2017: Whither Democrats?

Politics and religion
1911

I posted a reply to this earlier but deleted it. because maybe I’m misreading it or the intent. But reading it again, it sounds like what you are saying here that I as a white male am voting against my interest because if I vote Democratic I will lose my white male privilege?

What are the worst outcomes here that you envision, exactly? I can’t even look at this statement dispassionately and try to susse out the meaning.

In reality, “identity politics” is yet another rightwing attack that has wormed it’s way to a certain slice of the left - notably the white male left

Post from a piece in the Guardiansince the writer articulates my feelings better than I can:

It’s never a good idea to enter willingly into a frame your opponent has constructed to entrap you. The term “identity politics” is part of a whole vocabulary including “thought police,” “politically correct,” and “liberal elites”, whose main intention is to undermine the legitimacy of liberal and left politics. Uncritically adopting the “identity politics” language of the right is the equivalent of dropping our guard and waltzing on to their terrain. Master’s tools, master’s house, anyone? We need to recognise a toxic frame when we see one and refuse to be a party to its proliferation.

A liberal imagination perversely fixated on the alleged excesses of “identity politics” forgets that social movements of the marginalised are the spark and spur of democracy. The abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement extended democratic rights to the formerly enslaved and perpetually reviled, removing a deep moral stain from the nation. The women’s movement unleashed the potential and talent of half the country’s population.

So what you’re arguing in reality is that Democrats fail because they don’t have a plan to pander to white grievance politics, that somehow it’s burden to stand for civil rights and freedom for all instead of focusing on the “plight of the white working class.” You cannot disentangle systemic racism from economic hardship, they go hand in hand.

Some reading for anyone who somehow thinks that “identify politics” means voting against your own self interests.

”

1912

I do think there is a threat in the long term of the Dems becoming an anti-white party if minorities become a majority of the electorate and the Republicans sink further into white identity politics. You’d see the US turn into a reverse Mississippi.

We have a great example of what happens when identity politics go off the rails starting us in the face right now with Donald Trump.

What I want to see from the Dems is that they make consumer rights and pocketbook issues that white moderates can understand a highly visible plank. This is something that is popular, and it’s what these folks want from the Dems, and those are the folks who swing elections right now, so they get higher priority. You cannot implement anything good as the minority. A big reason the Republicans are becoming unpopular now is that they’re doing too much identity politics and zero pocketbook politics (and Dems are doing good at messaging how bad the Republican agenda is for pocketbooks)

One area in particular I think the Republicans are going to be vulnerable on is internet. They’ve supported the current agenda that allowed the rise of Charter and Comcast to be the two most hated companies in America. The fact the Dems haven’t attacked on these grounds is mind-boggling.

1913

I don’t know how to respond to this. You didn’t read anything I wrote or even any of the linked articles.I have to wonder if you or (seemingly) Enidigm even recognize the privilege you espouse. Frankly I find it appalling that you can’t recognize that racism and misogyny are reprehensible and so long as they exist you aren’t free either.

1914

Racism and misogyny are huge problems, they have to be dealt with. I resent that you assume that I don’t recognize these issues. The closest friends I have are all LGBT, disabled, or minority, in one way or another. I sure as hell give a damn about them. I’ve given my money and time to fight against what is going on today. I just understand you’re not going to be able to do anything about those problems while the orange goblin is president and we have a Republican Congress period. You’re whining about purity tests from Bernie supporters when you’re applying a bigger purity test yourself.

It’s a lot easier to fix those problems when folks are happier in the pocketbook and feel that the government was working for them in general. A big reason Hillary lost is that due to various factors, a lot of white moderates looked at Hillary, said “what is she going to do for me”, thought to themselves “nothing”, and that autodisqualified her and decided to try the snake oil thinking it couldn’t be worse. Civil Rights wouldn’t have happened without the economic prosperity of white America in the 50s and 60s.

You don’t win unless you convince a majority of people that you’re going to do something for them. Especially if you’re the Dems because of how our electoral system works. That’s reality no matter how uncomfortable you are with it. You’re right that white identity politics has to be crushed- I think all of us agree on that. You crush it by making it a loser- you crush it by winning elections and changing the rules so that they’re fairer. You crush it by reducing the fear in the white population- and fear is reduced by security. Insecurity is what caused our climate of hate right now- just as it did in Weimar Germany. That insecurity isn’t going away until we build up some more safety nets.

1915

Not that boggling.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bought-democratic-party-matthew-continetti

Republicans are against Net Neutrality because Obama said he was for it, therefore they had to hate it.
Then they got money on top of it and some talking points and they were locked in.

1916

While true (that they thought like that), this gets translated into “There is something wrong with Democrats” instead of “What is wrong with white people?”

Why do white people fear that fighting for civil liberties mean they get left behind? Is it the fear of loss of privilege? Or do they think that despite living in a capitalistic-market based economy they think politicians are going to halt the trend of automation and the globalization of capital? Hell do they even want to hear anything about that?

But from what I’m hearing, your solution appears to be ignore the bad isms because white people are insecure? Maybe we should talk about that insecurity instead of pandering, unless you’re suggesting a Machiavellian type approach and that pandering is necessary to win elections. That to me is fundamentally wrong and has nothing to do with purity tests. I don’t know, but without principles** … you’re left in the same boat as the Republican party and that’s not a boat I’m comfortable rowing in.
(**I recognize the irony (or hypocrisy if less charitable) of that statement, but certain issues can be comprised on (e.g. gun control) but core beliefs, not so much. IMO, anyway.)

Posted this in a different thread but the Czech Republic recently had elections. This is the state of their economy:

The Czech economy has enjoyed rapid growth, a balanced budget and the lowest unemployment in the European Union in the past four years, but the Social Democrats - who led a government with ANO and another partner - were not able to capitalise.

The social democrats who oversaw that lost big and the far right all saw huge gains. Seems to me it’s not economics that people are worried about.

I apologize for that.

1917

Folks in the Time Warner area are furious at Charter. They’ve lost 1/3 of their TV folks, and this is just folks just deciding to give up TV entirely rather than deal with them- because of “price discipline”

If I was to run for office, I’d make my main goal trying to get a state regulatory commission to regulate the price companies could charge for internet, just like any other utility. I think that level of regulation is needed. We do it for insurance and other utilities. I really think this could be a huge winner.

1918

It’s hard to talk about gradations today when “the other side” is so transparently bad; but it needs to be recognized that “identity” is all that conservatism has to offer today. Identity Politics is already as much a conservative as a liberal thing.

In your New Republic article Mychal Smith frames his criticism Lilla’s infamous article and book as a metatextual misunderstanding of a radical 1970s black feminist collective’s political creed that supposedly defined the term Identity Politics ; Lilla messed up as “if he read the collective’s statement” he would have known better.

Setting aside the fact that Lilla’s book is at best (as i’ve said here in some or another thread) a long forum / twitter post and culmination of experience, not research - this is nonsense. While the history of the Combahee River Collective is certain interesting and noteworthy, i would wager a good 99.99% of people evoking the ideas of Identity Politics have never even heard of this movement either and claiming that group’s intents as having authority over how these things are playing out today is just typical Citation Deathmatch intellectual warfare that certain sorts of progressives like to use.

But it’s also a fundamental misunderstanding of politics. Lilla’s point, that it’s the politics of oppression, sort of soars over his (and, I dare to suppose) your head as well. That while this identity politics important, just and good, it may not actually make things better for those who need it without political power behind it. I’m not completely sold on the following way of thinking yet - i haven’t really thought about it hard enough to be sure - but there is at face value an argument that without LBJ strong-arming Congress to pass Civil Rights legislation that the gains made would have been significantly less.

The problem with you (and many other Democrats) as Lilla sees it today is that there is no room for compromise in the Democratic party. If you’re pro-life, you’re a monster. If you’re anti-immigration, you’re a monster. If you’re pro-religion (and that religion is Christianity), maybe we can’t say you’re a monster, but we can certainly think it. But everyone needs some “skin in the game” for politics to work.

But you’re right of course that terms like “identity politics” get tossed around by populist, conservative rabble rousers like some sort of curse word or boogieman, usually out of context and inappropriately, just like BLM or Socialism. And liberals have developed a deep intolerance of even allowing conversation on these topics since in most cases conservatives address these terms in ignorance or bad faith. But that shouldn’t make it impossible to discuss these things at all.

My point isn’t that protecting minorities, making gains for LGTBQ citizens, protecting the environment or making a working health care system aren’t not only important but have deep components of self interest that should in theory get everyone to vote for them. But when you define everything white people have as a privilege - regardless of circumstances - and that they should sit down and make room for everyone else, do you really think without some appeals to their culture, beliefs and values, they’re not going to also develop identity politics of their own?

Because the danger of identity politics is that you can’t actually control who gets to invoke it. In a time when the status of victim provides the “moral authority” in progressive circles, progressives still get astonished when white people start developing identities as well. This isn’t how it’s supposed to turn out! Identities mean aka “identities of the oppressed!” But once the cat is out of the bag, you don’t get to control who uses it and how. The most disturbing development in the 2016 election was the increasing percentage of white people voting Republican, even after decades of Republican blunders under Bush II and an inept Republican led Congresses. This is parallel to nationalist developments all over Europe. Even if the temptation is strong to back off and cry “racist!”, and progressives remain happy to conclude that racism is the sole and only critique they need to explain the world, conservative/populist movement are still gaining ground worldwide. We need broader minded politics than games of “victim and oppressor” if we’re going to halt the decline.

1919

I see no way that Democrats can proceed successfully by allowing some members of our party to continue to believe they don’t privilege. As long as they keep trying to compare growing up poor as the same as being shot in the street for being a black man, they’re going to fall for the bullshit claims Trump and his ilk peddle. It will be a battle that will be lost eventually.

The Democrats cannot stop pushing for the rights of everyone. They simply cannot do that simply to make some white people feel better about themselves. What they can do is add more to the table that everyone cares about and show that what they’re offering does more than suck from the middle class and sometimes the rich to give to poor. What they can do is actually show how their approach will improve the lives of the lower and middle class and the country over all. And they’re terrible at that.

My beef with Charter though is not going to make me stick with the Democrats if they say Neo Nazis in the street is nothing compared to the cost of college. My Trump supporting family will not give a shit if they decide it’s okay for anti illegal immigration folks to sit at the table… because that won’t be enough to turn them from Trump who actually promises to improve their lives. He still has three years to do that. They didn’t see an improvement under Obama, which was 8 years, so when the 4 is up with Trump they’re inclined to give him another 4 to even things out.

The Democrats will wind up losing the group that voted for them by chasing the group that didn’t and wind up with neither.

I hate the terminology of protecting minorities too. It’s just… that’s not what it is. Equality is not the same as protectionism.

1920

So, repeat the mistakes of 2016?

1921

Read again.

1922

Privilege exists. That said, pocketbook politics and principle politics don’t always match. Most folks are going to do what is best for their pockets. I’ve talked to some actual non-racist Trump voters, and that’s why they said they voted for Trump- all of them. They felt Hillary would have given them nothing, Trump might give them something.

In terms of the power dynamic of politics- the folks who are willing and able to vote for either party get the biggest say. That’s not minorities, that’s not the mouth-breather Trump true believers, it’s the white moderate who values order above justice. Those are the folks who voted Obama 2012 and Trump 2016.

1923

And you can do both, you just need to make the pocketbook a focus on the campaign trail.

1924

Wait when did whites become the only moderates that can shift? You think the Democrats have the minorities in the bag? I think the polling results need to be reviewed again. That’s not what the data said at all. There was only one group that was hugely in the Democratic party’s favor and unlikely to shift. The others were split, and the growing multiracial groups, what do you plan to do with them…

I am with Shivax, we can do both. It’s a huge mistake to treat minorities like they’re just a guarantee though.

1925

Keep telling me how easy my life is. That’s definitely going to persuade me.

1926

The problem here is that you think this is a group that exists. Every Trump voters, from my family to olaf, is a racist piece of shit beneath your contempt and unworthy of your concern.

1927

You’re hearing what you want to hear. Having white privilege in no ways implies your life is or was easy. And that’s assuming you are actually referring to white privilege. You were not clear on that point.

The video should just say privilege, explaining the concept of privilege in general. It doesn’t really focus on white privilege but in this country, being born white automatically gives a privilege, a sizable one. It does not mean your life or my life or anyone else’s life is easier or harder. It’s a head-start but also a lifetime of assumptions often in your favor.

And if the Democrats think that by leaving minorities behind and not earning their vote will somehow get them all these other people they could wind up with less not more because the angry people are going to stay with Trump. He allows them to blame other people for whatever makes them angry. He gives them a target and says it’s okay to hit it. He tells them they can say whatever they want and if there is a consequence, it’s because other people are too sensitive.

You might say they will vote for their interest, but 2106 already shows us they will vote against their interest to feel good.

1928

Lilla’s point wasn’t that Democrats should give up on core beliefs but, if they continue to lose elections, they’re going to have to find some way to broaden their base. But because Democratic principles today are taken more like religious morality, where to disagree is to be immoral, it may leave them in a bind. So from his point of view, things like arguing about the “gender binary” or transgender bathrooms are a pretty low hanging fruit to be more quiet on, since these are not at all universally agreed upon principles in society. Yet in today’s new and improved Democratic party, let no disadvantaged person be left behind, which means in practice it’s better to lose elections and be ideologically pure rather than win elections and give a few shrugs or “i don’t knows” on marginal issues that will cost elections - and which they can still protect once in office. How accurate is this assessment… i’m can’t tell. His point that it’s possible to have different opinions about certain things like transgender bathrooms and not immediately be a monster seems not to match the tenor of Our Twitter Times.

Part of this unwillingness to cross lines really does come through in the great ‘debate’ between broadening the base vs get out the vote. By and large if you think everyone not voting Democrat today is an unsalvageable racist, you believe that all Democrats need to do is get more Democrats to the voting booths. Which means you never have to compromise. Which means, if Democrats continue to retreat in 2018 despite the undeniably worst President in living memory, the solution must be everyone else is a monster. Or, you know, possibly, that the “big tent”’ of the Democratic party isn’t as big as they think it is. I love Armando et al here, but it’s clear that to be a conservative is to be a monster. @Olaf is i’m sure a decent guy in real life who minds his business and has probably never actively hurt people personally in his life. But because of identity politics stuff, it’s impossible for him to be a Democrat. And Armando et al would happily crucify him if they could get their hands on him. Why wouldn’t you vote forever for the other party if you were Olaf? The problem that Democrats are having is that the % of the country they’re willing to write off in this way is already edging close to 50%.

If Democratic policies really are better objectively, than it’s the identity politics stuff driving moderates away from them. Disentangling this from the enormous amounts of professional FUD from conservative media is, tbh, beyond my scope here. All Lilla (and i) want Democrats to consider is the possibility of broadening the base a little bit. How, exactly, one does this, is not up to me.

I think the biggest criticism against Lilla and his generation is the rose tinted lenses they had - and still have - about the halcyon years of Union Labor wedded to the Liberal agenda. What people forget was that unions wielded power through an unholy alliance with southern racists. Today’s free market technocratic liberals that export manufacturing jobs overseas, treat your privacy as a product and build fortunes off at-will employment and leveraging Wall Street finance aren’t necessarily the droids we’re looking for, either.

1929

So you think it’s better to try and get Olaf and then lose me? Isn’t that wash?

I agree on some points. The Democrats have made it a difficult to discuss immigration at all because they treat illegal immigration and legal immigration as the same and only allow one conversation about immigration, and anyone who opposes that stance is labeled as basically evil and racist.

But let’s look at the numbers.The exit polls had the Latino vote of 65% in Hillary’s favor to 29 percent in Trump’s. Obama had 71 to Romney’s 27. But the turnout rate for the Latino rate was only 48%. So immigration didn’t get that group to turnout for Hillary, but you’re assuming that dropping immigration and adding something else will. Why? You don’t know what exactly drove that 48% to the polls do you.

I’d like to be able to coherent and relatively civil discussions on immigration too, but I am certainly not willing to drop it because someone, largely from the GOP side, decided to drop a label on it and call it identify politics. That’s not how you energize your base and expand your influence. You let the other side determine what issues are in order to win against them? That sounds like a losing strategy to me.

The democrats offered almost nothing to middle class, and by that I don’t just mean the white middle class, I mean all of them. They kind gave a sideways glance promising some targeting of the rich, not hugely defining what rich means, and pointed to pre Reagan tax rates, but they didn’t offer much there at all. They can add that to the table.

Letting the GOP’s labels stick and then actually use them is just a poor strategy overall.

1930

I’m not really making a stand on one point or another insofar as policy goes. The elections seem to get worse and worse yet the margins are so slim almost any pet theory about what needs to be done has some credibility. I don’t think gaining Olaf at the cost if you makes sense. The question was more “what would it take to get an Olaf?” On the assumption Olafs aren’t inherently evil or something.

Identify politics as Lilla posits is in contrast to what might be seen as “civic unity”, that we all agree on the basic principles which unite us. The truth is though that while he sees I.p. as clouding unity, we may not in the end (conservatives and liberals) actual have that much in common anymore. I personally don’t believe that, but it’s a possibility.