatively small.

Actually, I included licensed massage therapists and forgot to mention them — licensed hair stylists, licensed massage therapists, licensed manicurists, tattooists and massage therapists.

Additionally, I mentioned in another posts that we could help intrinsically dangerous businesses (video game rooms, movie theatres, indoor crowded bars and clubs, museums, live theatre, gyms, restaurants that are deemed incapable for serving outside or spacing, call centers that cannot work from home) cover their rent and cover their outstanding capital loans at 0% for a year.

All of these high risk businesses need to close for the public good, and these are also the areas where there is some “revolution” going on, like the hair stylist who was jailed for opening or the activists who “protect” the opening of tattoo parlors in Texas while carrying assault rifles. While I don’t think we should tolerate or cave in to armed lawbreakers, I am sympathetic to their situation because there is an arbitrary handful of skilled professions that will be ruined, and society should help the individuals in a way very similar to insurance.

You asked about other people — landscapers, drivers, and let’s say retail clerks and waiters. For many, like landscapers, I think their work is safe and is already continuing in most areas I know of. As for the others, I’d argue unemployment works well for them. Their work is not in a specialized, licensed field, they did not invest in training and equipment, and arguably they can switch jobs more easily. A waiter at a restaurant without outdoor seating can get a job at a restaurant with outdoor seating. An Uber driver can become a Door Dash driver. A retail clerk can become an Instacart shopper. The normal unemployment insurance should fit their needs fairly well, although we could extend the maximum duration of unemployment insurance, which we often do during recessions, and we can help them afford health coverage, and we can make sure everyone gets paid sick days and is not ruined paying for getting medical treatment for Covid.

My guess is that the cost for all of this would be the smallest stimulus bill yet, it would address a lot of the fairness issues, and it would also be geared toward helping contain Covid and save lives.

[JustAnotherFan]

Hah. That column was written by a rich (estimated net worth of $3 million) old white lady (Peggy Noonan) who was a speechwriter for Reagan and who married the chief economist of the Chamber of Commerce. Remind me of her qualifications to speak about the downtrodden everyman vis-a-vis the elite class she has been part of for 40 years? 

And what galls me so much about these kinds of arguments is that the vast majority of the working poor are people of color: "Among the 10.6 million U.S. low-income families with an employed adult in 2013, racial/ethnic minorities constitute 58 percent, despite only making up 40 percent of all working families nationwide." They are also disproportionately the ones who have been the victims of COVID-19. 

Meanwhile, almost every armed protestor I've seen occupying the capital building in Michigan is a white person, many driving large expensive trucks. I don't get the sense that they are on the brink of homelessness - rather, it's the infringement on their entitlement to operate a motor boat or have a low income worker polish their nails or landscape their yard that is bringing them to the edge. 

This in no ways discounts the tremendous economic dislocation that has taken place, but it says a lot that the Wall Street Journal has suddenly decided to take up the ostensible cause of the working poor that has been utterly ruined by the policies they've spent decades advocating for.

+1

[JustAnotherFan]

Hah. That column was written by a rich (estimated net worth of $3 million) old white lady (Peggy Noonan) who was a speechwriter for Reagan and who married the chief economist of the Chamber of Commerce. Remind me of her qualifications to speak about the downtrodden everyman vis-a-vis the elite class she has been part of for 40 years? 

And what galls me so much about these kinds of arguments is that the vast majority of the working poor are people of color: "Among the 10.6 million U.S. low-income families with an employed adult in 2013, racial/ethnic minorities constitute 58 percent, despite only making up 40 percent of all working families nationwide." They are also disproportionately the ones who have been the victims of COVID-19. 

Meanwhile, almost every armed protestor I've seen occupying the capital building in Michigan is a white person, many driving large expensive trucks. I don't get the sense that they are on the brink of homelessness - rather, it's the infringement on their entitlement to operate a motor boat or have a low income worker polish their nails or landscape their yard that is bringing them to the edge. 

This in no ways discounts the tremendous economic dislocation that has taken place, but it says a lot that the Wall Street Journal has suddenly decided to take up the ostensible cause of the working poor that has been utterly ruined by the policies they've spent decades advocating for.

+1

[Mick]

Hah. That column was written by a rich (estimated net worth of $3 million) old white lady (Peggy Noonan) who was a speechwriter for Reagan and who married the chief economist of the Chamber of Commerce. Remind me of her qualifications to speak about the downtrodden everyman vis-a-vis the elite class she has been part of for 40 years? 

Such a millenial thing to say.  The Pulitzer-price winning "rich old white lady" for whom your post drips contempt, grew up in a large, poor Irish Catholic family with seven kids.  Her father was a merchant seaman, then furniture salesman.  So yeah, she knows a bit about the downtrodden.  And 69 year old professionals with a $3 mms. net worth aren't all that unique. 

The point here is that she's writing against type.  Not sure how you failed to grasp that.  Of all people, Noonan should be writing in favor of SiP.  The fact that she understands what it is doing to the American underclass speaks volumes about the depth of the devastation.

And what galls me so much about these kinds of arguments is that the vast majority of the working poor are people of color: "Among the 10.6 million U.S. low-income families with an employed adult in 2013, racial/ethnic minorities constitute 58 percent, despite only making up 40 percent of all working families nationwide." They are also disproportionately the ones who have been the victims of COVID-19. 

You make a very good point.  The rich old white lady is taking the position that would support the working poor, as she once was herself.  Glad to see you accept it.

Meanwhile, almost every armed protestor I've seen occupying the capital building in Michigan is a white person, many driving large expensive trucks. I don't get the sense that they are on the brink of homelessness - rather, it's the infringement on their entitlement to operate a motor boat or have a low income worker polish their nails or landscape their yard that is bringing them to the edge. 

Those people are desperate for their jobs and small businesses.  You're framing it as if they're protesting against a lack of luxury.  That isn't remotely the case.  They are people who largely live check to check in a place where the economy is not great.  And because they drive a truck, you want to position them as rich?

This in no ways discounts the tremendous economic dislocation that has taken place

Of course it does.  Everything you've written discounts the economic dislocation.

but it says a lot that the Wall Street Journal has suddenly decided to take up the ostensible cause of the working poor that has been utterly ruined by the policies they've spent decades advocating for.

You clearly have no idea of the purpose of the WSJ. They are in favor of whatever advances the American economy, at all levels, from the CEO on down to the janitor.  They always have been.  They advocate policies that advance the cause of the American economy, period.  They understand the fragility of the 40% of Americans who can't handle an unexpected $400 expense, and they realize that our approach to COVID-19 means absolute and total disaster for them.

[Mick]

Hah. That column was written by a rich (estimated net worth of $3 million) old white lady (Peggy Noonan) who was a speechwriter for Reagan and who married the chief economist of the Chamber of Commerce. Remind me of her qualifications to speak about the downtrodden everyman vis-a-vis the elite class she has been part of for 40 years? 

Such a millenial thing to say.  The Pulitzer-price winning "rich old white lady" for whom your post drips contempt, grew up in a large, poor Irish Catholic family with seven kids.  Her father was a merchant seaman, then furniture salesman.  So yeah, she knows a bit about the downtrodden.  And 69 year old professionals with a $3 mms. net worth aren't all that unique. 

The point here is that she's writing against type.  Not sure how you failed to grasp that.  Of all people, Noonan should be writing in favor of SiP.  The fact that she understands what it is doing to the American underclass speaks volumes about the depth of the devastation.

And what galls me so much about these kinds of arguments is that the vast majority of the working poor are people of color: "Among the 10.6 million U.S. low-income families with an employed adult in 2013, racial/ethnic minorities constitute 58 percent, despite only making up 40 percent of all working families nationwide." They are also disproportionately the ones who have been the victims of COVID-19. 

You make a very good point.  The rich old white lady is taking the position that would support the working poor, as she once was herself.  Glad to see you accept it.

Meanwhile, almost every armed protestor I've seen occupying the capital building in Michigan is a white person, many driving large expensive trucks. I don't get the sense that they are on the brink of homelessness - rather, it's the infringement on their entitlement to operate a motor boat or have a low income worker polish their nails or landscape their yard that is bringing them to the edge. 

Those people are desperate for their jobs and small businesses.  You're framing it as if they're protesting against a lack of luxury.  That isn't remotely the case.  They are people who largely live check to check in a place where the economy is not great.  And because they drive a truck, you want to position them as rich?

This in no ways discounts the tremendous economic dislocation that has taken place

Of course it does.  Everything you've written discounts the economic dislocation.

but it says a lot that the Wall Street Journal has suddenly decided to take up the ostensible cause of the working poor that has been utterly ruined by the policies they've spent decades advocating for.

You clearly have no idea of the purpose of the WSJ. They are in favor of whatever advances the American economy, at all levels, from the CEO on down to the janitor.  They always have been.  They advocate policies that advance the cause of the American economy, period.  They understand the fragility of the 40% of Americans who can't handle an unexpected $400 expense, and they realize that our approach to COVID-19 means absolute and total disaster for them.

[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tax-ref...1513729511

Just putting this out there.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tax-ref...1513729511

Just putting this out there.

BC

[chrisk]

The tax reform did not work out so well for Ryan and the Republicans in the House.
It also didn’t work out so well for many in the upper middle class in California and New York. Despite a growing number of jobs for the less educated, the still do not have sufficient personal resources to compensate for the lack of a comprehensive social net.
Tax “reformers” are pushing against additional relief partly because the “reforms” have already inflated the fiscal deficits and debt.

[chrisk]

The tax reform did not work out so well for Ryan and the Republicans in the House.
It also didn’t work out so well for many in the upper middle class in California and New York. Despite a growing number of jobs for the less educated, the still do not have sufficient personal resources to compensate for the lack of a comprehensive social net.
Tax “reformers” are pushing against additional relief partly because the “reforms” have already inflated the fiscal deficits and debt.

[Genuine Realist]

Hah. That column was written by a rich (estimated net worth of $3 million) old white lady (Peggy Noonan) who was a speechwriter for Reagan and who married the chief economist of the Chamber of Commerce. Remind me of her qualifications to speak about the downtrodden everyman vis-a-vis the elite class she has been part of for 40 years? 

And what galls me so much about these kinds of arguments is that the vast majority of the working poor are people of color: "Among the 10.6 million U.S. low-income families with an employed adult in 2013, racial/ethnic minorities constitute 58 percent, despite only making up 40 percent of all working families nationwide." They are also disproportionately the ones who have been the victims of COVID-19. 

Meanwhile, almost every armed protestor I've seen occupying the capital building in Michigan is a white person, many driving large expensive trucks. I don't get the sense that they are on the brink of homelessness - rather, it's the infringement on their entitlement to operate a motor boat or have a low income worker polish their nails or landscape their yard that is bringing them to the edge. 

This in no ways discounts the tremendous economic dislocation that has taken place, but it says a lot that the Wall Street Journal has suddenly decided to take up the ostensible cause of the working poor that has been utterly ruined by the policies they've spent decades advocating for.

This is the problem in a nutshell. Peggy Noonan may have come to decent wealth, but she wasn't born wealthy. Neither was Reagan. There's the reason why they have come to represent common and Populist values.

You really think that the considerable protest against the extended shut down is the product of rich boat owners? There were indeed a couple of Second Amendment types in that protest. That, of course, is what the media - which has decided that lockdown is Blue, and therefore Good, re-opening Red and therefore Bad - what a simple world! - choe to feature. But there were many, many more of all races, there because they're scared to death about what happens next. There were plenty of photos of Black and White protestors, with their arms linked, because they have a lot more in common than they have differences. They're going broke. It's the unprivileged people, the ones living month to month, that are in danger. And that's what Peggy Noonan is telling you, if you choose to listen. That's the class she came from. (She's the daughter of a merchant seaman, educated at Farleigh Dickinson, who made her way on pure talent. She was not born to advantage.) It's where you start from that matters.

Faced with these rather self-evident truths, the media goes to tired racist cliches and ignores the fact that the lockdown supporters almost uniformly come from privileged classes - reporters and professionals from richly endowed and funded employers, people with family wealth, older pensioners. Like it or not, it's the privileged class that supports this, with the usual salonist yawn. Aren't you a member of that privileged class? Isn't just about everyone who supports the lockdown without second thought? And yet you dismiss THEM as overprivileged. Amazing. 

The book Noonan cites by Michael Lind contains essential insight. Lind is a maverick intellectual who creates waves among conventional thinkers, both Right and LEft. He sees the unworthy Trump as the lucky beneficiary of a reaction to the class war the elite managerial class has been waging for three decades now. You don't want to enlist yourself in that. 

Dismissing protests and concerns of this type on the usual racist foolishness is to enlist in the wrong army. (Do you really think rich boat owners are driving up to Lansing? And dignified african-Americans are suffering in dignified silence? Really?) Three weeks ago, I thought Trump had zero chance in November. But he's looking better every day. A big part of the reason is the MSN and the Democrats demonizing what are quite legitimate concerns of brobdingnagian numbers of ordinary people with real anxiety. There is talk of swinging California, as Newsome goes on and on and Garcetti cloes down LA. It's not that the health concerns might not be paramount. It's that the others are quite real, and you do not trivialize them.

[Genuine Realist]

Hah. That column was written by a rich (estimated net worth of $3 million) old white lady (Peggy Noonan) who was a speechwriter for Reagan and who married the chief economist of the Chamber of Commerce. Remind me of her qualifications to speak about the downtrodden everyman vis-a-vis the elite class she has been part of for 40 years? 

And what galls me so much about these kinds of arguments is that the vast majority of the working poor are people of color: "Among the 10.6 million U.S. low-income families with an employed adult in 2013, racial/ethnic minorities constitute 58 percent, despite only making up 40 percent of all working families nationwide." They are also disproportionately the ones who have been the victims of COVID-19. 

Meanwhile, almost every armed protestor I've seen occupying the capital building in Michigan is a white person, many driving large expensive trucks. I don't get the sense that they are on the brink of homelessness - rather, it's the infringement on their entitlement to operate a motor boat or have a low income worker polish their nails or landscape their yard that is bringing them to the edge. 

This in no ways discounts the tremendous economic dislocation that has taken place, but it says a lot that the Wall Street Journal has suddenly decided to take up the ostensible cause of the working poor that has been utterly ruined by the policies they've spent decades advocating for.

This is the problem in a nutshell. Peggy Noonan may have come to decent wealth, but she wasn't born wealthy. Neither was Reagan. There's the reason why they have come to represent common and Populist values.

You really think that the considerable protest against the extended shut down is the product of rich boat owners? There were indeed a couple of Second Amendment types in that protest. That, of course, is what the media - which has decided that lockdown is Blue, and therefore Good, re-opening Red and therefore Bad - what a simple world! - choe to feature. But there were many, many more of all races, there because they're scared to death about what happens next. There were plenty of photos of Black and White protestors, with their arms linked, because they have a lot more in common than they have differences. They're going broke. It's the unprivileged people, the ones living month to month, that are in danger. And that's what Peggy Noonan is telling you, if you choose to listen. That's the class she came from. (She's the daughter of a merchant seaman, educated at Farleigh Dickinson, who made her way on pure talent. She was not born to advantage.) It's where you start from that matters.

Faced with these rather self-evident truths, the media goes to tired racist cliches and ignores the fact that the lockdown supporters almost uniformly come from privileged classes - reporters and professionals from richly endowed and funded employers, people with family wealth, older pensioners. Like it or not, it's the privileged class that supports this, with the usual salonist yawn. Aren't you a member of that privileged class? Isn't just about everyone who supports the lockdown without second thought? And yet you dismiss THEM as overprivileged. Amazing. 

The book Noonan cites by Michael Lind contains essential insight. Lind is a maverick intellectual who creates waves among conventional thinkers, both Right and LEft. He sees the unworthy Trump as the lucky beneficiary of a reaction to the class war the elite managerial class has been waging for three decades now. You don't want to enlist yourself in that. 

Dismissing protests and concerns of this type on the usual racist foolishness is to enlist in the wrong army. (Do you really think rich boat owners are driving up to Lansing? And dignified african-Americans are suffering in dignified silence? Really?) Three weeks ago, I thought Trump had zero chance in November. But he's looking better every day. A big part of the reason is the MSN and the Democrats demonizing what are quite legitimate concerns of brobdingnagian numbers of ordinary people with real anxiety. There is talk of swinging California, as Newsome goes on and on and Garcetti cloes down LA. It's not that the health concerns might not be paramount. It's that the others are quite real, and you do not trivialize them.

[BostonCard]

Boy, I remember when the “elites” were a small minority of the country, but now it looks like a substantial majority of the country is “elite” and oppressing those noble people who want to just go back to work.  After all, survey after survey after survey seem to show that this majority of elites are resisting the noble everymen who (apparently now making up less than 50% of the population) want to reopen.

Let’s stop with this false narrative that it is the “elites” that are imposing the shutdown on everyone else. A majority of Americans still thinks we should remain shut down. That majority is starting to narrow, for sure, and at some point I expect polls will turn and a majority of people will want to reopen. The latest poll I could find finds the proportion of people who think we are reopening to quickly is down to a bare majority. (51%, versus 15% who say we are not reopening fast enough, and 25% who feel we are opening at the appropriate speed, a view that I share). But the direction is clear from earlier polls where vast majorities supported stay at home orders, and I expect that as we continue to reopen, so long as we don’t see large spikes in cases or deaths, that support will continue to increase and become a majority. But we are not there yet, and we should not pretend that a majority of Americans currently want us to reopen faster, but are frustrated by the “elites”.

BC

[BostonCard]

Boy, I remember when the “elites” were a small minority of the country, but now it looks like a substantial majority of the country is “elite” and oppressing those noble people who want to just go back to work.  After all, survey after survey after survey seem to show that this majority of elites are resisting the noble everymen who (apparently now making up less than 50% of the population) want to reopen.

Let’s stop with this false narrative that it is the “elites” that are imposing the shutdown on everyone else. A majority of Americans still thinks we should remain shut down. That majority is starting to narrow, for sure, and at some point I expect polls will turn and a majority of people will want to reopen. The latest poll I could find finds the proportion of people who think we are reopening to quickly is down to a bare majority. (51%, versus 15% who say we are not reopening fast enough, and 25% who feel we are opening at the appropriate speed, a view that I share). But the direction is clear from earlier polls where vast majorities supported stay at home orders, and I expect that as we continue to reopen, so long as we don’t see large spikes in cases or deaths, that support will continue to increase and become a majority. But we are not there yet, and we should not pretend that a majority of Americans currently want us to reopen faster, but are frustrated by the “elites”.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

Boy, I remember when the “elites” were a small minority of the country, but now it looks like a substantial majority of the country is “elite” and oppressing those noble people who want to just go back to work.  After all, survey after survey after survey seem to show that this majority of elites are resisting the noble everymen who (apparently now making up less than 50% of the population) want to reopen.

Let’s stop with this false narrative that it is the “elites” that are imposing the shutdown on everyone else.  A majority of Americans still thinks we should remain shut down.  That majority is starting to narrow, for sure, and at some point I expect polls will turn and a majority of people will want to reopen.  The latest poll I could find finds the proportion of people who think we are reopening to quickly is down to a bare majority. (51%, versus 15% who say we are not reopening fast enough, and 25% who feel we are opening at the appropriate speed, a view that I share).  But the direction is clear from earlier polls where vast majorities supported stay at home orders, and I expect that as we continue to reopen, so long as we don’t see large spikes in cases or deaths, that support will continue to increase and become a majority.  But we are not there yet, and we should not pretend that a majority of Americans currently want us to reopen faster, but are frustrated by the “elites”.

BC

Sorry, but my issue was not reopening as such, but demonization of those who do believe that reopening should come sooner rather than later. They aren't White nationalists with affluent life styles as a rule, but persons genuinely concerned with how they're going to get on with life.

To dismiss that element of the public on casual racist grounds - or for that matter, Peggy Noonan, as 'a rich white lady' - is simply absurd.

Michael Lind's book is directed at managerial elites, which is indeed a very large class - unfortunately, as narrowly parochial as smaller classes.  It's very much worth the read. 

I'm a great believer in taking the American public seriously. You don't assume it's dumb or bigoted - over time, it's been right far more often than the intelligentsia. When you write off those protests as aberrant on specious racial grounds - or, for that matter, writing off the election of the dreadful Trump on the totally absurd basis of resurgent White nationalism or Russian collusion - you make yourself tone deaf to the message that's actually being delivered.

[Genuine Realist]

Boy, I remember when the “elites” were a small minority of the country, but now it looks like a substantial majority of the country is “elite” and oppressing those noble people who want to just go back to work.  After all, survey after survey after survey seem to show that this majority of elites are resisting the noble everymen who (apparently now making up less than 50% of the population) want to reopen.

Let’s stop with this false narrative that it is the “elites” that are imposing the shutdown on everyone else.  A majority of Americans still thinks we should remain shut down.  That majority is starting to narrow, for sure, and at some point I expect polls will turn and a majority of people will want to reopen.  The latest poll I could find finds the proportion of people who think we are reopening to quickly is down to a bare majority. (51%, versus 15% who say we are not reopening fast enough, and 25% who feel we are opening at the appropriate speed, a view that I share).  But the direction is clear from earlier polls where vast majorities supported stay at home orders, and I expect that as we continue to reopen, so long as we don’t see large spikes in cases or deaths, that support will continue to increase and become a majority.  But we are not there yet, and we should not pretend that a majority of Americans currently want us to reopen faster, but are frustrated by the “elites”.

BC

Sorry, but my issue was not reopening as such, but demonization of those who do believe that reopening should come sooner rather than later. They aren't White nationalists with affluent life styles as a rule, but persons genuinely concerned with how they're going to get on with life.

To dismiss that element of the public on casual racist grounds - or for that matter, Peggy Noonan, as 'a rich white lady' - is simply absurd.

Michael Lind's book is directed at managerial elites, which is indeed a very large class - unfortunately, as narrowly parochial as smaller classes.  It's very much worth the read. 

I'm a great believer in taking the American public seriously. You don't assume it's dumb or bigoted - over time, it's been right far more often than the intelligentsia. When you write off those protests as aberrant on specious racial grounds - or, for that matter, writing off the election of the dreadful Trump on the totally absurd basis of resurgent White nationalism or Russian collusion - you make yourself tone deaf to the message that's actually being delivered.

[BostonCard]

I was responding to the original Noonan article:

There is a class divide between those who are hard-line on lockdowns and those who are pushing back. We see the professionals on one side—those James Burnham called the managerial elite, and Michael Lind, in “The New Class War,” calls “the overclass”—and regular people on the other. The overclass are highly educated and exert outsize influence as managers and leaders of important institutions—hospitals, companies, statehouses. The normal people aren’t connected through professional or social lines to power structures, and they have regular jobs—service worker, small-business owner. 

"Since the pandemic began, the overclass has been in charge—scientists, doctors, political figures, consultants—calling the shots for the average people. But personally they have less skin in the game. The National Institutes of Health scientist won’t lose his livelihood over what’s happened. Neither will the midday anchor.

Noonan makes it sound like "average people" have been pushing for reopening and they are being held back by the "overclass".  The truth is that a) a majority of Americans (both "overclass" and "average people") have generally been supporting the lockdown, and b) it is hard to take the "average people" versus "overclass" framing seriously when the capo di tutti capi has been the nation's #1 cheerleader for opening up.  It's a nice narrative, but it is lazy and not supported by the facts.

EDIT: One last point, Noonan mentions "managers and leaders of... companies" as among those in the overclass who exert outsized influence on the decision to stay locked down.  Someone should tell that to Elon Musk, who didn't get the memo.

BC

[BostonCard]

I was responding to the original Noonan article:

There is a class divide between those who are hard-line on lockdowns and those who are pushing back. We see the professionals on one side—those James Burnham called the managerial elite, and Michael Lind, in “The New Class War,” calls “the overclass”—and regular people on the other. The overclass are highly educated and exert outsize influence as managers and leaders of important institutions—hospitals, companies, statehouses. The normal people aren’t connected through professional or social lines to power structures, and they have regular jobs—service worker, small-business owner. 

"Since the pandemic began, the overclass has been in charge—scientists, doctors, political figures, consultants—calling the shots for the average people. But personally they have less skin in the game. The National Institutes of Health scientist won’t lose his livelihood over what’s happened. Neither will the midday anchor.

Noonan makes it sound like "average people" have been pushing for reopening and they are being held back by the "overclass".  The truth is that a) a majority of Americans (both "overclass" and "average people") have generally been supporting the lockdown, and b) it is hard to take the "average people" versus "overclass" framing seriously when the capo di tutti capi has been the nation's #1 cheerleader for opening up.  It's a nice narrative, but it is lazy and not supported by the facts.

EDIT: One last point, Noonan mentions "managers and leaders of... companies" as among those in the overclass who exert outsized influence on the decision to stay locked down.  Someone should tell that to Elon Musk, who didn't get the memo.

BC

[cctop]

You really think that the considerable protest against the extended shut down is the product of rich boat owners? There were indeed a couple of Second Amendment types in that protest. That, of course, is what the media - which has decided that lockdown is Blue, and therefore Good, re-opening Red and therefore Bad - what a simple world! - chose to feature.

Sorry GR, the politicization of the lockdown was driven by the right wing, not the media.

The first statehouse protests were coordinated by a 2nd amendment group, which is why you saw so many guns in the photos.

Then our president immediately jumped in to turn it into an election issue, and it just might succeed.

[cctop]

You really think that the considerable protest against the extended shut down is the product of rich boat owners? There were indeed a couple of Second Amendment types in that protest. That, of course, is what the media - which has decided that lockdown is Blue, and therefore Good, re-opening Red and therefore Bad - what a simple world! - chose to feature.

Sorry GR, the politicization of the lockdown was driven by the right wing, not the media.

The first statehouse protests were coordinated by a 2nd amendment group, which is why you saw so many guns in the photos.

Then our president immediately jumped in to turn it into an election issue, and it just might succeed.

[JustAnotherFan]

Sorry, but my issue was not reopening as such, but demonization of those who do believe that reopening should come sooner rather than later. They aren't White nationalists with affluent life styles as a rule, but persons genuinely concerned with how they're going to get on with life.

Not all, of course. But some, definitely. The people who were organizing around White Lives Matter, shutting down mosques, caging people at the borders, are also showing up at these rallies. Now many of them are hangers on and are using these events to promote themselves or recruit disaffected white boys, but they're there at these rallies and in some places (e.g., Portland) they are a sizable presence.

[JustAnotherFan]

Sorry, but my issue was not reopening as such, but demonization of those who do believe that reopening should come sooner rather than later. They aren't White nationalists with affluent life styles as a rule, but persons genuinely concerned with how they're going to get on with life.

Not all, of course. But some, definitely. The people who were organizing around White Lives Matter, shutting down mosques, caging people at the borders, are also showing up at these rallies. Now many of them are hangers on and are using these events to promote themselves or recruit disaffected white boys, but they're there at these rallies and in some places (e.g., Portland) they are a sizable presence.

[2006alum]

Insofar as the Marx-invoking "class struggle" warriors around these parts all seem to lean right, I thought this op-ed was pretty on point in identifying the actual issue at stake here:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1262546270578782208?s=20[/tweet]

“Here’s a generalization based on a lifetime of experience and observation. The working-class people who are pushing back have had harder lives than those now determining their fate.”

The assumptions underlying this generalization, however, are not based on even a cursory look at actual data. In a recent Washington Post/Ipsos survey, 74 percent of respondents agreed that the “U.S. should keep trying to slow the spread of the coronavirus, even if that means keeping many businesses closed.” Agreement was slightly higher — 79 percent — among respondents who’d been laid off or furloughed.

Researchers at the University of Chicago have been tracking the impact of coronavirus on a representative sample of American households. They’ve found that when it comes to judging policies on the coronavirus, “politics is the overwhelming force dividing Americans,” and that “how households have been economically impacted by the Covid crisis so far” plays only a minimal role.

Based on the number of people Mick has had to fire, I assume he is part of the "managerial elite" in his company. And I'm guessing his salary is six figures, so he's also part of the upper middle class elite. So is he part of the problem, making choices for workers that he himself is insulated from? 

Meanwhile, I've never been in a managerial position in my life - apart from supervising temporary interns, I've always been the lowest person on the organizational totem pole. My annual salary hasn't even come close to six figures. Does that make me part of the oppressed working class?

It's almost comically easy to blow up the crude dichotomies that folks like Peggy Noonan want to construct - life is often a lot more complicated than that.

[2006alum]

Insofar as the Marx-invoking "class struggle" warriors around these parts all seem to lean right, I thought this op-ed was pretty on point in identifying the actual issue at stake here:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1262546270578782208?s=20[/tweet]

“Here’s a generalization based on a lifetime of experience and observation. The working-class people who are pushing back have had harder lives than those now determining their fate.”

The assumptions underlying this generalization, however, are not based on even a cursory look at actual data. In a recent Washington Post/Ipsos survey, 74 percent of respondents agreed that the “U.S. should keep trying to slow the spread of the coronavirus, even if that means keeping many businesses closed.” Agreement was slightly higher — 79 percent — among respondents who’d been laid off or furloughed.

Researchers at the University of Chicago have been tracking the impact of coronavirus on a representative sample of American households. They’ve found that when it comes to judging policies on the coronavirus, “politics is the overwhelming force dividing Americans,” and that “how households have been economically impacted by the Covid crisis so far” plays only a minimal role.

Based on the number of people Mick has had to fire, I assume he is part of the "managerial elite" in his company. And I'm guessing his salary is six figures, so he's also part of the upper middle class elite. So is he part of the problem, making choices for workers that he himself is insulated from? 

Meanwhile, I've never been in a managerial position in my life - apart from supervising temporary interns, I've always been the lowest person on the organizational totem pole. My annual salary hasn't even come close to six figures. Does that make me part of the oppressed working class?

It's almost comically easy to blow up the crude dichotomies that folks like Peggy Noonan want to construct - life is often a lot more complicated than that.

[Mick]

Based on the number of people Mick has had to fire, I assume he is part of the "managerial elite" in his company. And I'm guessing his salary is six figures, so he's also part of the upper middle class elite. So is he part of the problem, making choices for workers that he himself is insulated from? 

I don't make the choices and I'm not insulated from my team. I'm the middleman, forced to execute choices that are inflicted upon me from above. Not surprisingly, the demands on our team have skyrocketed, though we have 25% fewer people. Yes, I have "Chief" in front of my title. But I have little influence as to the size of my budget or my team. And I'm not insulated from my team, I spend most days speaking with my team members on a variety of items, from Directors to Assistants. Senior management typically makes decisions on compensation, hiring/firing/RIFs/furloughs and budgets. I just have to carry out those decisions and live with the aftermath.

[Mick]

Based on the number of people Mick has had to fire, I assume he is part of the "managerial elite" in his company. And I'm guessing his salary is six figures, so he's also part of the upper middle class elite. So is he part of the problem, making choices for workers that he himself is insulated from? 

I don't make the choices and I'm not insulated from my team. I'm the middleman, forced to execute choices that are inflicted upon me from above. Not surprisingly, the demands on our team have skyrocketed, though we have 25% fewer people. Yes, I have "Chief" in front of my title. But I have little influence as to the size of my budget or my team. And I'm not insulated from my team, I spend most days speaking with my team members on a variety of items, from Directors to Assistants. Senior management typically makes decisions on compensation, hiring/firing/RIFs/furloughs and budgets. I just have to carry out those decisions and live with the aftermath.

[Genuine Realist]

Insofar as the Marx-invoking "class struggle" warriors around these parts all seem to lean right, I thought this op-ed was pretty on point in identifying the actual issue at stake here:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1262546270578782208?s=20[/tweet]

“Here’s a generalization based on a lifetime of experience and observation. The working-class people who are pushing back have had harder lives than those now determining their fate.”

The assumptions underlying this generalization, however, are not based on even a cursory look at actual data. In a recent Washington Post/Ipsos survey, 74 percent of respondents agreed that the “U.S. should keep trying to slow the spread of the coronavirus, even if that means keeping many businesses closed.” Agreement was slightly higher — 79 percent — among respondents who’d been laid off or furloughed.

Researchers at the University of Chicago have been tracking the impact of coronavirus on a representative sample of American households. They’ve found that when it comes to judging policies on the coronavirus, “politics is the overwhelming force dividing Americans,” and that “how households have been economically impacted by the Covid crisis so far” plays only a minimal role.

Based on the number of people Mick has had to fire, I assume he is part of the "managerial elite" in his company. And I'm guessing his salary is six figures, so he's also part of the upper middle class elite. So is he part of the problem, making choices for workers that he himself is insulated from? 

Meanwhile, I've never been in a managerial position in my life - apart from supervising temporary interns, I've always been the lowest person on the organizational totem pole. My annual salary hasn't even come close to six figures. Does that make me part of the oppressed working class?

It's almost comically easy to blow up the crude dichotomies that folks like Peggy Noonan want to construct - life is often a lot more complicated than that.

With all due respect, the class warfare practiced by the media, and particularly the NYT, is ongoing and relentless. Note the article you cite - protest against the lockdown has become a right wing token.

Well . . . no, it hasn't. It's a big question for everyone. It's only the Times and the like that have politicized it. There's no question there are lesser evil problems here - shutdowns cause real problems for real human beings, as do viruses. Classifying persons concerned about that as Red - Bad, and the other as Blue - Good, gets you nowhere. But that's what the media has done.

Mistaking Peggy Noonan's Irish working class realism as hedge managers' pontification is not impressive.

[Genuine Realist]

Insofar as the Marx-invoking "class struggle" warriors around these parts all seem to lean right, I thought this op-ed was pretty on point in identifying the actual issue at stake here:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1262546270578782208?s=20[/tweet]

“Here’s a generalization based on a lifetime of experience and observation. The working-class people who are pushing back have had harder lives than those now determining their fate.”

The assumptions underlying this generalization, however, are not based on even a cursory look at actual data. In a recent Washington Post/Ipsos survey, 74 percent of respondents agreed that the “U.S. should keep trying to slow the spread of the coronavirus, even if that means keeping many businesses closed.” Agreement was slightly higher — 79 percent — among respondents who’d been laid off or furloughed.

Researchers at the University of Chicago have been tracking the impact of coronavirus on a representative sample of American households. They’ve found that when it comes to judging policies on the coronavirus, “politics is the overwhelming force dividing Americans,” and that “how households have been economically impacted by the Covid crisis so far” plays only a minimal role.

Based on the number of people Mick has had to fire, I assume he is part of the "managerial elite" in his company. And I'm guessing his salary is six figures, so he's also part of the upper middle class elite. So is he part of the problem, making choices for workers that he himself is insulated from? 

Meanwhile, I've never been in a managerial position in my life - apart from supervising temporary interns, I've always been the lowest person on the organizational totem pole. My annual salary hasn't even come close to six figures. Does that make me part of the oppressed working class?

It's almost comically easy to blow up the crude dichotomies that folks like Peggy Noonan want to construct - life is often a lot more complicated than that.

With all due respect, the class warfare practiced by the media, and particularly the NYT, is ongoing and relentless. Note the article you cite - protest against the lockdown has become a right wing token.

Well . . . no, it hasn't. It's a big question for everyone. It's only the Times and the like that have politicized it. There's no question there are lesser evil problems here - shutdowns cause real problems for real human beings, as do viruses. Classifying persons concerned about that as Red - Bad, and the other as Blue - Good, gets you nowhere. But that's what the media has done.

Mistaking Peggy Noonan's Irish working class realism as hedge managers' pontification is not impressive.

[2006alum]

Classifying persons concerned about that as Red - Bad, and the other as Blue - Good, gets you nowhere.

I didn't classify one side as good and one side as bad - seems like that's what Noonan is doing. And BTW, there is widespread evidence that partisanship, not economic circumstances, is the primary determinant of support for lockdowns:

Three-quarters of Democrats surveyed support keeping the lockdown in place for as long as needed, compared with 45% of Republicans. The 41% of people surveyed who lost income because of the pandemic were not more likely to support a quick reopening of the American economy.
“In other words, politics more than economics is dividing Americans when it comes to what is the right trade-off our government should make between saving lives and hurting the economy,” the authors write.

Mistaking Peggy Noonan's Irish working class realilsm as hedge managers' pontification is not impressive.

If Noonan permanently qualifies as a member of the "realist" working class because she has Irish working class roots, then President Obama, President Clinton, Secretary Hilary Clinton, and Justice Sotomayor are all voices of the realist working class too, based on their family backgrounds, and President Trump, Senator Rand Paul, and Justice Gorsuch are all voices of the managerial overclass elites, based on theirs. Seems like a pretty flimsy qualification if you ask me.

[2006alum]

Classifying persons concerned about that as Red - Bad, and the other as Blue - Good, gets you nowhere.

I didn't classify one side as good and one side as bad - seems like that's what Noonan is doing. And BTW, there is widespread evidence that partisanship, not economic circumstances, is the primary determinant of support for lockdowns:

Three-quarters of Democrats surveyed support keeping the lockdown in place for as long as needed, compared with 45% of Republicans. The 41% of people surveyed who lost income because of the pandemic were not more likely to support a quick reopening of the American economy.
“In other words, politics more than economics is dividing Americans when it comes to what is the right trade-off our government should make between saving lives and hurting the economy,” the authors write.

Mistaking Peggy Noonan's Irish working class realilsm as hedge managers' pontification is not impressive.

If Noonan permanently qualifies as a member of the "realist" working class because she has Irish working class roots, then President Obama, President Clinton, Secretary Hilary Clinton, and Justice Sotomayor are all voices of the realist working class too, based on their family backgrounds, and President Trump, Senator Rand Paul, and Justice Gorsuch are all voices of the managerial overclass elites, based on theirs. Seems like a pretty flimsy qualification if you ask me.