It started some time ago, but was largely undetected. I read Peggy Noonan’s article regarding the “protected” and “unprotected” class of voters. The”protected” represent those who have money, schooling, and access to the best of everything. The “unprotected” represents everyone else. The assertion is that the “protected” have different “goals” than the “unprotected” and because of this, they end up “sticking it to” the “unprotected”. Let’s take a very” shallow”look at this thesis and ascertain how it works in the area of immigration:
Immigration: To be fair, this is only a shallow observation, however, Noonan states in her article: “Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally. It was good for the protected.” The “protected” class had problems only to the extent that the let the problem into their lives. Behind gated communities, in security buildings and tucked away in “like minded clubs, activities, and businesses”, not to mention towns and enclaves that seclude them from the “others” by virtue of exclusivity and high price……. The “protected” thrive on low cost child care, in home maid service, people who take care of elderly relatives and so on….. When I go to the movies at one particular location in Boca Raton, it is common to see a Jamaican, Haitian, Mexican or Asian ‘nurse” sitting with their benefactress or employer. I love the movies, it is a treat after a long week in the office, so I often invite a client or two to join me. Last week I went to see the movie Brooklyn for the 3rd time. I love Ireland, my Grandmother is of that heritage, and the story is easy on the heart and mind. After buying the ticket for my client, we were seated and the waiter came to get our drink orders. My guest wanted red wine and I ordered a strawberry lemonade, the waiter asked my guest if that was OK with her and asked if SHE wanted to start a tab for herself and her “nurse”. I am not a nurse and I answered that I will be paying with my card.
This is the reality of the “protected”. The can afford to frame the immigration question in the most “moral” terms. They can claim “morality” when they “wax poetic” about the plight of the “undocumented” who turn to the US as a way to escape the abhorrent conditions in their own countries. Because in essence what the “protected’ mean by this is good, cheap labor. people who will do things that the average American worker will not do, people who are grateful, and people who are often exploited with “extra” demands, longer hours and meager wages. Most importantly, these are people who don’t complain because they can be “dismissed” immediately and without recourse.
Television commercials often depict this subtly, as in the case of the Visiting Angels commercial in which an elderly man states that he was always “there” for the people in his family and now his “Visiting Angel”, a younger Black woman – is there for him. I wonder what happened to wipe out his whole family of 4 or 5 children? And while I can understand that people have their own lives, the cost of a “Visiting Angel” can be as high as $250 a day or $1000 per week for “Angel care” for for what amounts to watching the television and providing companionship for the elderly “protected”. To be clear, the worker does not collect anything close to that. And while many of the workers are happy to get the job, many complain that “The hardest part of the job is there are not benefits or future advancement.” Such is the experience of the “protected” vs. the “unprotected”.
Noonan further states: “Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally. It was good for the protected.”
Understand that you can read Noonan’s article in its entirety, however, the idea is clear, regardless of the party the belief is that there is a chasm between one group and another “protected and unprotected”). The only difference is that, at least until this political cycle, the “protected” have been able to frame a message and limit the choices to reflect only choice A or B that benefited them. For example, entering the Presidential election cycle, the choice was “supposed” to be between Bush and Clinton. The DNC sufficiently stacked the deck so that no matter what happened, Clinton would be the winner by a probability of 75 – 80 percent due to the stacking of the “super-delegates” and the two Clintoned coins. All Clinton had to do was run the clock with a plethora of staged events and “tight shot” events choreographed to cinematic-ally depict big crowds and she was “In like Flynn” . Not so on the Republican side.
Perhaps because for a longer time and maybe disappointments dating back to the past two failed election cycles and some of the Bush era, the Republican electorate were moved beyond frustration and could no longer “take it anymore”. Perhaps it was the there was a feeling, expressed by many in the “protected”, that they would not mind electing the Democrat, if they did not get the Republican THEY wanted. Because within this statement came the understanding that there were not two parties – Republican and Democrat, but two factions – “protected” and “unprotected”. And for 99 percent of them on the Republican side, they felt that they were part of the “unprotected”. They are also wiser in that they realize that the “representations” are often the opposite of reality. The dichotomy being that the “billionaire” might be for them more so than the “son of the maid and bartender”, in that one has seen the plight and understands and the other enjoys the perks.
What do you think?