Mourning in America - Trump Year One: November '16 to

i'm not sure who has argued for "pandering to" racist white voters. that seems like a pretty crucial strawman

― k3vin k., Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:20 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

What is "your vote for an explicitly racist candidate was not racist" if not pandering

Again you're quoting yourself, not anyone here. Lazy.

god this is tiresome

Again you're quoting yourself, not anyone here. Lazy.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:24 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No, I'm paraphrasing the democratic platform as articulated by Bernie sanders.

merrygoround.gif

yeah i'm done. deej will wear himself out in a couple of days and we won't see him again until the next election, thankfully

What is "your vote for an explicitly racist candidate was not racist" if not pandering

i personally wouldn't suggest the dems push that message

at the same time pushing the message "your vote for an explicitly racist candidate is racist" seems like a dead end

that's all i was getting at upthread

god this is tiresome

― Οὖτις, Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:25 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is a lazier music message board version of one of the most important arguments happening on the left atm sorry it bores you

Jon Schwarz from 2007: Democrats And The Iron Law Of Institutions

Read this if you're driven insane by the Democrats....

1. The voting booth is by no means "the only place that Democrats care about what you do." In fact, from their perspective, by the time you get to the general election much of the game is over. Withholding your November vote from candidates they like but you don't will, at most, make them a little sad. Often they'd prefer it, if that's the price of keeping you out of their hair the rest of the time. That's why they don't try to appeal to the ~50% of Americans who don't vote.

2. If you want to motivate powerful Democrats, attempt to threaten their power within the party, not the well-being of the party overall. Of course, this is easier said than done, particularly because much of the power within the party is (as Karp would put it) an unelected Democratic oligarchy. For instance, Pelosi's status as Speaker can be challenged straightforwardly. Getting at the source of the party oligarchy's power, which is money and institutions outside of electoral politics, is much more difficult.

3. Any serious attempt to transform the Democratic party would include a conscious attempt to change its culture, into one that celebrates different people: organizers rather than elected officials and donors. Culture only seems like a weak reed. It's in fact the most powerful motivation people have. If people are celebrated for acting for the good of the whole rather than just themselves, they'll act for the good of the whole. Likewise, a better culture would humble the "leaders," to discourage those with individualistic motivations from seeking the positions. A Democratic party that worked would require Charles Schumer and Steny Hoyer and anyone who donated over $5000 a year to clean the Capitol toilets.

4. If you don't believe the Democratic party is redeemable, don't get your hopes up that another party would end up being much better. Any other party would also be subject to the Iron Law of Institutions. It thus would be quickly just as dreadful as the Democrats...unless people put in the same amount of work as would be required to clean out the Democrats' Augean stables.

5. Generally speaking, don't expect too much from political parties, and certainly don't expect them to change much in less than a generation. And in any case, keep in mind much of the power in society lies elsewhere.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html

yeah i'm done. deej will wear himself out in a couple of days and we won't see him again until the next election, thankfully

― k3vin k., Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:27 PM (twenty-nine seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You act like I'm making some insane out there argument but this is actually an issue being debated all across the left right now & lots of people are more or less in my camp about this, you can dismissively handwave them but I'd recommend thinking harder about this stuff personally

no i understand that. we follow the same people on twitter

at the same time pushing the message "your vote for an explicitly racist candidate is racist" seems like a dead end

that's all i was getting at upthread

― the late great, Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:27 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It does have the benefit of being true & while I'm not saying that should be our primary message I think it would help if people who are on the left wouldn't deny it

no i understand that. we follow the same people on twitter

― k3vin k., Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:32 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I unfollowed most of chapotraphouse months ago

thankfully i have no idea who that is

Stop calling Democrats the left. Pretty please.

Ok well, anyway, I think one thing we can hopefully agree on is that Democrats didn't do enough of a good job turning out black and hispanic voters and the young who should be in their base, and that stemmed from a lack of enthusiasm about or dislike for Clinton as well as some real tactical failures by the Clinton campaign -- taking states for granted and not investing enough in turnout in key places (in spite of all the hype about "ground game"). So I really hope they (1) pick a more liked candidate in 2020 and (2) focus like hell on registration and turnout for 2018.

^^^

all that shit is way more important than whatever messaging argument deej wants to have

@jeremyscahill
Gen. Mike Flynn reportedly named National Security Advisor. The post does not require Senate Confirmation.

July:

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/13/an-interview-with-lt-gen-michael-flynn/

Like, we probably could have won *this* election against an ultimately very unpopular GOP candidate just by doing those things better, without one more white working class vote. Of course we will need more white working class voters to win back congressional seats regardless, but as far as the presidency, if you don't like "pandering" then let's look at those other things I mentioned.

^^^

all that shit is way more important than whatever messaging argument deej wants to have

― Οὖτις, Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:39 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If you think that shit isn't 100% related to the messaging argument I'm making you've probably talked exclusively to white people about electoral politics over the past year

Like, we probably could have won *this* election against an ultimately very unpopular GOP candidate just by doing those things better, without one more white working class vote. Of course we will need more white working class voters to win back congressional seats regardless, but as far as the presidency, if you don't like "pandering" then let's look at those other things I mentioned.

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:42 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Don't disagree with this

the portion of the electorate that decides elections is post-rational - policies, positions, how racist something is/isn't, these things don't matter (or at least they don't matter to as many people as they should). Obama and Trump both won largely because of the image they projected and the way they made their audiences *feel*. I wish it weren't this way, but it is. At the national level the Democrats need STARS, not carefully designed messages.

xp

probably would help if the presidential nominee in 2020 (if there is an election) is someone besides the most hated candidate at that time.

hey, Andrew Cuomo! star star

you've probably talked exclusively to white people about electoral politics over the past year

deej I am not a guy who throws around insults on here casually (as I think my posting history bears out) but you can go fuck yourself. I live in a heavily latino neighborhood, my kid goes to a school that is 80% latino. I spent yesterday morning providing security/logistical support for a march organized by the latino principal, a latino 4th grade teacher and activist organizer, and the latino music teacher. The other parents I am in regular contact with in the community are asian, latino, african american, Jewish, and of course rich (and not so rich) white liberals. If you want to check my credentials there you are.

Another log for the eternal flame! https://newrepublic.com/article/138717/jd-vance-false-prophet-blue-america

If the system worked for you, you’re not likely to blame it for the plight of poor whites. Far easier instead to believe that poor whites are poor because they deserve to be.

But now we see the consequences of this class blindness. The media and the establishment figures who run the Democratic Party both had a responsibility to properly identify and indict the system’s failures. They abdicated that responsibility. Donald Trump took it up—if not always in the form of policy, then in his burn-it-all-down posture.

No analysis of Trumpism is complete without a reckoning of its white supremacy and misogyny. Appalachia is, like so many other places, a deeply racist and sexist place. It is not a coincidence that Trumpist bastions, from Buchanan County to Staten Island, are predominately white, or that Trump rode a tide of xenophobia to power. Economic hardship isn’t unique to white members of the working class, either. Blacks, Latinos, and Natives occupy a far more precarious economic position overall. White supremacy is indeed the overarching theme of Trumpism.

But that doesn’t mean we should repeat the establishment failures of this election cycle and minimize the influence of economic precarity. Trump is a racist and a sexist, but his victory is not due only to racism or sexism any more than it is due only to classism: He still won white women and a number of counties that had voted for Obama twice. This is not a simple story, and it never really has been.

We don’t need to normalize Trumpism or empathize with white supremacy to reach these voters. They weren’t destined to vote for Trump; many were Democratic voters. They aren’t destined to stay loyal to him in the future. To win them back, we must address their material concerns, and we can do that without coddling their prejudices. After all, America’s most famous progressive populist—Bernie Sanders—won many of the counties Clinton lost to Trump.

probably would help if the presidential nominee in 2020 (if there is an election) is someone besides the most hated candidate at that time.

no doubt

probably would help if the 2020 nominee were under a hundred. why can't younger people become politicans? the average age of house and senate is about 60. where's the freshness? it can't be my generation though because we have government-recognized slacker status. will have to be younger people.

i mean if if a non-politican with no experience can become president than a 35 or 40 year old progressive braniac should be able to win a house or senate seat. sweep the oldsters out!

and then Aunt Carol comes in and says, "Dinner's ready! Grab your plates and get some turkey!"

:rmde: shakey it wasn't a "cred check" i just think you're deluding yourself if you think all those people you talk to don't think sacrificing their humanity at the alter of "white working class economic anxiety" is a worthy exchange

I have that backwards but you should get what im saying

that's funny cuz that isn't what you said but I get that you think you are saying something else and oh fuck it

the portion of the electorate that decides elections is post-rational - policies, positions, how racist something is/isn't, these things don't matter (or at least they don't matter to as many people as they should). Obama and Trump both won largely because of the image they projected and the way they made their audiences *feel*. I wish it weren't this way, but it is. At the national level the Democrats need STARS, not carefully designed messages.

xp

― Οὖτις, Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:45 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they do matter as far as principles, but i kind of agree w/ you here (& actually this is pretty much my own argument): the right candidate who knows that politics is about performance not pandering can hew much more closely to principles & not have to compromise

that's funny cuz that isn't what you said but I get that you think you are saying something else and oh fuck it

― Οὖτις, Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:57 PM (twenty-six seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it was a simple typo but ok

i do actually have faith in younger folks. they are engaged and media/web savvy. they don't owe anyone anything. they just have to turn off the netflix and run for something. they are very smart. you can't wait for all this dead weight to die of natural causes. they never die.

without medicare they might die!

http://www.mtv.com/news/2955021/shirtless-trump-saves-drowning-kitten/

One of the stories of this election season is that the American right has now fully postmodernized itself. This would have been hard to imagine even 20 years ago. There was a time, not all that long ago, when conservative Republicans considered themselves the party of virtue, a word they used not only in the evangelical sense but also to conjure a loose tradition of European and American moral philosophy. They championed Locke as well as Leviticus. I remember, as a teenager in Oklahoma, the proliferation of books by William J. Bennett on my friends' fathers' shelves: parchment-colored behemoths full of phrases like "Aristotle would have loved this poem" and "the treasure house of human wisdom."

Virtue was church, but it was more than that. It was an intellectual formation, or at least a gesture toward one. It was a sense that great things had been thought and written in past centuries and that whether one chose to familiarize oneself with those great things personally, by reading them, respectable people would still regard them with respect.

Often the battleground for this idea was the integrity of language itself. The conservative idea, at that time, was that liberalism had gone insane for political correctness and continental theory, and that the way to resist the encroachment of Derrida was through fortifying summaries of Emerson. Great Books. Great Ideas. Ideas have consequences. Words mean things. Remember the Clinton-era furor over "it depends upon the meaning of what the word 'is' is"?

What had really happened was that the left had become sensitized to the ways in which conventional moral language tended to shore up existing privilege and power, and had embarked on a critique of this tendency that the right interpreted, with some justification, as an attack on the very concept of meaning. But what would we have without meaning? Isolation and chaos, conditions in which it would presumably be easy to raise the capital gains tax. So if the left found itself in the strange position of supporting science on the one hand while insisting that truth was a cultural construct on the other, the right found itself in the even stranger position of investing in meaning even as it dissociated itself from fact. Evolution was a myth and climate change was a hoax, but philosophers still had access to objective truth, provided they had worn curly wigs and died enough centuries ago.

I don't know when it happened. Maybe with intelligent design? Maybe Colin Powell's WMD testimony? Maybe it was already under way, with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? But at some point, the American right — starting with the non-alt version, the one before the one we just elected — took another look at the postmodern critique of the linguistic basis of virtue and tumbled absolutely spinning into love with it. It turned out that postmodernism also contained the seeds of a system that would shore up existing privilege and power. All you had to do was take the insights of subversion and repurpose them for the needs of authority.

I think this actually relates to what shakey & i were just talking abt w/r/t politics as performance & truth value as being important but also as much about how something is conveyed as that it is conveyed

probably would help if the 2020 nominee were under a hundred. why can't younger people become politicans? the average age of house and senate is about 60. where's the freshness? it can't be my generation though because we have government-recognized slacker status. will have to be younger people.

Prior to this, we had three at least relatively young Presidents. The Democrats problem this time was that there was no rising star on the bench because they've done so badly on the state level. Most Presidents come from the pool of governors and Senators and there aren't that many Democratic governors and the Senate Dems average age is above 60 I think.

In other news I see that Cruz is already sucking up to Trump now too, awesome

milo otm

The Democrats problem this time was that there was no rising star on the bench because they've done so badly on the state level.

also i think it was widely perceived in the party that this was clinton's "turn" this time too

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-trump-movie-truth-showbiz-mov-1118-20161117-column.html

In other news I see that Cruz is already sucking up to Trump now too, awesome

― Οὖτις, Thursday, November 17, 2016 3:06 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

TBF, if it wasn't Trump, he'd be sucking up to a dock post or the underside of a boat. Sucking up to things is just what aquatic mollusks do.

the president i get as far as not being TOO young. obama, dubya, and bubba in the comfortably not-too-young range. people don't want to vote for a kid. but there is no law that says congress and senate people have to be old white lawyers. it isn't in any rule book. i just think people should give it a go. pressure the morons anyway. i think some smart little grass roots attacks - even if its a losing campaign you get to bring up all the things wrong with your old corrupt opponent and the system in general - could actually be more useful than tons of public protests. you gotta bring the fight to them. they don't care about protests.

Cruz took a selfie!

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/barnacles-on-dock-tom-bohon.jpg

found another!

http://i.imgur.com/GzZ3dXe.jpg

That MTV piece I really enjoyed.

https://twitter.com/TheAngryFangirl/status/799352770742616064

i just chose this because it happened to pop up on my TL, but to me this is why rhetorical carelessness in these sorts of arguments is so pernicious. guys like matt yglesias or even deej don't actually think racism "explains", completely on it own, virtually every ill in our society or the outcome of the election, but they make essentially that argument for purposes of economy (no pun intended) and clearness of message. but then you get well-meaning dumb people who actually take the message to heart

i guess this is really just the danger of having what should probably be a nuanced, academic discussion on the platform of twitter for anyone to see

Not sure if you all hate Jon Stewart or not but he talks about things that have been talked about in this thread.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jon-stewart-the-daily-show-former-host-election-2016-donald-trump-republicans/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-romney-idUSKBN13C2L0

btw lol @ this, gotta hand it to these guys for not holding a grudge i guess