Migration complication immigration aggravation

Politics and religion
41

The broken word here is “they.” Who is “they” in your thinking? The core Republican leadership has wanted to ditch the New Deal since the 40s. But “they” as in the Republican electorate must not agree, if the leadership hasn’t dared to act on it directly, even when in power.

This broad brush “they” can really cause a lot of trouble.

Trump got about 63 million votes. Four years earlier, Romney got about 61 million votes. So we are talking about a group more than 60 million in size.

For strategic reasons, liberal thought leaders try to focus our attention on the most extreme and objectionable of those people, such that liberal voters will look at the nazis and white supremacists and religious fanatics and crazy militia people (or the economic reactionaries who want to ditch the New Deal), and perceive this mass of 60+ million people as being in their image. Or at least perfectly comfortable with that image. Liberal leaders pretty much have to do that, because conservative leaders do the same thing only better.

But these are strategies for turning out the vote, not for perceiving the truth and planning strategy, with the intention of winning.

In truth, not only are the vast majority of those 60 million opponents not nazi white supremacist religious fanatics, they are NOT NATURAL ALLIES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. And it is extremely difficult work for Republican leaders to keep them in their tent. My concern is that we do the Republican leaders’ work for them when we broad brush insult them as a whole, or their major sub-groups.

In every representative type government going back to Greek times, there are two primal political forces: one smaller group of elites who above all else fear that the majority will use their numerical advantage to “steal” what is rightfully theirs, and a much larger group who aim to see the benefits of society distributed widely among the citizens. The former group is always amoral and highly tactical. They use all manner of devious tactics to draw other groups into their tent to mitigate their numbers disadvantage, all the while keeping these allies as very junior partners who, in truth, get rather little out of the deal. Because, after all, these elites think they truly deserve everything.

In the US, this group, obviously the Republicans, had it all their way until the Great Depression. But they were blown out of the water when not only did they get blamed for the depression, but the New Deal was in place for the post WWII period that saw a totally unprecedented prosperity for an incredible percentage of working people across the country. So this core Republican group was thrown back on their heels and could hardly speak their actual goals for decades. What working family would listen to this crap about it being better back in the old days? (The Goldwater debacle, for example)

Their strategy – generally credited to Richard Nixon – was to entice other groups into their tent based on a tenuous connection – dissatisfaction with change. Don’t like the way desegregation is going? Yeah, we don’t like change either, join us. Don’t like the way gender roles are changing? Don’t like the way your religion is being pushed out of the public square? Don’t like the way taboos have changed since back when you were coming up? Join us. This was a devastating strategy, because outside of cosmopolitan areas, most people feel a lot of discomfort with changes that occur around them during their lives. And pretty much 100% of these people were tactically ideal targets for the Republican Party: 1) politically unsophisticated, such that they did not realize they were getting nothing for their votes other than empty rhetoric, and 2) they were almost all natural Democrats and thus all stolen votes

But the most devastating aspect of this tactic used by this core Republican group: A Nixon or a Reagan or a Bush would say something to appeal to these disaffected people, but a lot of times, these people weren’t listening because they were not that political. But middle class liberals were listening, and they would be baited into derisive comments about those disaffected people. So, to take an old example, people who hated having their kids bussed for over an hour each way, in order to achieve school de-segregation got called racists. With the result that even if they were not so taken in by Republican rhetoric, they sure understood that Democrats hated them and were the enemy.

This across all the cultural issues from guns to religion to immigration.

And rather than ever examining our rather large contribution to the problem, liberals have to this day just doubled down on insulting these people and their lives and broadcasting the message, “No matter how bad the Republicans are, you have to vote for them because we are your sworn enemies.”

All of this has gotten more complicated with Trump, because he has gone much further in stoking the very ugliest members of those junior Republican constituencies, which has worked for what I think are complicated reasons. But from our perspective, the problem is that it makes it all the harder not to play right into Republican hands.

We can and should attack every ugly thing Trump says. Ditto specific right wing actions and policies. But broad brush insulting all the strict Christians or all the rurals or all the working class white males… Geez, it’s like campaigning for the Republicans. And personally, I really want to win.

42

Well, we certainly agree on that much. :)

43

I CAN’T READ THEIR MINDS.

If they support an openly racist candidate promising an openly racist agenda on behalf of an openly racist party, they are promoting racist acts. This makes me think they are racists, because that’s what racism is, i.e. the promotion or execution of racist acts. Perhaps they aren’t really racist, who can say, but the outside observer can’t tell any practical difference between them and those who are ‘really racist’.

44

In this thread: conservative tries to convince liberals that the only way to beat conservatives is to become conservative.

Thanks, but no thanks.

45

It’s Return of the Jedi all over again!

46

Research suggests that people are changing their views on race and gender to match those of the leadership of their chosen side. Put another way, that means political leaders can produce racism and bigotry or they can prevent racism and bigotry simply by adopting and promoting the appropriate views. If that’s the case, then the argument that people on the left should moderate their rhetoric on these issues seems even worse to me. And, it also explains why we were better off when openly-espoused racism had been shamed into near nonexistence in the political realm. We need more shaming of those views, not less.

47

Edit: Cato is not a liberal think tank.

48

This is incorrect. What Democrats say is covered differently by the media than what Republicans say. Republicans also have an entire media empire devoted to promulgating their message, and their constituents are by-and-large captured by that media empire. Why is migrant caravans even a story? I know why:

The hack gap has two core pillars. One is the constellation of conservative media outlets — led by Fox News and other Rupert Murdoch properties like the Wall Street Journal editorial page, but also including Sinclair Broadcasting in local television, much of AM talk radio, and new media offerings such as Breitbart and the Daily Caller — that simply abjure anything resembling journalism in favor of propaganda.

The other is that the self-consciousness journalists at legacy outlets have about accusations of liberal bias leads them to bend over backward to allow the leading conservative gripes of the day to dominate the news agenda. Television producers who would never dream of assigning segments where talking heads debate whether it’s bad that the richest country on earth also has millions of children growing up in dire poverty think nothing of chasing random conservative shiny objects, from “Fast & Furious” (remember that one?) to Benghazi to the migrant caravan.

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1055079051461767168

The problem–oh dear god–the problem isn’t Democrats and liberals being uncivil. How… how could you even think that? Obama wrote an entire book about how to achieve common ground, how America was one thing, how we can all agree on core ideas and values. And then he spent 8 years being called a secret Muslim Kenyan usurper. One of my colleagues drove to work every day with a Obama-as-the-Joker sticker on his car. Republicans will hate liberals no matter what. Fox News and AM radio will find something to hate, some controversy to gin up, some intemperate comment to blow out of proportion. And if they can’t find something, they’ll make it up. Obama tried to figure them out, to reach out to them, to understand where they’re coming from. He really did. And it got him nothing but hatred and unmitigated obstruction. They will always hate. Hate is the GOP’s fuel. It’s what drives their whole coalition. You can’t accommodate hatred.

49

I think that once we proceed with that in mind, we have pretty much ensured long-term defeat. (Short term, Trump’s ugliness might save us, but…)

In reality, political struggles go like this:

  1. You decide what your core goal is. (For me, that is straight forward. A more egalitarian society, where resources, legal protections, power, and opportunity are as widely distributed as possible.)

  2. You assess who is currently with you, who is against, who is apathetic.

  3. You look at the kinds of people not currently with you, and do some rank ordering: Which subgroups are most likely to be won over? Which ones could be, down the road?

And what needs to be done to win these people over? (Some groups would require only free things, like rhetorical tips of the hat to their core goals. Others might require unrelated policy concessions – tougher, because those concessions could turn away some current supporters; however, this is always a possibility. Others might require compromise on your core goals; only go there as a last, desperate resort.)

This involves, in effect, mind-reading. That is how the Republican/conservative core group has been thinking for time out of mind, and that is why they have done so well, relative to their original, core numbers.

The best strategies generally have to do with picking the most effective topics leading up to elections, the most compelling video drawing attention to those topics. And the public statements on those topics most likely to win over votes that could have gone either way. Assuming the goal is to win, the idea is to always be prying votes away from the other side, without giving up your core goals.

The immigrant caravan video that started this discussion is a perfect example of conservative leadership doing exactly that. It has nothing to do with a real threat to the US, no one close to the actual situation believes such a thing. Rather, it draws attention to an issue and frames it in a very visual and threatening sound bite, which has the potential to lure in groups of people who would not otherwise be motivated to vote based on fear of immigration, might generally welcome immigrants they know in their community.

However, when we go around saying that anyone who has voted for Trump is hopeless, that they are broad brush stupid or evil or whatever, we are doing the exact opposite. Rather than trying to pry them away from Trump, we are announcing that they are our enemies. Might as well say, “If you voted Republican in the past, we insist you go on doing so in the future.”

I find this incredibly painful to watch happen.

50

Repeating: in this thread, conservative tries to convince liberals that the way to win over conservatives is to be a conservative.

51

No what he’s saying is you need to lie and embellish to win over low-information idiots, based on their passions and not their reasoning.

The GOP is great at this. The Democrats use logic and reason and it doesn’t work, because everyone is stupid.

52

Life is certainly simpler when you embrace evil.

53

I’m still waiting for you to provide examples of them having been won over. Isn’t that where we started? Point to cases where the ‘good behavior’ of those on the left resulted in winning the hearts and minds of those on the right.

54

Matt, you have a point, but it is somewhat out of date.

We went through a stretch where Fox was openly conservative, while the other major news outlets were still working very hard to maintain the appearance of unbiased arbiters of truth. And, in doing so, they often gave equal air time to “the other side” of things that did not really have another side.

But during the Trump era, we have transitioned to a broad spectrum of openly political viewpoints. (Historically, that was the norm. The idea of unbiased authoritative news coverage was not invented until the 20th Century and not accepted as normal until the dominance of network TV… And “unbiased” was always a marketing sham. There is no such thing as unbiased news. The news gatherer always needs a basis for deciding what is important and what is not, and that basis depends upon your beliefs – and the beliefs of your target audience.)

Anyway, today we have plenty of news outlets that do all they can to cover the liberal viewpoint, although, as you say, there are plenty that take a reactionary viewpoint.

But… in the end, conservatives, to this point, have been more tactically skillful in using the resources at hand. This caravan video being a really good example. But what drives me crazy is the lack of a similar liberal strategy. We scream about Trump, but we seem to have no sense which, out of all his failings, would be most likely to pry votes away from the Republicans? And what compelling video will draw attention to those things?

I’m no pro, but I think if I were in a decision-making decision, I would turn Bill Clinton’s “It’s the economy stupid” into “Trump is the swamp stupid.” And no, that does not mean to call Trump supporters stupid, it means to focus all political rhetoric on the evidence that Trump and his inner circle are exactly what they promised to end in Washington. Probably pick up the old Who song “Won’t Get Fooled Again” as a theme. Anything irrelevant to this theme, shut up about it for a few weeks, it might matter to us, but it probably won’t swing over voters. Provide the media with sound bites and video opportunities that blast away at this point. Make it nearly impossible for the media to look away.

Because in my mind, that is the topic where the Trump coalition is the most vulnerable.

In short, liberal media would do better by us if the liberal message were more clear and tactically wise.

55

How is “they’re taking away your healthcare” not clear or tactically wise? What do you propose?

56

Very few struggles (outide of fiction) are won just by being right.

Two football teams square off on Sunday. Any idea how little effect morality and rightness have to do with who wins?

Two armies square off in battle. Ditto.

I honestly believe that we liberals are morally correct in our goals. But that does not mean we will necessarily win.

And we do not have to be evil, we only need to look at the people not in our tent realistically, and figure out which ones can be won over, and how.

Maybe some liberals have goals which really cannot appeal broadly, but my egalitarian goals are not anathema to rurals or fundamentalists or hunters or white working class males. Only to that core I think of as the old John Birchers. So me, I don’t have to lie, I just need to consider my opponents’ life experiences before picking which of the many things I honestly believe to emphasize.

(Just to be clear. Yes, I agree that many Republican tactics over the years have been pure evil.)

57

Personally, I would pick the swamp thing as more effective, because it strikes me as more politically inclusive. There is no established other side that is “pro swamp” (at least openly).

By contrast, health care as an issue got muddied up over the years, and it is inherently difficult to follow as a topic, so more likely to induce “support your team” voting. And the fact that McCain cast that saving vote made the matter more of a theoretical future threat.

But if liberal leadership disagreed and really focused on this issue effectively, complete with compelling video and drama, I’m okay with that. It’s an extremely important issue, and I think its appeal in our direction is growing, I’m just worried it would be overshadowed by the likes of that caravan.

58

On the History Extra podcast they had a pseudo debate with Tom Holland, respectable yet increasingly controversial author of Roman histories but especially a book which questions many of the basic, yet undocumented, origin stories of Islam, In the Shadow of the Sword, who hosted a conversation with Ed Husain, whose recent book House of Islam, tackled the problem of reconciling the hyper-reactionary nature of modern Islamism with Islamic culture’s relatively open minded distant past. Husain’s position was that Islamic civilizations achievements and beautiful past has been hijacked by reactionaries; Tom’s position, otoh, was that “how do we reconcile women and sexual minorities with Islam?” And which while Husain assured him this was possible was neither so confident in his claims.

Husain felt that issues like gender equality and sexual equality were secondary to the main thrust of perpetuating the good parts of Islam. Holland simply couldn’t accept that these issues were in fact secondary.

In essence this is the problem facing Republicans and Democrats today. The issues that Republicans don’t want to think hard about are the issues most pressing to Democrats, and often the reverse is true as well. The media asymmetry also makes it nearly impossible to bridge this gap.

So Republicans think ownership of guns is essential and literally scream in anger that they’re banning bump stocks (this i’ve experienced). There’s such a wide gap here there’s not really any common ground. There’s no sense of empathy or shared community. Many of the Republican positions are premised in, basically, near anti-social individualism that rejects the tragedy of the commons consequences of their lifestyles and beliefs. From climate change denial, a rejection of multiculturalism and multi-nationalism, a distrust of international institutions combined with a deep ignorance of how government institutions actually work, and a rejection of science and expertise in general reflects a folksy, “do it with my hands”, bailing wire and duct tape is good enough for me view of the socioeconomic landscape, that is in deep opposition to the view progressive espouse.

Fox and friends is part of the swamp. The ‘idea’ of the swamp itself begs the question about there being a swamp. Assuming this is true, then, then how do you convey to Republican voters - who tend to be low information, bad information, or biased information - that many of the policies Republican politicians are in service to the swamp? For example, how do you talk about the national debt to Republican voters, “furious” at “tax and spend” Democrats, when it is consistently Republican politicians that eagerly run the debt up? The disconnect between cause and effect makes meaningful communication all but impossible, and forces Democrats to “wade” into the pool of misinformation and accept it as true as a starting point of conversation, which so pushes the old Overton Window far down the Fox scale it is at best infuriating and at worst a bridge too far.

59

Disagree. It’s too prone to whataboutism. Trump is so obviously shady, but I’ve seen facebook friends try valiantly and compassionately to win over Trump voters by pointing out his obvious shadiness. They dig in and dig in and then once they’re fully rooted out by facts, immediately pivot to “Obama gunwalking Soylendra, blah blah” or “Hillary Benghazi, blah blah”. They don’t care that Trump is corrupt. They only care about corruption as a wedge against Democrats.

60

It’s more than this. Gun ownership is a tribal signifier. There was zero gun legislation passed during Obama’s tenure. And yet gun and ammo sales went through the roof because scaremongering about wild packs of liberals coming to take gun owners’ weapons was effective. Republicans don’t live in reality. They live in an impenetrable propaganda bubble. There should be common ground on guns. But any regulation promoted by a Democrat is immediately toxic–not because people disagree with it–but because it’s promoted by a Democrat. Substance simply does not matter. Trump voters are unreachable. Trump could murder and eat babies on the White House lawn. Trump voters would say “What about abortion?” Democrats could propose a law that all Trump voters should get government provided assault rifles. Hannity would just scream that the rifles’ magazines are too small and it’s a socialist liberal plot to run gun manufacturers out of business.