Voting for Nothing For the Last Time
I voted for Joe Biden because of Donald Trump. There was no other reason and in any other election, he wouldn’t get a vote from me. So now he will be our next President, with some vague expectation of a return to “normalcy.” This is a relative normalcy, of course. One I’ve never embraced. It is, in fact, a normalcy of nothing. Nothing is what he promised. And I think this is a campaign promise that he will likely keep. For the past 3 decades, the Democratic Party has done little or nothing, promised nothing, and delivered nothing. The irony is, that many are quite satisfied with this. It is effectively a status quo party, interrupted by a more passionate and often reckless Republican Party, with the effect being an occasionally interrupted voyage to the bottom of the sea. There will be no vision. There will be no change. The hopes of those on the left who bit the bullet and voted for Biden will be dashed as they always are.
It wasn’t always like this. We had FDR and JFK and RFK and MLK, men of vision and initials. There were ideas and ideals and a sense of progress. Now we have a corporate trough, feeding spineless politicians who will double-speak their way out of anything that their donors don’t want. A health care system run by insurance companies; An environmental policy controlled by oil companies; an economy run by banks and corporations; and what we get from the Democrats is just a not-so-polite “no,” with a hint of self-righteous anger and condescension, when we dare demand better from them.
We can go back in time a bit and watch it all unfold. There was the Carter Administration, which was a last breath of idealism, but with poor execution, and the left was crushed, hiding in the bushes during the Reagan years, when “liberal” became a dirty word. Michael Dukakis was beaten by the mere hyperbole, the liberal bogeyman. Then came Bill Clinton, and what we didn’t know, was just how far off the rails it would go. His wife was going to give us a national health care system and then it got crushed or it was all a hoax and, from what I gather, Clinton just cynically moved to the right, sold out to corporations and won a second term. At least that’s how I remember it. But we were winning, was the argument, so suck it up, even if you don’t like the guy and even while he makes a spectacle of himself.
By the time he left office, we were left with little more than a competing brand of neo-liberalism and a Democratic Party that was unrecognizable. We were going to teach these corporate democrats a lesson, though, by voting Green Party rather than endure four years of Al Gore. “They’re the same as the Republicans,” we decided and what’s the difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush? Well, as it turned out, there was probably a hell of a lot of difference and Al Gore now seems like the victim of bad timing and his predecessor’s sexual proclivities. I have a lot of regret, perhaps more so retrospectively only because the later, bearded, philosophical Al Gore who had a plan to save the environment suggests that perhaps he might have done more than we gave him credit for, whether or not he invented the internet.
By this time, the left had no power in the Democratic Party and was never going to be forgiven for George W. Bush. These same centrist haters could all cheer on the war created by their villain, and put up the least interesting candidate imaginable to oppose him, and what could we do? Vote Green again? No, we held our noses and voted for John Kerry, who was going to “fight a smarter war,” but it was still somehow the fault of the left when Bush won his second term. The bankruptcy of the Democratic Party seemed complete, with no way out.
Then, we thought maybe a miracle was happening. That perceived miracle was Barack Obama, who had had the audacity to oppose the Iraq War and could lead the Party back where it belonged. We were too giddy to read the fine print, though, until after he was elected and said he was going to “reach across the aisle,” inexplicably unaware that there would be no one to reach, as he tempered his approach to appease the unappeasable and created basically the kind of health care plan that Republicans had been espousing for years, surprised when it was then demonized and reviled by them. Meanwhile, we on the left had hated it more, and when they couldn’t even throw us the “public option” bone, the love affair was over and we were back to holding our noses with low expectations that were certainly met, and wondered whether his war opposition was anything more than political theater.
Here we had another chance, though, because the Republicans had lost their sanity and were about to nominate a carnival barker and there before us stood Bernie Sanders. Here was a bona fide leftist who took no prisoners. The guy was the real deal and everyone knew it. That, of course, was not welcome news for the Democrats who pulled the strings. The centrist air proved to be too thick, though, and the fix was in for Hillary Clinton, the one person who seemed most likely to lose to the carnival barker. And lose, she did. If you are following along, you probably know exactly who got the blame for this and it wasn’t Hillary Clinton or the brain trust that ran her failed campaign. It was the left, of course. That Bernie and his “followers” would dare question the candidate and put her on her heels was apparently why she was too tarnished to beat Trump, who had been attacked viciously by every other Republican running and somehow was unscathed. Again, all you can do is hold your nose and make your vote and live to fight another day.
By 2020, the centrist grip on the wheels of power seemed arthritic, and they were unable to field a viable candidate who could beat Bernie in the primary. This time we were going to make Bernie happen. Again, we underestimated the resolve of the centrists, who seemed more determined to get rid of Bernie than to beat Trump. Unbeknownst to us at the time, the centrists had one last dollar tucked in Obama’s shoe and he pulled it out at just the right time, to give us his old buddy, Joe Biden. There was a week there, though, where it looked like it was going to be Bernie and the political swagger of that week is something I will always cherish. I will go to my grave wondering what might have been, and I doubt any such opportunity will come again in my lifetime.
“Sleepy Joe,” as his opponent aptly nicknamed him, has lost most of his nasty edge to the ravages of age, fading to a lethargic, grandfatherly aura that was conveniently the perfect foil for those who had had enough of the Trump chaos. Sadly, Sleepy Joe didn’t have much else to offer and wasn’t much of an inspiration for the down ballots, so we are probably left with a Republican Senate that will surely block anything left of Ronald Reagan, and serve as the perfect excuse for the Democrats who aspire to do nothing. And, again, the left is being blamed for this predicament, what with their scary BLM, police defunding and “socialized” medicine.
Now we can watch the next sequel in a played-out series, while Republicans attack, and Democrats respond to a knife fight with an outstretched hand, looking for some mythical, shared vision.
They will throw not a bone to the left. They will likely get a temporary boost and diversion from a Covid vaccine, with a frenzy akin to the end of a war and a whole crop of “Covid Boomers.” But that will no doubt fade and it will be business as usual, or no business, as usual. The midterms will be a “crushing rebuke” or a “red wave,” and we will be set up for whatever insanity has been cooked up by the right, as Sleepy Joe fades into one-term obscurity, only to get his name in the history books, and we are told, again, that we need to move the party further to the right, towards the “Never-Cottoners,” with the failure again blamed on the left.
Well, this is the last time for me. I won’t vote for another centrist hack. I care not what villain is put up to oppose him. I probably won’t vote for the villain, either, but I won’t participate in this circus any more.
“And, again, the left is being blamed for this predicament, what with their scary BLM, police defunding and “socialized” medicine.”
And rightly so. BLM aint associated with the Republican’s and Democrats in charge in Seattle and other places, have made a mess of it. Bed’s made baby.
But did you REALLY think that you’d get someone non corporate? Really? You’re not even going to get Biden. 50 dollars says he doesn’t last 2 years in office before you’re graced with Kamala as pres.
I concluded that the Dems were as bad as the Repubs decades ago……ain’t seen nothing to change that.Report
The amazing thing about both Obama and Trump is that, for the first two years, they had what they needed to do something.
And the democrats got insurance reform, kinda, and the republicans got tax cuts part seventeen.
Oh, if only the opposition wasn’t in the way!, supporters say.
Then what? What would have happened?
You got what you got because of your backers, not despite your opponents.Report
Yep – which is why when ultra conservatives lament that lack of action Roe V. Wade I always ask why Republican Congresses with Republican Presidents never simply outlaw abortion. I know full well the answer, nut it’s hilarious to watch the mental gymnastics.Report
Congress cannot outlaw abortion due to Row V Wade Supreme Court cases. The Republicans did not funding to organizations that perform abortion, even at the international level.
What is amazing is that the Republicans can run on how bad the Democrats are but in a swing state where the Democrats control the legislature, if the Republicans regain control, the first thing they would do is pass some obnoxious anti-abortion law and then spend millions defending it in court.
Democrats must love abortion because it shows that the Republicans do not really care about small government, individual freedoms, or not wasting money.Report
Of course this “I refuse to participate in the real world” attitude is exactly why we got Trump in 2016.Report
“And that’s why you have to vote for my candidate who is running on a platform written by oil companies.”Report
Yep. Sometimes. That’s life and politics dude. Maybe buy an electric car and stove and put the oil companies out of business so they can’t influence your Senator? You know, do your part. Jebus, I get so impatients with this shitte. “Fall in love in the primaries, but fall in line in the general.” Such and easy thing to remember and do that even the morons on the right can figure it out. I voted for Paul Tsongas, then Clinton. If you bought the media/right-wing line on Al Gore, that’s your own dumb fault. Dean – the most energetic and intelligent party builder of the past 25 years – then Kerry. Barry, then, Barry. Warren, then Biden. It’s not hard. Yes, Bernie is probably the closest to my actual Dem Socialist ideals than any other candidate, but he’s a terrible leader and politician. I couldn’t actually even get myself to vote for him in the primaries because I just couldn’t love him, or his approach. But if he’d won? Of course I’d do everything I could to elect him. But then he’d lose the general in a landslide, and you know who would get the blame?Report
Minorities?Report
There are well reasoned positions that one can take the conclude with a person deciding not to vote. I came to that conclusion many years ago when I realized that the positions the parties claimed to support were actually the positions they supported. The mainstream candidates are just that…mainstream. No outsider is getting elected….might as well enjoy the ride.Report
I’ll say this as clearly as I can. The thing keeping you from getting what you want is the voters. It is not the Democratic Party.
I do not blame progressives for any disappointment this cycle. Mostly I want what they want, we just differ on what methods to use.
One cannot expect elected politicians to be advocates. They have to get elected. They have to get re-elected. Advocates must be advocates, and clarify their message. It’s fine if an advocate ruffles feathers. It doesn’t work so well for an elected politician.Report
Agree completely. And too many on the left cling to the clearly outdated notion that voting is advocacy. It’s not. Advocacy takes dedicated action.
Which is why I keep harping on the Greens (and sometime libertarians) to get the work done of getting elected locally. You can’t expect the keys to the People’s House if you haven’t shown them how you will take care of their houses.Report
I’ve reached the point where I just see the one policy that, if removed, would act as a steam release valve for so many other policies.
The War On Drugs is the thing that, if reversed, would help with a lot of police policy and health care policy and a handful of other things. (Note: It is not a cure-all and has bad things that follow in addition to the good things that follow. But it does a couple of good things and prevents a bunch of bad things, for a relatively low cost given the benefits and relaxed detriments.)
Do I have a plan to make the world better as a whole? YOUBETCHA! It involves nuclear power, more free trade, more redistribution of wealth into R&D, and better senses of humor.
But it won’t fly.
I support the parts of it that other people push for, of course.
At this point, the thing that seems easiest to end that would do the most good is Prohibition 2.0.Report
on this you and I agree. I also note its the ONLY thing you are ever clear about in your writing. There’s a lesson there if you care to look for it.Report
Which of several possible lessons? Not pissing off those on the only part of the currently existing political spectrum who do not actively oppose what you want?Report
Write clearly so people can understand what you are saying without a degree in verbal archeology.Report
That too.Report
“Marrying Socratic Method with Devil’s Advocacy is just trolling, but it’s even worse when you’re bad at both of them”?Report
We could do this all day.Report
A jaybird may fly far ahead,
or dart after some thing that you said,
it may fly to high ground
or may circle around,
and you wind up with poop on your head.
We spend too much time here comment on Jaybird’s rhetorical style.Report
I could not possibly agree more.Report
Nice simple declarative sentence.Report
What do you mean by that?Report
lol
You agree with him, so he’s clear this time.Report
Hardly. Most of the time I can make more sense of what George writes then what Jay writes, until someone with the degree in verbal archeology wades through it. Just like I don’t expect George to change, I have zero expectation that Jay will change.Report
Which is why I keep harping on the Greens (and sometime libertarians) to get the work done of getting elected locally.
I don’t know about Greens, but Libertarians do get elected to a lot of local offices. The thing is, they’re mostly positions with non-partisan elections, like county auditors (libertarians make the best auditors, because they really want to prove that the government wastes money). Running third party in a partisan election is almost always pointless, because there are too many voters who will reflexively check the box for their preferred parties.
Basically the only way to have a chance as a third-party candidate is to run in a district that’s so thoroughly dominated by R or D that the other one doesn’t bother fielding a candidate, and even then it’s a long shot.
The realistic way for a libertarian or watermelon to get elected is to win an R or D primary and run as the candidate for that party. Third parties are a sucker’s game.Report
One of the lessons from 2016 and now 2020 is that there is no latent consensus for an aggressive progressive regime such as the New Deal or Great Society.
I wish there was! But there isn’t.
For the foreseeable future, progress in America will be made in increments, via a neverending trench warfare.Report
There’s no latent consensus for it because no one other then Bernie is selling it. you can’t get people onboard an idea they don’t know about.Report
What progressive ideas aren’t getting aired? Minimum wage, single payer, green new deal, legal reforms, immigration reforms? The identity social agenda? I hear about them all the time in mainstream coverage. Or are there some ideas we’re not hearing about?Report
“Airing” isn’t “selling” and doesn’t lead to consensus. There’s also the issue that a lot of that airing is focused on why it won’t work or the existence of barriers to the idea. you don’t build consensus on the ideas with only that running about in the public sphere.Report
I guess I was addressing the second half of your statement, that “you can’t get people onboard an idea they don’t know about”. My impression is that there are people trying to sell these policies too, but there are definitely people talking about them.Report
If your ideas aren’t ‘selling’, either they are bad ideas, or you have a crap sales team.
And given that I find some of those ideas to be ‘good’ ideas (for various values of ‘good’) yet I still am not sold on the ideas as presented by progressives, I think the problem is less the product and much more the marketing.Report
indeed it is.
Report
I am dismayed that we agree.Report
Why?Report
Because while I often disagree with progressives on the implementation of their ideals, I don’t necessarily disagree with the ideals themselves.
So I wish they had politicians and pundits out there who could sell it to the center.Report
That is not true. If the Democratic Party wanted what Bernie was selling, it would have nominated but he was not. Maybe he came closer to others but his appeal in 2020 was probably more accurate because he got a lot of the not-Hilary vote in 2016. Biden is a lot more progressive than people give him credit for. He is the first President-elect in my lifetime to denounce the death penalty for example.Report
Sander’s biggest problems are, first, a lifetime of being a politician in Vermont. No state is really scalable to the rest of the nation, but his entire experience as a politician as to what does and doesn’t work is pretty….localized. Two runs for President, each failing the exact same way, is pretty indicative that he either has no interest or no ability to expand his message and reach.
The second, and this is where a lot of progressives falter, is in insisting on a class-based lens in a society that does not really think of itself in class-based terms.
I don’t think they’re totally wrong — that lens is entirely useful, quite valid, and could lead to a number of solutions. But it’s also orthogonal to a society that really does not see itself grouped that way. Rural versus urban? Sure. Heartlands versus coast? Sure. Race? Sure.
But even bare basics like “working class” is a heavy lift — useful for polling, but we’re more likely to use the term ‘blue collar’ and ‘white collar’ to divide ourselves, even when both groups are quite often working class.Report
The raced base v. class based is a tough issue for the progressive left to solve. i get that a broad class based politics has intuitive appeal but as you note, it is not how Americans tend to see themselves or our analysis of class is intrinsically linked to class. Notice how many people still see working class as a white guy in a hardhat rather than a woman of color who works as a home-health aide.
However another part of wanting everything to be class based is that it allows everyone to ignore very tricky questions based on race and society which do not have easy answers or solutions.Report
Yeah, that’s the other problem with the class-based approach.
You can claim until the cows come home that a class-based approach will “solve” problems like, say, systemic racism — but the people suffering from systemic racism don’t believe you (and I don’t blame them) and it sounds like you’re basically glossing over their problems.
“Racism will magically go away if we restore power to the working class” could, I suppose, do that. I don’t think so, but I’m open to argument. However, it’s often deployed as a panacea to everything — and feels like you’re simply ignoring a problem to focus on your pet solution.
Sort of like the running joke that the GOP’s answer to all problems is take two tax cuts and call me in the morning, I’d imagine hearing “class” as a solution to every problem you come up with seems more like someone has an agenda and your problem is a useful excuse to talk about their pet project.Report
There is, statistically, a dairy farmer somewhere in Wisconsin who went bankrupt due to the trade war, who nonetheless voted for Trump.
His financial fortunes are more closely aligned with the Mexican immigrant who works on his farm, than the people who craft Trump policy.
The policies of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would put more money in his pocket than the Trump policies.
And yet…Report
And yet — he doesn’t think that way. It’s like basing an argument with an atheist on the Bible. You’re not speaking his language, you’re not on common ground.
That dairy farmer likely sees himself as a business owner, a “self-made man”, the salt of the earth, or a number of other things.
He’ll consider himself a working man almost certainly, but not the same SORT of working man as his hired help.
Sure, he’ll tell you — what’s good for HIS business is good for his employees — but that doesn’t mean what’s good for his employees is good for him!
And if you try to tell him “You’re both the same” he’s going to push back, he’ll say “Sure we work in the same fields (ha!)” but he won’t view them as the same class and will reject arguments based on that.Report
That’s because the benefits that would accrue to him are too far removed from the cost he’d have to pay as a small business owner whose taxes just went up. Sure, his employees would be able to by more of his work product, but only after the product and the money passed through a bunch of third parties (each taking a slice).
Or perhaps healthier or better educated workers would be a benefit to him, but only if he understands how. Picking produce doesn’t require much education, and if one falls sick, there are how many lined up to take their place?
I mean, the farmer needs an education in economics and supply chains, etc., but then he’d need someone to take over the farm while he went back to school.Report
So, a political leader who causes him to go bankrupt is preferable to one who makes him pay more in taxes?
What benefit do you think he sees in Trump that would cause him to behave this way?
It’s obviously not financial gain, so it must be something else.
What is it?Report
Trump, etc. sold him a vision of short term pain (Trade Wars are easy to win!) for long term gain (stop cheap products from hitting the markets).
They drew that line for them.
Had said farmer had some basic econ, he might have seen through that line, but…Report
So if he only understood economics better he might vote Democratic?
Its possible.
But it sounds very much like wishful thinking, that his voting decision is a rational actor choice and that he merely lacks knowledge.
Aside from the obvious condescension, I think its more true that his decisions aren’t made on rational financial basis at all.
Instead, i think his decisions are made on the basis of tribal identity and warfare against hated enemies.
It’s like that observation that the more extreme forms of politics, like fascism and communism, promise not peace and harmony but unending war and suffering.
To support my assertion, I would say we look at the Trumpists themselves; They came in to power speaking in terms of apocalyptic war, of battling all the forces of corruption and evil. Their most remarkable feature was their seething rage and desire to “burn it all down”.
And after 4 years of power, they are still haven’t changed. Even before the election they still spoke in those terms, and many of them joined the QAnon cult which sees enemies, enemies everywhere, a constant ceaseless revolution which can never be complete.
And even more remarkably, even after years in power and command of the majority of government, they have almost no accomplishments to speak of.
Their most noteworthy acts were mostly symbolic acts, or acts which induced a lot of suffering without any corresponding real change in American governance.
IMO, the dairy farmer doesn’t want real tangible improvement in his life. He wants to “win” some sort of epic clash of cultures and is willing to endure however much suffering is needed to do that.Report
1) For someone who lives his whole life in one the largest metro areas in the world, you seem to know an awful lot about what motivates the rural farmer.
2) You extrapolate A LOT! You might want to start checking that impulse, it takes you places that the data doesn’t necessarily go.
Working knowledge of econ might have allowed a person to see the flaw in the logic, but smart people fall for stupid stuff all the time, so it’s no guarantee.
But you missed the key element, and I even put it on a separate line for you.
“They drew that line for them.”
Here’s the thing I think a lot of you very smart, very political people don’t get. That rural farmer in WI or IA, they don’t have time to pay attention to every thing a given politician says, or what every media talking head says about a politician. They have very focused concerns, and the politician that addresses their concerns in a manner that gets and keeps their attention is the one that gets their vote.
So if I’m a farmer, and I’m concerned about falling prices on my given crops because of foreign imports, then the first politician who talks to that concern in a way that sounds reasonable to me is going to have a fraction more of my attention than the other candidates. And everything else is just noise, because there isn’t bandwidth for it.
It’s not about winning, these populations are on the middle class margins, where one bad year, or one bad month, can put them over an edge they may not recover from. They are in a near constant threat of losing the class status they imagine themselves having.
You assume that these people hear all that other stuff about Trump being racist, etc., but it’s in one ear and out the other. They don’t have the bandwidth to care about things that don’t affect them in the immediate. They are too busy keeping themselves above the line.
Remember previous conversations we’ve had about decision fatigue, etc. It’s a real thing. Why would you assume that it doesn’t apply to voting decisions?
So all this talk about race and winning and what not is you projecting*.
No, the real issue is not race or misogyny or whatever crap you want to assign to them so they can be othered. The real issue is that these people don’t want to hear that the life they have chosen for themselves, be it a small farmer, or a miner, or a factory line worker, is a dying profession, and that it may very well die before they do.
They don’t want to hear that, and they don’t want the other things that were constants in their lives to change, so they grab on to whoever tells them that they don’t have to endure that much change, and they ignore everything else (because let’s be honest, every politician has something that is offensive about them). So once a politician says something that they find appealing, the decision is made, and that’s it, bandwidth is exceeded, because bills need to be paid and all that.
And this is where the democrats have it rough, because they are all about change. Trouble is, we still have one or two generations that grew up being told everything was gonna last, and any change would be slow.
*I will grant that there is a demographic that fits your description, but you extrapolate the population curve out much further than is reasonable.Report
No, the real issue is not race or misogyny or whatever crap you want to assign to them so they can be othered. The real issue is that these people don’t want to hear that the life they have chosen for themselves, be it a small farmer, or a miner, or a factory line is a dying profession, and that it may very well die before they do.
Four years ago we had long discussions about coal miners, and coding, and whether Hillary was wrong, or just tone deaf.
In all of those discussions I kept coming to one essential thing: the mines were not going to reopen. And reopen they didn’t.
The small farms that we used to know are dying. Most rural areas are trapped in a circle of farm consolidation and mechanization, which reduces labor requirements, which depresses the community and weakens the remaining farms, which end being consolidated into even bigger agribusiness, and so on.
The small farms are not coming back. No matter how many times the WI farmer votes for the party that tells him they will.
There’s another party that is telling him that the life he knew is over, and it’s time to analyze the alternatives: move from wheat or soy or milk to high end produce could be one selling organic eggs and arugula to urban restaurants at a premium. Agrotourism (very common in Europe) could be another.
A more robust welfare net, with accessible health care, and even social workers supporting stay at home senior citizens would like help strengthen rural communities.
That’s how those godless Europeans support a much larger fraction of rural population than we do in America (28% to 19%)
Or they can keep voting themselves out of existence.
As I said about the miners: I am sorry that the world they knew is dying, but dying it is. We can manage and mitigate the impact of the changes, or we can let the chips fall where they may.
But the mines will not reopen, I mean, the old rural world is not coming back.Report
We both are describing rural people that we admittedly don’t have intimate knowledge of, and making a lot of assumptions about what motivates them.
But even if I take your argument at face value, what you are describing is the politics of grievance.
The person you describe is motivated as much by their fears of cultural change as any financial issues.
A racist fear of “Black people taking control” is different than a cultural fear of “Rural people being marginalized”.
But not by much, when “rural” and “urban” become synonyms for “Non-white” and “White”.
Its sort of how “Coal Miner” and “Coder” become proxies for “Real Man” and “Less than Real Man.”
So ultimately, regardless of whether your analysis or mine is correct, this isn’t a “messaging” problem.
The rural people understand perfectly well what a world without coal mines and farmers and ranchers looks like.
They know perfectly well that a “working class” that is dominated by Filipina health care aides or transsexual software coders is not a world they prefer.
Again, in your own analysis, their cultural fears are a zero-sum, win-lose game of dominance and hegemony.Report
Remember, I grew up in rural WI. I grew up working those small family farms. I still talk to those people.
So the hell if I don’t know what motivates them.Report
One of my favorite people in the world grew up on a WI dairy farm. He’s one of the sweetest dudes the world has ever produced, and a damn good coder too.
Funny story. I first met him when we worked together at a crappy startup in Fort Lauderdale. (Later we both ended up in Boston, from the same acquisition.) Anyway, one night we all went out as a group. It was winter — in FLORIDA.
So anyhow, we’re all bundled up in jackets, because it’s freaking cold out, like maybe it was in the 50s! (Floridians.)
Anyway, this lovely man who grew up on a WI dairy farm is wearing a tee shirt, and we’re all like, “Aren’t you freezing!” (cuz after all it’s in the 50s!) He’s like, “Uh … no. It’s not that cold.”
Even Boston winters do nothing to this guy. While the rest of us would show up to work in fancy snow boots and overpriced Canadian winter jackets with fake fur lining, he’d show up in sneakers and a hoodie.
“How can wear sneakers?”
“I just avoid the puddles.”
Cool dude. The best sorta guy.Report
“A racist fear of “Black people taking control” is different than a cultural fear of “Rural people being marginalized”.
But not by much, when “rural” and “urban” become synonyms for “Non-white” and “White”.”
Here you are again, ‘othering’ these people, and then dismissing them as unreachable, not worth the effort.
Until they all die, you still have to contend with them.Report
After four years of this exact discussion, no one has been able to name a single thing the Democrats can do to gain their vote.
Not one idea.
Zero.
But again and again and again, we are told that their concerns are a fear of cultural loss and marginalization, which by their very nature are impossible for governmental policy to rectify.
So yeah, I think we have to write them off and focus on the possible groups we can peel off, like the suburban women who helped win this election.Report
“So yeah, I think we have to write them off and focus on the possible groups we can peel off, like the suburban women who helped win this election.”
Honestly, that’s fine. If you think you can win without that vote, then that is what you should do.
But can you also stop bitching and whining about them when you lose, it gets annoying.Report
@ Chip – its a kinship thing. Trump inherited daddy’s millions but branded himself as a self-made businessman, overcoming long odds and dark forces who always want to sink him. Small independent farmers likely see themselves the same way – especially with factory farming now the majority of their sector.Report
Maybe the farmer’s kid attends college, and he doesn’t want him to be expelled as a rapist without due process.Report
I’m quite certain the farmer has a long, long list of grievances, the rectification of which will require the breaking of a good many eggs.Report
And yet we are told elsewhere in this topic that we can’t appeal to folks based on class because Americans don’t see themselves as based on class.Report
I think Americans absolutely do see themselves as based on class.
The trick is that you first have to understand that where you see them, and where they see themselves, are often two very different classes.
So you either have to align yourself to them, or get them to accept that they are putting themselves in the wrong bin.Report
So how do you operationalize it? We can “understand” until the cows come home, but how do we “align” with them” with them if pushing policies in their real-world, concrete interests doesn’t do it? Are we in Hix Nix Stix Pix territory? The urban/rural divide is as old as it gets, but is it possible to “align” with them without urbanites ceasing to be what we have every right to be? If not, what is there? It’s not as though we resent the rural way of life or are any threat to it, beyond the inevitable threat that merely existing in another way presents. How’re You Gonna Keep ‘Em Down on the Farm, After They’ve Seen Paree…..?
As for how we “get them to accept that they are putting themselves in the wrong bin,” you’ve laid out pretty well how that can’t work.
So what, concretely, does one do that is within the power of government to do. (So no muzzling comedians. You put up with hick jokes and we put up with being denounced as Not Real Amuricans.)Report
We can “understand” until the cows come home, but how do we “align” with them” with them if pushing policies in their real-world, concrete interests doesn’t do it?
From my perspective, the “understand” thing is sort of a pre-req.
If it’s not there, the other stuff won’t happen.
It has to do with the level of collaboration that follows a certain level of trust.
If your “So what you’re saying is…” statement isn’t responded to neutrally (“no, that’s not quite it”) or positively (“yes, that’s it”), then you’re not understanding. You’re probably not even “understanding”.Report
I asked for things to be operationalized in the hopes of getting something useful. I should have known better.Report
Operationalization:
It’s an iterated game against someone who has been defected against multiple times in a row.
How do you get someone to collaborate in an iterated game when they have been defected against multiple times in a row?
My answer: Increase Trust.Report
That may be what game theory geeks mean by it, but it has another and accepted meaning among normal folks, which, at the risk of oversimplification, is: say something specific enough to grapple with. What are the steps? What, concretely, do we do? Is there something we can do, or is this all just the current manifestation of centuries-old bullshit that is only rarely overcome and usually only in desperate circumstances?Report
Is there something we can do, or is this all just the current manifestation of centuries-old bullshit that is only rarely overcome and usually only in desperate circumstances?
I kinda think that there are things that could be done. They involve active communication and listening and, yes, “understanding”.
Something as simple as being able to communicate and make the other person feel heard is the pre-req.
“Feel?”, you may ask. Yes. I chose that word deliberately.
Now I’ll copy and paste this again.
If your “So what you’re saying is…” statement isn’t responded to neutrally (“no, that’s not quite it”) or positively (“yes, that’s it”), then you’re not understanding. You’re probably not even “understanding”.Report
Communication skills are all very well, but at the end of the day there has to be something substantive that you can communicate that the person you’re trying to communicate with might accept. Unless it all just substance-free schmoozing and making people think you’re not so bad for a [fill in the blank]. And maybe it is. If it is, someone ought to say so. What, if anything, do you “kinda think”?Report
I kinda think that we have to assume that the something substantive exists and that it can be unearthed through active communication with the groups.
Not merely “substance-free schmoozing and making people think you’re not so bad for a [fill in the blank].” but, and here’s the point, that’s a better stopping point than where we are now.
A million years ago (2008, to be exact), I wrote an essay where I said that the Republican Party was in a bad place and thought that the 12 Steps would be a good exercise for the Republicans to go through.
If you want a list of things to do, I’d say “go through the 12 Steps”.
Here’s the first one: Do you have a problem?
And if the answer to that question is “no, I don’t have a problem! Everybody else has a problem!”, then… I guess we’re not in a particularly bad place.
No problem.Report
OK, so that’s a No on the substance. No surprise, which is why I asked Oscar, not you.Report
The active substance would be “self-reflection” and “actively talking to people who are there”.
Chris Arnade-level crap.
But if you don’t think you have a problem, we’re not going to get anywhere with me hammering out what I’ve said 2-3 times before in this exact thread.
They’re the ones with the problem, after all.Report
No, they’re not the ones with “the problem,” they’re the ones who know — or at least the ones who might know — what they want. Oscar at least sometimes likes to address such things, which is why I asked him, not you.Report
They want to stop being defected against or, if that’s not on the table, to stop being forced to play the game with you.Report
“But if you don’t think you have a problem, we’re not going to get anywhere with me hammering out what I’ve said 2-3 times before…”
Does this self-reflection apply to the rural people who, as everyone here agrees, refuse to face their need to change?Report
I believe that they are facing it, albeit not in the way that you wish that they were.
It’s one of those Maslow’s Hierarchy things. The mistake was to assume that if 3 wasn’t taken care of properly that 5 and 6 would be ignored.
Nope. 3 will be patched up best it can and then, welp, can’t be helped, let’s do what we can with 4. Then 4 is patched up best it can, and then 5 is addressed.
And so on.
The eternal problem seems to be that the grandest schemes requires their buy-in and they aren’t willing to give it.
And they don’t need you to patch up 5 and 6, best they can.Report
So according to your description, it would seem that they prefer this state of affairs, where their lower needs are left unmet, while their higher needs are soothed by Republicans.
I would love for someone to explain to me what the Democrats could do to change this.Report
So would I, but we get what we get instead: game theory jargon, Psych 101, and marketing advice that doesn’t actually advise.Report
They’re not unmet, Chip.
They’re patched up, best they can.
What could the Democrats do to change this?
Go in there. Actually talk to them. Create a relationship. Re-establish trust. “Make Friends”, as they say.Report
Here’s an idea. Maybe if the Democrats want to win seats in Nebraska or West Virginia.they should run actual Nebraskans or West Virginians who already live there, or have been talking to their neighbors all their lives, who already have relationships, already have established trust, and already have friends.
Amazing that they haven’t thought of that already,Report
Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy?
Yeah, it worked when they did that. From what I recall the last few times I brought that up is that running Democrats who could win in Nebraska or West Virginia means having someone who only agrees with the Democrats 80% of the time.
And nobody can agree what the acceptable 20% to disagree on would be but everybody agrees that the Democrat who’d win in those states would pick the wrong 20%.
And if the 20% wouldn’t include something like “Medicare for All”, why in the heck would you want someone like Joseph Isadore Lieberman in your party anyway?
(But, yes, I agree with Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy if it came down to just wanting to figure out how to win local elections with politicians with (D) after their names rather than getting the sons of the soil on board.)Report
One thing this election has possibly shown is how much of an impact party line ticket voting has, by being the exception (lots of votes for Biden that still went straight R down ticket).
I’ve said this many times that I think both parties focus way too much on the POTUS, and align themselves too tightly to whatever national party leadership wants.
IMHO, the Dems smart play for the next two+ years is to loosen up a bit on Party discipline and let the Blue Dogs be. It’s far too easy for the GOP to paint some local Dem pol as being a lackey for the coastal elites who won’t fight for local interests.
That is how I would operationalize things. Let the locals be local.Report
Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy, which I largely endorse, was never about whether to run candidates who might appeal to voters in red states. Anyone who is not a political infant knows that, if you’re making a serious effort to win, you have to do that. A potentially successful Montana Democrat will not be the same as a potentially successful New York City Democrat. (Let’s remember, by the way, that it was the voters of Connecticut who turfed Joe Leiberman, as was their right. If a Joe Leiberman carried South Dakota, most Democrats would be delirious.)
The debate over the 50-state strategy is over whether to pour resources into Alabama or use them to shore up Pennsylvania, not over what the candidates should look like.
Whatever one’s views on the 50-state strategy, however, the Democratic Party hasn’t been sending northeastern liberal carpetbaggers to run as candidates in red America. Nobody sent AOC to run for a Montana Senate seat. They ran Steve Bullock, a proper and popular red state Democrat, and he lost.
The professionals are doing what they always do, running local candidates with local roots and connections, who understand the needs and desires of their friends and neighbors and have, usually, earned their trust in their earlier lives. And yet they lose. Telling the amateurs that they should do what the professionals are already doing, listening, talking, building trust, making friends, doesn’t advance the ball. But that assumes an interest in advancing the ball.Report
This is a good place to note that farm laborers, who are every bit as “rural” as the farm owner, vote heavily for Democrats.
Apparently they have no trouble whatsoever with aligning themselves with out of touch elite coastal latte sipping metrosexual cyber coding man-bun-wearing Democrats.
The prospect of a changing economy doesn’t seem to bother them in the slightest.
They aren’t bothered by “cancel culture”, “political correctness”, feminism, trans rights, or any of the other long long list of rightwing grievances.
Maybe the farm owners can leave their bubble and sit with them in a diner and seek a deeper understanding of their culture.Report
“Farm laborers, who are every bit as “rural” as the farm owner, vote heavily for Democrats.”
And surely after four years of the most racist President in history they’d have voted even more heavily for Democrats! I’ll check the statistics from the 2020 election, but first let me take a sip of my coffee…Report
it’s really weird to me that you keep screeching about “operationalizing” things, when the very next sentence is “how do we “align” with them” with them if pushing policies in their real-world, concrete interests doesn’t do it?”
Because that doesn’t sound like someone who honestly thinks there’s a key to figuring out What’s The Matter With Kansas, this sounds like someone who thinks he’s done everything that needs to be done, that deserves to be done, that can be done, and those god damn racist cowfuckers just won’t get in line.
And you keep getting upset at Jaybird for “not presenting actual plans” and “talking around the problem”, and what he’s saying is that your using the language of Only Trying To Help isn’t disguising your disgust for these people, and that if you don’t deal with that first then there’s no use talking about anything further.Report
How does aligning require anyone to cease being what they are?Report
That depends. You mentioned “aligning.” Much of what I hear from others around here — not, to your credit, from you — amounts to resentment that blue state city slickers are, in fact, blue state city slickers. The most frequently-aired grievances are not the sorts of things that can be negotiated by government actors negotiating in good faith and with mutual respect, but culturally-based resentment that, by its nature, cannot be satisfied because the mere existence of blue state city slickers, and the possibility that red America’s sons and daughters might leave the farm and join the inhabitants of Sodom is itself the affront that prevents alignment.
I hope I’m wrong about that. I don’t know whether there is a key to figuring out What’s the Matter With Kansas, and, having grown up among and worked along side of the white working class in Trump country, I bear no disgust for them. They include my family and many old friends. But I keep asking what they want and most of what I get is what I have been getting.Report
As I said above, the thing that democrats could do that would help is to stop marginalizing Blue Dogs.
Now, admittedly, I am not a democrat (nor a republican), but what strikes me is that over the past decade (or so?), the party has been really hammering Blue Dogs to get in line with national party objectives, even when doing so damages the politician. Part of being the big tent means you can’t insist on such party line discipline. You have to let the local pol be local and act according to their voter’s interests.Report
Not sure Joe Manchin got that memo.Report
Pretty sure he did, also pretty sure he is out of f*@ks to give about it.Report
The idea that “if only we sold the idea” of progressive vision then it would meet with overwhelming success is enticing but overlooks a lot of the complexities of American political culture that prevents that from happening.
Specifically the power of racism and misogyny to cause the needed coalitions to splinter apart.
The New Deal and Great Societies themselves are great examples of the limitations of this.
In order to appease various factions like the Dixiecrats, the New Deal had to be carefully crafted to reserves its benefits for white males.
And when the Great Society programs like AFDC appeared to be flowing towards inner city black people, “welfare” suddenly became an epithet.
Even right here and right now, we can hear self-described “populist” conservatives speak bitterly of “elites” and “corporate media” and how the government needs to Do Something About It.
Yet their wish list of government control over corporations is carefully tailored to just the exact remedy (Somethingsomething 230) which will deliver a benefit to them and them only.
Same goes to government assistance to dairy farmers (don’t you dare call it welfare) or government make-work jobs such as defense contracting.
We often imagine that leftist economics and racial hegemony don’t fit together, but they actually do.Report
Obviously I disagree. And here’s a great case as to why – hardly anyone on the left sells “Green New Deal” ideas as economic concepts and answers to the steep decline of America’s middle class in former manufacturing areas. Just look at the employment data for wind, solar and coal for the last ten years. Pitch wind and solar as the creators of good jobs they are, with environmental benefits, and you get more people to come around. Keep pitching them as answers to the slowly rolling climate crisis and no one will bite.Report
The problem with “Everything is Racism” is that you can’t simply wave away racism. If racism is blocking your ideas, then you need to craft your marketing to work around racism.
But I guess whining about it is more fun that doing the work of making it palatable to the center.Report
Can you offer an example of “crafting your marketing to work around racism”?Report
Well, for starters, before I can work around racism, I have to understand specifically how racism is standing in the way of whatever bit of progressive policy you want.
If you can explain it to me in detail, preferably with examples of how it is/would work, I might be able to message around it.Report
“If you want to see the result of leftist policies such as minimum wage and unions, look at Detroit.”
“If you want to see the result of giving cash aid to single mothers, look at how it has devastated the black family.”
“Free college will just benefit privileged young females who study medieval poetry”*
“Cash aid to single mothers will only benefit irresponsible women and undercut young men’s ambition of becoming head of household.”*
*Misogyny can never be disentangled from racism.
I know there will be some here who disagree with any of these being “racist” arguments, but even if we were to ignore the term and just focus on the arguments themselves, what all four have in common is that the beneficiaries of the policy are all assumed to be unworthy somehow; Either lazy union workers, or they are sexually promiscuous, or financially reckless or just dysfunctional in some unexplained way.
But the core of the argument is that giving these people greater agency and power would have bad outcomes.
But please, and i mean this sincerely, give me a message that will somehow overcome these objections.Report
First off, you’ve shifted from racism to “the deserving poor”, and while those two arguments overlap, they are not the same arguments.
That said, are you trying to sell an idea, or overcome an objection?Report
I thought you were the one trying to craft a message to work around racism.
I don’t think such a thing exists.Report
Yep, you are right, your lack of nuance has convinced me that all leftist policies are shite and should be abandoned immediately.Report
It’s not a policy. It’s a deontology.Report
You can’t sell the idea of progressive vision in California.
Why do you think that you’d be able to do it in Alabama?Report
“Same goes to government assistance to dairy farmers (don’t you dare call it welfare) or government make-work jobs such as defense contracting.”
While there are legitimate reasons to subsidize food production or the armed forces, it IS a subsidy. I wouldn’t call it welfare, but meh. And I have first hand experience with both of these examples. I remember listening to farmers bitch about how much less money they were getting not to bring their crops to market at the same time pulling libertarian’s phrases about how gov’t needed to say out of the people’s way. I was 17 at the time and noticed the hypocrisy.
“We often imagine that leftist economics and racial hegemony don’t fit together, but they actually do.” I do seem to recall a good example of that. You know…the Nazi party was a socialist party and they were all banging on racial unity.Report
That wasn’t *REAL* socialism.Report
Correct. The Nazi Party was full on facist with a veneer of nationalism.Report
Yes, that’s always been the alleged claim.Report
We often imagine that leftist economics and racial hegemony don’t fit together, but they actually do.
For example, unions were historically about protecting white workers from competition from black workers. And of course Bernie Sanders’ nationalist socialism is about protecting predominantly white American manufacturing workers from competition from Asians and Latin Americans.Report
Yes, this is very true.
The same rural farm people who supported Jim Crow also had deep hatred for the big banks and railroads for example.
My takeaway is that this demonstrates how racism/ misogyny has the power to warp any political discussion, even the more so when it is unacknowledged.
Every tool of society and governance is used in furtherance of racial hatred, whether it is unionization, or free markets, or whatever.Report
Millions of Americans hated Trump for aesthetic reasons and because he is trashing the mechanisms of the Federal government and voted accordingly. They then went and voted Republican down ballot. But a lot of them also approved of liberal ballot measures. My take away is not only the American electorate very polarized, they are really confused about what they want. A lot of Americans seem to want a United States equivalent of Disraeli’s idea of a sound government being “Tory men and Whig measures.” Millions of Americans want Democratic policy but implemented by Republican politicians even though that isn’t going to happen.Report
Yes, probably so.
I know there was this book floating around a while back called “When Skateboards Will Be Free” about a kid growing up in a leftist household, and how they had this absurd notion of what political action would be like.
Specifically how a lot of revolutionaries(of both left and rightwing varieties) think, that Come The Revolution everything we like will come about, but somehow all the things we dislike will magically vanish.
Or in a less dramatic version, we can have socialized medicine but no one will pay more taxes.
Or we will have a free market in health care but no one will be turned away for lack of money.Report
Everyone remind me again why the POTUS is the be all, end all of the party.
Who cares if POTUS is a centrist? All this focus on that one office, is losing the forest for the trees. I would argue that you should focus on the down ticket races, the Senate and Congress…
Oh wait, the leftist appeal kinda fell flat in a lot of places, didn’t it? There’s a take-away there, I think, but I just can’t put my finger on it…Report
Today’s Shitpost:
Report
I’ve enjoyed the way you’ve gone more and more non-verbal and doing what I can only assume is an imitation of a bot, randomly interjecting tweets into conversation.
I’m not qualified to judge this as performance art, but admire your dedication.Report
See it as a distillation. Or don’t. It’s all good.Report
You misspelled “degradation”.
Effectively you’re just spamming naked links, devoid of context or thought. Are you endorsing them? Opposing them? Find them fodder for thought? Find them hilarious?
No one knows, because you don’t care to give context.
Do you even have context to give?
Your weird form of anti-communication was interesting for awhile.Report
I admit: My compression *IS* lossy.
Well, the link above is a link to a tweet that I made using an image that I, myself, created. So the thought contained in the link is a thought that I thought.Report
My preferred candidate during the primaries was Elizabeth Warren. I would have loved to see Elizabeth Warren become President and trash Trump’s ass in November but this was not to be. Instead, she performed poorly in the primaries and her main base seemed to be liberals with graduate degrees. But I gladly and happily voted for Biden during the general election and am not disappointed by his Cabinet picks so far. They are experts and often career civil servants with strong senses of public service.
I think Chip is right. There is no universal support for progressive policies in this country right now. At least not consistent ones. California voted overwhelmingly for Biden and the Democrat but also gave the odious Prop 22 a victory, refused to end the ban on affirmative action, and also did not separate commercial property from Prop 13.
Florida voted for a very slow raise to the minimum wage but also went Republican because of a successful attempt to define Biden as a socialist.
One of the things I see is that, at least for the online, there is a broad social discontent in all factors of American politics but this leads to people making decisions that are not strategic like jumping up and down for Medicare for All or bust when NHS style medical health care is not popular on the specifics and there are other paths to universal health care.
Elite overproduction might be a reason for this discontent and it is not just a U.S. phenomenon.Report
Wanting something different without clarity about what is characteristic of fussing babies and/or divided electorates.Report
“There is no universal support for progressive policies in this country right now. ”
Florida voted for Trump, and for an increased minimum wage.
There’s plenty of support for progressive policies. What there isn’t is support for every single progressive policy, and progressives don’t want you to pick and choose which of their policies they like; they want a package deal, they want you to take your medicine along with the candy, they want to you to get poked with the stick before you get the carrot.Report
I’m rather surprised that everyone’s forgotten Biden and the DNC insisting on in-person voting in the Wisconsin primary.
As someone pointed out on Twitter, that was when Sanders really gave up, because he realized that the Democrat establishment would literally kill people to stop him getting the nomination.Report
I dunno, man. Under Democrats, we’ve gotten:
Expansion of healthcare
Family and Medical Leave
Massive increased in education funding
Gay marriage legal and gays in the military
Moving toward drug decriminalization
These are not nothing.Report
Regardless of who’s elected, the current SCOTUS won’t do anything like Obergefell in a million years, and without a decent Senate majority (>> 50 + 1), fixing that is off the table.Report
mmm, yeah. Nobody thought they’d decide Obergefell how they actually did, let alone both NFIB v Sebelius and King v Burwell. So please cease with the Supreme Court doomerism.Report
Lots of people thought both, and I know a lot of them since it’s my line of work.Report
The basic problem here is that Berners understanding of economics has never progressed past the 14-year-old level. Even when I was literally 14 years old, I was never as 14-years-old as Bernie Sanders is at the age of 79.
Democrats don’t sell out to corporations—they go about as far left as can be justified within the bounds of sanity and expert consensus. Sometimes a bit farther.
While you may personally see anything short of nationalizing every corporation on the Fortune 500 list and putting their CEOs’ heads on pikes as selling out, that’s an indictment of you, not an indictment of the Democrats.Report
“Democrats don’t sell out to corporations”
lol
they absolutely do, bro
the essence of neoliberal technocracy is letting corporations run everything, and assuming that the corporate-government partnership manage the economy will turn out better than just a bunch of assholes running around doing whatever they feel like
what ends up happening is cronyism worse than anything the left has ever imagined the right espousing, but because there are pictures of smiling happy nongenderbinary persons on the cover of the annual report liberals think it’s progressiveReport
co-sign in its entirety.Report