Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

[Paine]

NAFTA nor Wal-Mart killed the Southern Textile industry……it was dying in the late ‘70’s and early-mid ‘80’s. So was the furniture industry.

At best, automated textile mills would replace the mills of the ‘50’s, ‘60’s, and ‘70’s. If automation replaced the workers, the mills are still there; the jobs are gone.

Democrats offered training to displaced mill workers (textile, steel, furniture, etc.); Republicans offered grievance. Poorly educated mill workers wanted their jobs back; their jobs were gone.

”The fumes of the Southern Strategy…..”

You think the Southern Strategy was dying in 1976-1984?

You think it was limited to the South?

You’re right that the decline of the Southern textile and furniture industries began before NAFTA or Walmart entered the picture. Automation, globalization, and shifts in capital investment were already transforming those sectors by the late ‘70s and early ‘80s.

The timing and political management of that decline still matter. So does the story people were told, or not told, about what was happening to them.

What NAFTA and Walmart represented wasn’t the beginning of the collapse, but a bipartisan endorsement of a model that said: “This is the future. Get used to it.”

Democrats offered job training, sure…but for what exactly? For service jobs at half the wages? A PowerPoint and a training voucher are not a political vision.

Republicans, meanwhile, offered a story. A bad story, often grounded in scapegoating, but a story that acknowledged loss, and assigned some emotional meaning to it.

What I’m arguing is this: when people say they want their jobs back, it’s not always a literal demand. It’s often a longing for dignity, stability, community, identity. A time when they felt useful, needed. We can’t just dismiss that as backward or irrational.

As for the “fumes of the Southern Strategy line…,” I think we might just be using the term differently. When I say Reagan’s coalition wasn’t running purely on the “fumes of the Southern Strategy,” I’m referring specifically to the Goldwater-to-Nixon era model: overtly racial appeals aimed at disaffected Southern whites, later repackaged in coded language.

What Reagan did was build on that foundation and expand it into a national emotional narrative that fused coded racial grievance with themes of economic individualism, national decline, and patriotic renewal. That’s what made it so potent. It wasn’t just the dog whistles; it was the story.

Lee Atwater said it best. By the 1980s, the coded language had become so abstract,”cutting taxes,” “small government,” “welfare reform,” that it didn’t just appeal to the South. It could sell in the Midwest, in the West, in the suburbs. And it brought in voters who didn’t think of themselves as racist, but who still responded emotionally to that broader narrative.

If we flatten that into just “hate and racism,” we miss how the emotional power of that message shaped American politics for decades and how a lot of working- and middle-class voters ended up inside that coalition not because they were committed bigots, but because the left had stopped telling a competing story that spoke to their lives.

 

[Calheel]

Although I do think Jon Stewart could be a dark horse candidate. He is 2x the debater that Gavin Newsom is and he has the advantage of actually believing what he says.

And see, this is why I think Jon Stewart would be a good President. He sees Gavin for the fakey fake he is, too

 

[hedge]

What NAFTA and Walmart represented wasn’t the beginning of the collapse, but a bipartisan endorsement of a model that said: “This is the future. Get used to it.”

Sounds like each new generation of iPhone. Or people...

 

[hedge]

What I’m arguing is this: when people say they want their jobs back, it’s not always a literal demand. It’s often a longing for dignity, stability, community, identity.

You left out the most important thing: Money. That may not be all that everybody cares about, but it's very big part of what most people care about (which actually dovetails back into my quip about people voting for anybody who promised to direct deposit $10K into their checking accounts). All of the other things you mentioned fall into place when you've got money. And I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. It might be a good thing. How to get it, though?

 

[Zoo_View]

You’re right that the decline of the Southern textile and furniture industries began before NAFTA or Walmart entered the picture. Automation, globalization, and shifts in capital investment were already transforming those sectors by the late ‘70s and early ‘80s.

The timing and political management of that decline still matter. So does the story people were told, or not told, about what was happening to them.

What NAFTA and Walmart represented wasn’t the beginning of the collapse, but a bipartisan endorsement of a model that said: “This is the future. Get used to it.”

Democrats offered job training, sure…but for what exactly? For service jobs at half the wages? A PowerPoint and a training voucher are not a political vision.

Republicans, meanwhile, offered a story. A bad story, often grounded in scapegoating, but a story that acknowledged loss, and assigned some emotional meaning to it.

What I’m arguing is this: when people say they want their jobs back, it’s not always a literal demand. It’s often a longing for dignity, stability, community, identity. A time when they felt useful, needed. We can’t just dismiss that as backward or irrational.

As for the “fumes of the Southern Strategy line…,” I think we might just be using the term differently. When I say Reagan’s coalition wasn’t running purely on the “fumes of the Southern Strategy,” I’m referring specifically to the Goldwater-to-Nixon era model: overtly racial appeals aimed at disaffected Southern whites, later repackaged in coded language.

What Reagan did was build on that foundation and expand it into a national emotional narrative that fused coded racial grievance with themes of economic individualism, national decline, and patriotic renewal. That’s what made it so potent. It wasn’t just the dog whistles; it was the story.

Lee Atwater said it best. By the 1980s, the coded language had become so abstract,”cutting taxes,” “small government,” “welfare reform,” that it didn’t just appeal to the South. It could sell in the Midwest, in the West, in the suburbs. And it brought in voters who didn’t think of themselves as racist, but who still responded emotionally to that broader narrative.

If we flatten that into just “hate and racism,” we miss how the emotional power of that message shaped American politics for decades and how a lot of working- and middle-class voters ended up inside that coalition not because they were committed bigots, but because the left had stopped telling a competing story that spoke to their lives.

Thank you for educating me on how Lee Atwater changed wording of the Southern Strategy.

I didn’t know they could no longer shout, “N****r, N****r, N****r,” when Reagan or Helms ran for office. I didn’t know that “school busing,” “welfare queen,” “welfare reform,” “food stamps,” or “states’ rights” weren’t racist code words.

I always thought that speaking at Bob Jones University or the Neshoba County Fair, especially about states’ rights, sent “I am with you” signals to racists and bigots. I didn’t realize it’s been about expressing sympathy to the white working class because jobs are doing what they’ve done for centuries - move to areas with lower costs.

 

[hedge]

when people say they want their jobs back, it’s not always a literal demand. It’s often a longing for dignity, stability, community, identity. A time when they felt useful, needed. We can’t just dismiss that as backward or irrational.

This probably isn't the time or place to discuss rationality in contradistinction to feelings and longings and needlings, is it? I don't even know what the thread title is...

 

[hedge]

What Reagan did was build on that foundation and expand it into a national emotional narrative that fused coded racial grievance with themes of economic individualism, national decline, and patriotic renewal. That’s what made it so potent. It wasn’t just the dog whistles; it was the story.

Sounds like Gone With The Wind...

Speaking of that, this scene from Gone With the Wind popped in my mind the other day when you were talking about politicians needing to be able to at least seem sincere, and meet people "where they are" with material reality, or materiality. Something about material, anyway (I swear I tried but I just never could get into Marx)..

 

[hedge]

Lee Atwater said it best. By the 1980s, the coded language had become so abstract,”cutting taxes,” “small government,” “welfare reform,” that it didn’t just appeal to the South. It could sell in the Midwest, in the West, in the suburbs. And it brought in voters who didn’t think of themselves as racist, but who still responded emotionally to that broader narrative.

What was the broader narrative they were responding to? The abstract coded language about small government, etc., or the fusion of coded racial grievance with themes of economic individualism, national decline, and patriotic renewal? I'm trying to remember if I've ever thought of myself as responding to a broader narrative. I mean obviously that could be happening without one consciously realizing it. Interesting phrase, that. Responding to a broader narrative. Seems to pinpoint something in the program of most religions and cultures. Or families, for that matter...

 

[hedge]

And see, this is why I think Jon Stewart would be a good President. He sees Gavin for the fakey fake he is, too

He's onto somethihg there with people wanting their politicians to be charaters of some kind..

 

[Kingpin]

My issue with Newsom was the televised primetime address to the nation -- something that is the domain of presidents. I would have had no objection to Newsom making a speech at a rally or calling a press conference -- which are normal things for governors to do.

How many times do people have to tell you it was an address to Cali and not the Nation? That the national media after the fact picked it up and amplified it is predictable given the circumstances. And I’m sure he knew that could happen and glad it did. It was a great speech. If you read the transcript without knowing who delivered the speech you would love it. Your hatred of Newsom blinds your judgement

 

[Paine]

Thank you for educating me on how Lee Atwater changed wording of the Southern Strategy.

I didn’t know they could no longer shout, “N****r, N****r, N****r,” when Reagan or Helms ran for office. I didn’t know that “school busing,” “welfare queen,” “welfare reform,” “food stamps,” or “states’ rights” weren’t racist code words.

I always thought that speaking at Bob Jones University or the Neshoba County Fair, especially about states’ rights, sent “I am with you” signals to racists and bigots. I didn’t realize it’s been about expressing sympathy to the white working class because jobs are doing what they’ve done for centuries - move to areas with lower costs.

I wasn’t trying to “educate” you, I was building on the example you raised to make a broader point about how the strategy evolved. I know you already know this stuff. So do I. I just thought it was worth unpacking for anyone else reading. No hard feelings.

To clarify, I’m not disputing that Reagan and figures like Helms used coded racial appeals, or that speeches at places like Bob Jones University or the Neshoba County Fair sent clear signals. I’m building on that by looking at how those signals evolved into something bigger: a national narrative that combined racial coding with themes of patriotic renewal, economic individualism, and national decline. That’s what made it more potent and more durable.

On the economic side: yes, jobs have always shifted, but they don’t just move like weather patterns. Political choices helped accelerate that movement.

The problem wasn’t just the economic transformation, it was the absence of a compelling political story from the left that explained it, validated people’s losses, and offered a path forward.

 

[Paine]

This probably isn't the time or place to discuss rationality in contradistinction to feelings and longings and needlings, is it? I don't even know what the thread title is...

I don’t see emotion and rationality as opposites. In politics, emotions often are the vehicle for rational thought, especially when they’re tied to real experiences of loss, dislocation, or being ignored. That’s not necessarily irrational; it’s how people make sense of their place in the world.

 

[Mundial]

And see, this is why I think Jon Stewart would be a good President. He sees Gavin for the fakey fake he is, too

When Stewart is running as a candidate and actually offering a plan, I will consider his views until then he is just another clever comedian.

Newsom with a win in court by the way. He’s fighting.

 

[Paine]

What was the broader narrative they were responding to? The abstract coded language about small government, etc., or the fusion of coded racial grievance with themes of economic individualism, national decline, and patriotic renewal? I'm trying to remember if I've ever thought of myself as responding to a broader narrative. I mean obviously that could be happening without one consciously realizing it. Interesting phrase, that. Responding to a broader narrative. Seems to pinpoint something in the program of most religions and cultures. Or families, for that matter...

Yeah, I think you’re getting at it. These narratives always carry multiple layers: racial, cultural, emotional, economic. To your earlier point, they don’t always operate as clean rational choices but as ways of making sense of a changing world. Racial grievance was baked into the narrative, but it was fused with a sense of national decline, economic betrayal, and the promise of personal agency.

When I say people responded to a “broader narrative,” I don’t mean they consciously embraced some full ideological program. I mean they felt something real: a sense of being unmoored, of having lost dignity, purpose, and place. The narrative Reagan offered, whether through “small government” rhetoric or patriotic renewal, told them that their losses weren’t their fault and that their identity still mattered. That message resonated even with people who didn’t think of themselves as racist or consciously respond to race-based appeals.

So yes, racism was part of the fuel. But the engine was bigger than that. It ran on fear, pride, dislocation, nostalgia, and a desire to matter. That’s why it worked and why it still works.

 

[hedge]

It ran on fear, pride, dislocation, nostalgia, and a desire to matter. That’s why it worked and why it still works.

I wonder if that will work for AI?

 

[Paine]

I wonder if that will work for AI?

Exactly, and I think that’s where the left has to do some serious work. We’ve been far too slow to recognize that economic dislocation isn’t just about numbers on a spreadsheet. It’s about meaning. Identity. Place in the world.

If AI and automation end up doing to white-collar work what deindustrialization did to blue-collar towns, we’re going to see a new wave of disillusionment and reaction, not just from the working class. If we don’t start telling a story that gives people a sense of belonging and purpose in the face of that, someone else will. And history suggests their version of the story probably won’t be pretty.

 

[Zoo_View]

I wasn’t trying to “educate” you, I was building on the example you raised to make a broader point about how the strategy evolved. I know you already know this stuff. So do I. I just thought it was worth unpacking for anyone else reading. No hard feelings.

To clarify, I’m not disputing that Reagan and figures like Helms used coded racial appeals, or that speeches at places like Bob Jones University or the Neshoba County Fair sent clear signals. I’m building on that by looking at how those signals evolved into something bigger: a national narrative that combined racial coding with themes of patriotic renewal, economic individualism, and national decline. That’s what made it more potent and more durable.

On the economic side: yes, jobs have always shifted, but they don’t just move like weather patterns. Political choices helped accelerate that movement.

The problem wasn’t just the economic transformation, it was the absence of a compelling political story from the left that explained it, validated people’s losses, and offered a path forward.

Appreciate your post.

I hate to say it…….you can’t tell a truthful, logical, rational story about jobs moving to cheaper locales without a Trump or Pat Buchanan screaming, “They stole yer jerbs!”

The jobs had left or were leaving before the trade agreement.

The mill workers or coal miners don’t want re-training. They want their old jobs…….which are GONE FOREVER.

Trump and the GOP will lie and say, “We’ll bring back yer jerbs.”

How does one campaign against that lie?

Also, “they” stole yer jerbs!

They equals them, immigrants, brown people, elites, commies, socialists, leftists, Democrats……….When you’re explaining, you’re losing.

Democrats and center/left Americans have an extraordinarily difficult row to hoe.

 

[Paine]

Appreciate your post.

I hate to say it…….you can’t tell a truthful, logical, rational story about jobs moving to cheaper locales without a Trump or Pat Buchanan screaming, “They stole yer jerbs!”

The jobs had left or were leaving before the trade agreement.

The mill workers or coal miners don’t want re-training. They want their old jobs…….which are GONE FOREVER.

Trump and the GOP will lie and say, “We’ll bring back yer jerbs.”

How does one campaign against that lie?

Also, “they” stole yer jerbs!

They equals them, immigrants, brown people, elites, commies, socialists, leftists, Democrats……….When you’re explaining, you’re losing.

Democrats and center/left Americans have an extraordinarily difficult row to hoe.

Totally agree it’s a tough road, and I appreciate your response(s) as well.

You’re absolutely right that we can’t lie and say the jobs are coming back exactly as they were. That ship has sailed. But we also can’t lead with a shrug and a training brochure. Like I said, people don’t just want a job; they want purpose, dignity, identity. If we don’t speak to that, someone else will.

The challenge for Democrats isn’t just to tell the truth. It’s to tell a truth that feels like it matters. One that names the forces that gutted these communities, validates the anger, and offers a real vision of shared renewal. That’s not easy. But “they stole your jobs” works emotionally because it tells a simple story of loss and betrayal. We need stories that can match that resonance without feeding the same scapegoats.

I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I think something like this could be a powerful political message for the left:

“You didn’t fail, the people in power did. They made decisions that hollowed out your town, your industry, your future. They told you it was inevitable. But it wasn’t. And it still isn’t. We can build a country where working people matter again, where investment flows to our communities, where the work we do is respected, and where no one is disposable.”

That’s not a promise to turn back the clock, It’s a promise to fight like hell for a better deal going forward. People need to feel seen, not managed. They need someone who will say: your pain makes sense, and your life should be worth more than this.

Despite his flaws, Bernie Sanders came closer than anyone in recent memory to tapping into this. He talked about betrayal, not by immigrants or outsiders, but by billionaires and political elites. He connected Wall Street greed, corporate offshoring, and austerity politics into a coherent story. It resonated because it didn’t deny people’s pain or try to manage it with technocratic fixes; it honored it and named a villain.

 

[Zoo_View]

Totally agree it’s a tough road, and I appreciate your response(s) as well.

You’re absolutely right that we can’t lie and say the jobs are coming back exactly as they were. That ship has sailed. But we also can’t lead with a shrug and a training brochure. Like I said, people don’t just want a job; they want purpose, dignity, identity. If we don’t speak to that, someone else will.

The challenge for Democrats isn’t just to tell the truth. It’s to tell a truth that feels like it matters. One that names the forces that gutted these communities, validates the anger, and offers a real vision of shared renewal. That’s not easy. But “they stole your jobs” works emotionally because it tells a simple story of loss and betrayal. We need stories that can match that resonance without feeding the same scapegoats.

I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I think something like this could be a powerful political message for the left:

“You didn’t fail, the people in power did. They made decisions that hollowed out your town, your industry, your future. They told you it was inevitable. But it wasn’t. And it still isn’t. We can build a country where working people matter again, where investment flows to our communities, where the work we do is respected, and where no one is disposable.”

That’s not a promise to turn back the clock, It’s a promise to fight like hell for a better deal going forward. People need to feel seen, not managed. They need someone who will say: your pain makes sense, and your life should be worth more than this.

Despite his flaws, Bernie Sanders came closer than anyone in recent memory to tapping into this. He talked about betrayal, not by immigrants or outsiders, but by billionaires and political elites. He connected Wall Street greed, corporate offshoring, and austerity politics into a coherent story. It resonated because it didn’t deny people’s pain or try to manage it with technocratic fixes; it honored it and named a villain.

Bernie didn’t come close to explaining how to fix things. The closest Bernie came to a fix was blaming free trade…….so, was Bernie’s fix tariffs?

Bernie was a new version of the angry vitriol of “They stole yer jerbs.”

 

[Kingpin]

Totally agree it’s a tough road, and I appreciate your response(s) as well.

You’re absolutely right that we can’t lie and say the jobs are coming back exactly as they were. That ship has sailed. But we also can’t lead with a shrug and a training brochure. Like I said, people don’t just want a job; they want purpose, dignity, identity. If we don’t speak to that, someone else will.

The challenge for Democrats isn’t just to tell the truth. It’s to tell a truth that feels like it matters. One that names the forces that gutted these communities, validates the anger, and offers a real vision of shared renewal. That’s not easy. But “they stole your jobs” works emotionally because it tells a simple story of loss and betrayal. We need stories that can match that resonance without feeding the same scapegoats.

I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I think something like this could be a powerful political message for the left:

“You didn’t fail, the people in power did. They made decisions that hollowed out your town, your industry, your future. They told you it was inevitable. But it wasn’t. And it still isn’t. We can build a country where working people matter again, where investment flows to our communities, where the work we do is respected, and where no one is disposable.”

That’s not a promise to turn back the clock, It’s a promise to fight like hell for a better deal going forward. People need to feel seen, not managed. They need someone who will say: your pain makes sense, and your life should be worth more than this.

Despite his flaws, Bernie Sanders came closer than anyone in recent memory to tapping into this. He talked about betrayal, not by immigrants or outsiders, but by billionaires and political elites. He connected Wall Street greed, corporate offshoring, and austerity politics into a coherent story. It resonated because it didn’t deny people’s pain or try to manage it with technocratic fixes; it honored it and named a villain.

Agreed. For this to happen we will need a 2008 sea change in politics. Saying that and making any substantive changes requires a compliant Congress. Without a super majority. The obstructionist Pubs will make that politician look like a liar, unfortunately