This sure fits an interesting middle ground sort of journalism. I don't think I'm quite qualified to describe it, anyone up to help?
For one, it tackles the same insecurity subject conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones approach. However, he keeps it in the realm of rationality. What is the "It"? The main subject seems to be a description of the position and orientation of classes in USA society, and how they're changing.
Now, why is this so different than what other publications publish? I've heard before that Class in America is a touchy subject, and I don't see it mentioned much in The New Yorker, the New York Times, on TV, or in any of the sites I read online.
It seems like something in the idea of Classes conflicts with the Left/Right narrative you hear in 'the media'. Classes should have interests within themselves, not necessarily 100% split among party lines. And the media mostly tells the stories from party perspectives. Does that make sense to anyone? This is confusing to me.
Class is both very real and very touchy in the United States. But people use the term in a really broken way, typically trying to map arbitrary income groups with classes. Which is convenient for everyone: Democratic-aligned classes can try to maintain their privileged position using class rhetoric to bludgeon Republican-aligned classes, and Republican-aligned classes can deny class altogether and take advantage of real but ignored class rifts within the Democratic coalition.
Of course, the classes at the bottom of the respective coalitions get screwed in the process. Which isn't to say that there's any grand lower-class coalition waiting to be made: disempowered classes align themselves in the partisan coalitions out of genuine self-interest, not out of false consciousness. They're just getting a disproportionately small serving of the winnings.
> disempowered classes align themselves in the partisan coalitions out of genuine self-interest, not out of false consciousness. They're just getting a disproportionately small serving of the winnings.
To quote John Steinbeck, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
I think it's a lot simpler and sadder than what we want to admit. Most viewers of Fox News are pretty old, and most viewers/readers of liberal media have high paying white collar jobs.
Most people are working multiple jobs and don't interact with politics, so they more or less don't have to be appeased to. They are just trying to pay their bills.
Stratfor isn't really a news media company like the times or a tv station. IIRC they sell analysis & forecasting services to governments and large corporations.
The author of this article wrote a book called The Next 100 Years which is a pretty interesting read.
For one, it tackles the same insecurity subject conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones approach. However, he keeps it in the realm of rationality. What is the "It"? The main subject seems to be a description of the position and orientation of classes in USA society, and how they're changing.
Now, why is this so different than what other publications publish? I've heard before that Class in America is a touchy subject, and I don't see it mentioned much in The New Yorker, the New York Times, on TV, or in any of the sites I read online.
It seems like something in the idea of Classes conflicts with the Left/Right narrative you hear in 'the media'. Classes should have interests within themselves, not necessarily 100% split among party lines. And the media mostly tells the stories from party perspectives. Does that make sense to anyone? This is confusing to me.