To beat Trump, we need to know why Americans keep voting for him
January 29, 2024 11:46 AM Subscribe
Psychologists may have the answer Trump exemplifies extrinsic values. From the tower bearing his name in gold letters to his gross overstatements of his wealth; from his endless ranting about “winners” and “losers” to his reported habit of cheating at golf; from his extreme objectification of women, including his own daughter, to his obsession with the size of his hands; from his rejection of public service, human rights and environmental protection to his extreme dissatisfaction and fury, undiminished even when he was president of the United States, Trump, perhaps more than any other public figure in recent history, is a walking, talking monument to extrinsic values.
Some psychologists believe our values tend to cluster around certain poles, described as “intrinsic” and “extrinsic”. People with a strong set of intrinsic values are inclined towards empathy, intimacy and self-acceptance. They tend to be open to challenge and change, interested in universal rights and equality, and protective of other people and the living world.I think this was an interesting read but I'm sort of grappling with whether it passes the sniff test. I think for a lot of us, one of the really challenging dimensions of the Trump years has been grappling with why some pretty well-intended and decent-in-their-personal-lives people have voted for Trump, and in some cases embraced him more enthusiastically than a simple vote. Like I don't know a ton of Trump voters, but obviously I've got an extended family and so on, and it's not ever been clear to me that Trump voters categorically lack "empathy, intimacy, and self-acceptance."
People at the extrinsic end of the spectrum are more attracted to prestige, status, image, fame, power and wealth. They are strongly motivated by the prospect of individual reward and praise. They are more likely to objectify and exploit other people, to behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts. They have little interest in cooperation or community. People with a strong set of extrinsic values are more likely to suffer from frustration, dissatisfaction, stress, anxiety, anger and compulsive behaviour.
And on the flipside of that coin, I live in a coastal US city where most everyone I know is a voter and a never-ever-not-in-a-million-years Trump voter. But the world of upper middle class liberals is rife with unkind, not empathic, not particularly self-accepting or others-accepting, not particularly forgiving people. And God knows we have also been inculcated with the basest American values, that we indeed seek prestige, status, image, fame, power, and wealth. Like I'd say seeking those things is what a lot of American liberals do best, and having solidaristic or communitarian values not so much. Liberal cities are full of higher income Democrats who somewhat cruelly lauded themselves for never going outside for two years of a pandemic, while they wondered aloud and online constantly about whether and how often they should tip the service workers who brought them food every day and contracted Covid on the behalf of the higher income Democrats.
I just wonder if this article is an opportunity to pat ourselves on the back without looking in the mirror. And I wonder about its genuine explanatory power.
This paragraph did appeal to me though:
If, by contrast, people live in a country in which no one becomes destitute, in which social norms are characterised by kindness, empathy, community and freedom from want and fear, their values are likely to shift towards the intrinsic end. This process is known as policy feedback, or the “values ratchet”. The values ratchet operates at the societal and the individual level: a strong set of extrinsic values often develops as a result of insecurity and unfulfilled needs. These extrinsic values then generate further insecurity and unfulfilled needs.posted by kensington314 at 12:11 PM on January 29 [90 favorites]
To beat Trump, we need to know why Americans keep voting for him
No, we don't. Hillary Clinton got almost 3,000,000 votes more than Trump in 2016. Biden got over 7,000,000 votes than Trump in 2020. What has he done since that's going to increase his share of the popular vote?
posted by kirkaracha at 12:17 PM on January 29 [51 favorites]
No, we don't. Hillary Clinton got almost 3,000,000 votes more than Trump in 2016. Biden got over 7,000,000 votes than Trump in 2020. What has he done since that's going to increase his share of the popular vote?
posted by kirkaracha at 12:17 PM on January 29 [51 favorites]
If we know why people vote for him, we can better understand how he's obtained any power. We can also understand why he got a large enough number of votes to win _any_ states. We can also understand why, with some people, having a conversation about what he represents is so, so difficult. We can also understand why that one uncle is so obsessed with him.
We can also understand a lot more besides, and trying to fix anything without understanding it leaves you with few options other than brute force.
posted by amtho at 12:22 PM on January 29 [12 favorites]
We can also understand a lot more besides, and trying to fix anything without understanding it leaves you with few options other than brute force.
posted by amtho at 12:22 PM on January 29 [12 favorites]
Because that might not matter with our broken electoral system?
posted by gottabefunky at 12:22 PM on January 29 [21 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 12:22 PM on January 29 [21 favorites]
Hillary Clinton got almost 3,000,000 votes more than Trump in 2016. Biden got over 7,000,000 votes than Trump in 2020. What has he done since that's going to increase his share of the popular vote?
Yeah I mean if you kind of just assume that the race is going to look like some combo of the 2016 and 2020 maps, then what we need to beat Trump is to keep the popular vote while winning PA, WI, GA, and AZ. In other words Biden can lose Michigan having supported a genocide, as long as he keeps GA.
posted by kensington314 at 12:25 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
Yeah I mean if you kind of just assume that the race is going to look like some combo of the 2016 and 2020 maps, then what we need to beat Trump is to keep the popular vote while winning PA, WI, GA, and AZ. In other words Biden can lose Michigan having supported a genocide, as long as he keeps GA.
posted by kensington314 at 12:25 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
I actually do think it's interesting to ask why Americans keep voting for Trump in the Republican primaries. I don't think it's really interesting to ask why they vote for him in the general election (that one's mostly covered by "he is the Republican candidate", though admittedly not entirely) but there is a contest currently underway where everyone must pick a Republican, they have other options, and they are picking this guy.
posted by capricorn at 12:27 PM on January 29 [68 favorites]
posted by capricorn at 12:27 PM on January 29 [68 favorites]
I guess assuming the extrinsic values theory is correct (which again, I don't immediately), it doesn't really help us for 2024. Like it would be great to create a society where people are in a culture of intrinsic instead of extrinsic values--the Democratic party has never been good at that in part because they lost faith and interest in propping up institutions like unions that help create that kind of country, and also decided for 30 years that the only way they could be allowed to be caught helping people was through like the EITC or something that is wonky and punished poor people. There's a just a lot of catch-up in creating an intrinsically valued society that we can't really do for 2024.
posted by kensington314 at 12:29 PM on January 29 [12 favorites]
posted by kensington314 at 12:29 PM on January 29 [12 favorites]
It is better to look good than to feel good.
-- "Fernando", SNL
posted by zaixfeep at 12:32 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
-- "Fernando", SNL
posted by zaixfeep at 12:32 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
What doesn't quite gel with the idea of extrinsic values (if I'm understanding it correctly) is that Trump's base has a lot of empathy for him. I've been listening to the NYTimes podcast The Run Up, which spends a lot of time interviewing voters of various stripes, and a common sentiment among Republican voters that's come up is "Well, I was thinking of picking someone else since Trump is kinda old/mean/etc., but then with all of these cases against him, well, I just felt bad for the guy, I felt like I needed to support him even if he's not the perfect candidate."
posted by coffeecat at 12:33 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 12:33 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
You look marvelous.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:34 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 12:34 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
Given the massive problems with psychology research that have been exposed in recent years I’m highly skeptical of any of its results or actual ability to explain any human behavior, and extra extra skeptical about research results that assure me that my political opponents are psychologically broken monsters.
posted by star gentle uterus at 12:37 PM on January 29 [33 favorites]
posted by star gentle uterus at 12:37 PM on January 29 [33 favorites]
it's not ever been clear to me that Trump voters categorically lack "empathy, intimacy, and self-acceptance."
This is the risk of talking about psychology as an explanation for social/political outcomes. I mean, everyone is on a spectrum and the same brains that equally weight equity and cultural status quo are more likely to score lower on empathy, but that's not a guaranteed thing. The brain that tends to align with conservatism is more likely to embrace pluralism within a multicultural setting or when someone is kept from feeling anxious or vulnerable, as opposed to growing up in a homogenous small town or living at the whims and vagaries of rentier capitalism.
My huge fear is that the COVID pandemic is going to exacerbate everything I hate about conservatives.
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:38 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
This is the risk of talking about psychology as an explanation for social/political outcomes. I mean, everyone is on a spectrum and the same brains that equally weight equity and cultural status quo are more likely to score lower on empathy, but that's not a guaranteed thing. The brain that tends to align with conservatism is more likely to embrace pluralism within a multicultural setting or when someone is kept from feeling anxious or vulnerable, as opposed to growing up in a homogenous small town or living at the whims and vagaries of rentier capitalism.
My huge fear is that the COVID pandemic is going to exacerbate everything I hate about conservatives.
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:38 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
We can also understand a lot more besides, and trying to fix anything without understanding it leaves you with few options other than brute force.
I'm ready to try brute force now.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:41 PM on January 29 [14 favorites]
I'm ready to try brute force now.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:41 PM on January 29 [14 favorites]
Extrinsic values can be tricky. For example: Are you going to trust the lawyer driving the late-model mid-range Toyota to the office, or the one driving the luxury sedan? If you're injured due to a defective car and you're suing the car company, then it's usually the Toyota-driving lawyer, otherwise it's the luxury car lawyer,
posted by zaixfeep at 12:42 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
posted by zaixfeep at 12:42 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
Every article that purports to decode the minds of Trump voters complicates things needlessly. Or is it needlessly? Because it's very ... motivated behavior... to avoid the goddamned obvious answer of "people vote for Trump because they are bigots, and that is all there is to it." The venn diagram of Trump voters and bigots is almost a circle. It is rare to find an American bigot who isn't a Trump supporter and it's impossible to find a Trump supporter who is not a bigot. There is NO OTHER FACTOR that correlates this closely with voting for Trump. Stop pretending there is any mystery to why people vote for Trump.
Most white Americans don't want the answer to be so simple, so they pretend it's more complicated than that. It's not, though. I am beginning to think all this pretending to be ~so mystified~ and, like, covering the blackboard with advanced mathematical formulae and calculations, is deliberate obfuscation, not accidental or innocent.
posted by MiraK at 12:42 PM on January 29 [88 favorites]
Most white Americans don't want the answer to be so simple, so they pretend it's more complicated than that. It's not, though. I am beginning to think all this pretending to be ~so mystified~ and, like, covering the blackboard with advanced mathematical formulae and calculations, is deliberate obfuscation, not accidental or innocent.
posted by MiraK at 12:42 PM on January 29 [88 favorites]
...actual ability to explain any human behavior...
I'm definitely inexplicable.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:45 PM on January 29
I'm definitely inexplicable.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:45 PM on January 29
Seth Meyer looked at the choice between Clinton and Trump in 2016:
He's a terrible person, was a terrible president, and would be a terrible dictator if he wins in 2024. People who support him after all that are not persuadable and it's a waste of time trying to understand them.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:48 PM on January 29 [121 favorites]
They just don’t love the two choices. Do you pick someone who’s under federal investigation for using a private email server?And that was before the 2016 election. Then he lied to us tens of thousands of times, starting with lying about the crowd size at his inauguration on day one. He's repeatedly bragged about overturning Roe v Wade. He got impeached twice. He's under 91 indictments and has been found liable for sexual abuse.
Or do you pick someone who called Mexicans rapists, claimed the president was born in Kenya, proposed banning an entire religion from entering the US, mocked a disabled reporter, said John McCain wasn’t a war hero because he was captured, attacked the parents of a fallen soldier, bragged about committing sexual assault, was accused by 12 women of committing sexual assault, said some of those women weren’t attractive for him to sexually assault, said more countries should get nukes, said that he would force the military to commit war crimes, said a judge was biased because his parents were Mexicans, said women should be punished for having abortions, incited violence at his rallies, called global warming a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, called for his opponent to be jailed, declared bankruptcy six times, bragged about not paying income taxes, stiffed his contractors and employees, lost a billion dollars in one year, scammed customers at his fake university, bought a six-foot-tall painting of himself with money from his fake foundation, has a trial for fraud coming up in November, insulted an opponent’s looks, insulted an opponent’s wife’s looks, and bragged about grabbing women by the pussy?
How do you choose?
He's a terrible person, was a terrible president, and would be a terrible dictator if he wins in 2024. People who support him after all that are not persuadable and it's a waste of time trying to understand them.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:48 PM on January 29 [121 favorites]
but there is a contest currently underway where everyone must pick a Republican, they have other options
capricorn
They really don’t.
This time around Trump is coming in with the massive built-in support of an incumbent. Any challenger with even a sliver of a chance like Haley are overwhelmed by that. The remaining “other options” are obvious clowns or so personally repellent that they turn off even voters who might otherwise agree with them (DeSantis, plus just unbelievable incompetence in running his campaign).
In 2016 Trump benefited from a badly divided field. Again, the candidates were mostly clowns and the base clearly wasn’t in the mood to crown another Bush, the blandest one of all.
Primaries always favor extremes and Trump is the ideal Republican primary candidate. He’s extremely pugnacious and aggressive. He delights in, and excels at, mocking and humiliating his opponents. He’s very good at playing the media and setting narratives that others struggle to change. He says rude and shocking things the base can laugh at. He is basically grievance politics personified which tells the base what they want to hear. They don’t want studied policy proposals, they want Trump telling them they’re right and then crushing someone.
posted by star gentle uterus at 12:49 PM on January 29 [14 favorites]
capricorn
They really don’t.
This time around Trump is coming in with the massive built-in support of an incumbent. Any challenger with even a sliver of a chance like Haley are overwhelmed by that. The remaining “other options” are obvious clowns or so personally repellent that they turn off even voters who might otherwise agree with them (DeSantis, plus just unbelievable incompetence in running his campaign).
In 2016 Trump benefited from a badly divided field. Again, the candidates were mostly clowns and the base clearly wasn’t in the mood to crown another Bush, the blandest one of all.
Primaries always favor extremes and Trump is the ideal Republican primary candidate. He’s extremely pugnacious and aggressive. He delights in, and excels at, mocking and humiliating his opponents. He’s very good at playing the media and setting narratives that others struggle to change. He says rude and shocking things the base can laugh at. He is basically grievance politics personified which tells the base what they want to hear. They don’t want studied policy proposals, they want Trump telling them they’re right and then crushing someone.
posted by star gentle uterus at 12:49 PM on January 29 [14 favorites]
People who support him after all that are not persuadable and it's a waste of time trying to understand them.
This does come into clear view once you keep the perspective that something like two or three out of ten Americans eligible to vote have ever voted for DJT. Like I remember being a younger person going to parties. There were always two or three people out of ten at every party, no matter the social group, who were terrible people. One of those people was always so terrible that you'd literally have to warn your friends about them, for their own well being. So it goes, in a society. We have to get the other seven out of ten to vote for Biden, or to vote at all. Not a simple matter, but it is the project that we should be engaged in.
posted by kensington314 at 12:52 PM on January 29 [11 favorites]
This does come into clear view once you keep the perspective that something like two or three out of ten Americans eligible to vote have ever voted for DJT. Like I remember being a younger person going to parties. There were always two or three people out of ten at every party, no matter the social group, who were terrible people. One of those people was always so terrible that you'd literally have to warn your friends about them, for their own well being. So it goes, in a society. We have to get the other seven out of ten to vote for Biden, or to vote at all. Not a simple matter, but it is the project that we should be engaged in.
posted by kensington314 at 12:52 PM on January 29 [11 favorites]
Do psychologists also have their own preferred theories about why smoking kills? "One way that a runaway oral fixation manifests psychosomatically is in the form of deadly respiratory illnesses. Oral fixations cause cancer. Pay no attention to the carcinogenics in the cigarette! Freud has brilliantly theorized the beginnings of a true answer in approximately 40 years' worth of writings and lectures."
posted by MiraK at 12:52 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
posted by MiraK at 12:52 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
I concluded a couple of very important things over these past eight years.
The first is that the Republican party targets single issue voters. Many people are one issue voters. One issue voters tend to be Republicans. Guns and abortion are two of the most obvious issues that solely determine someone's votes -- for Republicans. Plenty of people will base their vote solely on the who is the most pro-gun or anti-abortion candidate there is. The opposite is not true. While there are millions of people who are anti-gun or pro-abortion, it is almost never the sole determining issue for a voter. A pro-abortion person might not vote for the pro-abortion candidate if that candidate was conservative on many other important issues to that person (health care, taxes, religion in school, environment, trans issues, etc.). That pro-abortion voter would weigh the abortion issue against all of the other issues. Very few people would vote for the pro-abortion person if they disagreed with that candidate on everything else. This is not true for many anti-abortion voters. They will vote for the anti-abortion candidate regardless of where that candidate stands on other issues. This single-issue-for-Republicans can also be seen on guns, taxes, and several other issues.
The great thing about having your party filled with single issue voters is that you don't have to care what a majority of people think about any of your policies. As long as you placate the single-issue voter, you can screw them over everywhere else. Your policies can be wildly unpopular as long as you keep that single-issue voter happy. So focusing on single-issue voters gives you a huge block of people that are impossible for you to lose as voters as long as you say something occasionally to placate them.
The second thing I observed is that there might be two more categories of single issue voters that I had not considered: lower taxes voters and Democrats-are-scary voters. I knew the lower taxes voters liked to vote for Republicans, but I didn't realize that they would vote for a Republican no matter what. I mistakenly thought they weighed the issues. Many do not. They simply want lower taxes. That final category of Democrats-are-scary voters are probably a direct result of Fox News. They don't necessarily know or care about any issue. They just know that the Democrats are scary and they cannot vote for them.
There are still swayable voters out there, but they are apparently far less common than I used to think they are.
posted by flarbuse at 12:53 PM on January 29 [29 favorites]
The first is that the Republican party targets single issue voters. Many people are one issue voters. One issue voters tend to be Republicans. Guns and abortion are two of the most obvious issues that solely determine someone's votes -- for Republicans. Plenty of people will base their vote solely on the who is the most pro-gun or anti-abortion candidate there is. The opposite is not true. While there are millions of people who are anti-gun or pro-abortion, it is almost never the sole determining issue for a voter. A pro-abortion person might not vote for the pro-abortion candidate if that candidate was conservative on many other important issues to that person (health care, taxes, religion in school, environment, trans issues, etc.). That pro-abortion voter would weigh the abortion issue against all of the other issues. Very few people would vote for the pro-abortion person if they disagreed with that candidate on everything else. This is not true for many anti-abortion voters. They will vote for the anti-abortion candidate regardless of where that candidate stands on other issues. This single-issue-for-Republicans can also be seen on guns, taxes, and several other issues.
The great thing about having your party filled with single issue voters is that you don't have to care what a majority of people think about any of your policies. As long as you placate the single-issue voter, you can screw them over everywhere else. Your policies can be wildly unpopular as long as you keep that single-issue voter happy. So focusing on single-issue voters gives you a huge block of people that are impossible for you to lose as voters as long as you say something occasionally to placate them.
The second thing I observed is that there might be two more categories of single issue voters that I had not considered: lower taxes voters and Democrats-are-scary voters. I knew the lower taxes voters liked to vote for Republicans, but I didn't realize that they would vote for a Republican no matter what. I mistakenly thought they weighed the issues. Many do not. They simply want lower taxes. That final category of Democrats-are-scary voters are probably a direct result of Fox News. They don't necessarily know or care about any issue. They just know that the Democrats are scary and they cannot vote for them.
There are still swayable voters out there, but they are apparently far less common than I used to think they are.
posted by flarbuse at 12:53 PM on January 29 [29 favorites]
To beat Trump, we need to know why Americans keep voting for him.
Money, anger, hate, fear, money
did I mention money.
posted by clavdivs at 12:54 PM on January 29 [10 favorites]
Money, anger, hate, fear, money
did I mention money.
posted by clavdivs at 12:54 PM on January 29 [10 favorites]
To beat Trump, we need to know why Americans keep voting for him.
He tells his supporters whatever they want to hear.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:57 PM on January 29 [15 favorites]
He tells his supporters whatever they want to hear.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:57 PM on January 29 [15 favorites]
to avoid the goddamned obvious answer of "people vote for Trump because they are bigots, and that is all there is to it."
Which then moves the question back a row to "why are they bigots". But yeah, the range of answers (materially beneficial, psychic satisfaction, raised that way and it's too late now, need to fit in to bigoted community, etc) don't get you too much forwarder. We don't really have a better way to unbigot people than we do to de-extrinsic-motivate them, and most of the things that would work at least a bit (make society less cut-throat, essentially) you have to have power and political will to do, and because we are governed by a bunch of buddies-across-the-aisle oligarchs, we're not going to have those things either.
The older I get, the more I think the last off-ramp for our present situation was actually in the nineties, or maybe even the Carter-Reagan election. Destroying the state's ability to help people via welfare, employment programs etc and then financializing/free-trading the economy to shreds locked in resentment and despair; the dismantling of labor protections and a reasonable tax structure created a tiny class of utterly unaccountable wealthy people who have proceeded to buy the media and virtually all the politicians. Once you've got that stuff locked in, it's hard to see a way out except after everything has self-destructed.
My entire life it's been nothing but powerful people enriching themselves with both hands while everyone who could have stopped them has been all "but we don't KNOW that this is corrupt, we don't KNOW that it will go badly, it could be great!!!!" as we spiral down into hell.
posted by Frowner at 12:58 PM on January 29 [56 favorites]
Which then moves the question back a row to "why are they bigots". But yeah, the range of answers (materially beneficial, psychic satisfaction, raised that way and it's too late now, need to fit in to bigoted community, etc) don't get you too much forwarder. We don't really have a better way to unbigot people than we do to de-extrinsic-motivate them, and most of the things that would work at least a bit (make society less cut-throat, essentially) you have to have power and political will to do, and because we are governed by a bunch of buddies-across-the-aisle oligarchs, we're not going to have those things either.
The older I get, the more I think the last off-ramp for our present situation was actually in the nineties, or maybe even the Carter-Reagan election. Destroying the state's ability to help people via welfare, employment programs etc and then financializing/free-trading the economy to shreds locked in resentment and despair; the dismantling of labor protections and a reasonable tax structure created a tiny class of utterly unaccountable wealthy people who have proceeded to buy the media and virtually all the politicians. Once you've got that stuff locked in, it's hard to see a way out except after everything has self-destructed.
My entire life it's been nothing but powerful people enriching themselves with both hands while everyone who could have stopped them has been all "but we don't KNOW that this is corrupt, we don't KNOW that it will go badly, it could be great!!!!" as we spiral down into hell.
posted by Frowner at 12:58 PM on January 29 [56 favorites]
I don't want to sound shrill or repetitive, but mefite muminor has already posted the answer to this enormous and important question.
Read it, listen to the audiobook. Jeff Sharlet's Undertow.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 12:59 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
Read it, listen to the audiobook. Jeff Sharlet's Undertow.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 12:59 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
...they want Trump telling them they’re right and then crushing someone.
(KITH's) Mr Tyzik: Oh Dark Brandon, I'm so very sorry you can't win in November, but no one will vote for a lefty with a flat head! I'm crushing your head, I'm crushing your head, I'm crushing your head. Wait, I don't care, I'm Canadian. Oh Juuustiinnnn... (pinches his fingers together in front of his eye) Where aaare you?
posted by zaixfeep at 12:59 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]
(KITH's) Mr Tyzik: Oh Dark Brandon, I'm so very sorry you can't win in November, but no one will vote for a lefty with a flat head! I'm crushing your head, I'm crushing your head, I'm crushing your head. Wait, I don't care, I'm Canadian. Oh Juuustiinnnn... (pinches his fingers together in front of his eye) Where aaare you?
posted by zaixfeep at 12:59 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]
Fascism has always been popular in America. Republicans have reformed themselves around that and only that in the form of Trump and it’s proved wildly successful. All American institutions that should provide pushback against this are wildly not up to task.
posted by Artw at 1:00 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 1:00 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]
"We offered the world, order."
posted by zaixfeep at 1:01 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
posted by zaixfeep at 1:01 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
I was a fan of the "they're just bigots" theory for a long time, and I thought DeSantis was a serious threat because of it. Trump voters certainly are bigots, no two ways about it, and they want to vote for a bigoted guy, but I thought they would go for the guy who has been leading a calculated and effective campaign of bigotry in his state, and who has been consistent in his bigotry, even if he was the charisma equivalent of a black hole. DeSantis is also the poster child for "own the libs"-style Republican politics. So idk. I think there is actually something interesting here about the cult of personality around Trump which seems to have elements to it that aren't just ideological.
posted by capricorn at 1:02 PM on January 29 [24 favorites]
posted by capricorn at 1:02 PM on January 29 [24 favorites]
Say what you want about DeSantis, but he's not stupid.
Trump is successful because he draws in two huge constituencies: assholes, and stupid people. I've never met a Trump voter who wasn't at least one of these, and most of them are both. Trump appeals to assholes for reasons that have all been exhaustively discussed, but he appeals to stupid people because here's a big, powerful person who is just as fucking stupid as they are. The absolute word salad that comes out of his mouth is comforting to them. See? He thinks just like me. Which is to say, barely at all.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 1:06 PM on January 29 [51 favorites]
Trump is successful because he draws in two huge constituencies: assholes, and stupid people. I've never met a Trump voter who wasn't at least one of these, and most of them are both. Trump appeals to assholes for reasons that have all been exhaustively discussed, but he appeals to stupid people because here's a big, powerful person who is just as fucking stupid as they are. The absolute word salad that comes out of his mouth is comforting to them. See? He thinks just like me. Which is to say, barely at all.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 1:06 PM on January 29 [51 favorites]
I've found that quite a few people are like countries; they don't have friends, they only have interests. Those people like Trump because he's Zaphod Beeblebrox, distracting the masses and the media from paying attention to all the tax breaks and deregulation they will be able to secure. They aren't necessarily bigots, they're just self-interested and view the rest of us as obstacles to be overcome.
posted by zaixfeep at 1:09 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
posted by zaixfeep at 1:09 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
Like I remember being a younger person going to parties. There were always two or three people out of ten at every party, no matter the social group, who were terrible people.
Lol I recognize that this is not the point of the article or anything but this is insane to me, what kind of awful nightmare parties were you going to?!? Not to say I've never met someone awful at a party but if every party I went to had monsters at it I'd be asking myself some hard questions about why I was going there.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:10 PM on January 29 [20 favorites]
Lol I recognize that this is not the point of the article or anything but this is insane to me, what kind of awful nightmare parties were you going to?!? Not to say I've never met someone awful at a party but if every party I went to had monsters at it I'd be asking myself some hard questions about why I was going there.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:10 PM on January 29 [20 favorites]
Metafilter: ...Asking myself some hard questions about why I was going there.
posted by zaixfeep at 1:12 PM on January 29 [19 favorites]
posted by zaixfeep at 1:12 PM on January 29 [19 favorites]
It is rare to find an American bigot who isn't a Trump supporter
I’m with you on all Trump supporters being bigots, but I’ve absolutely met plenty of (politely) bigoted people who would never vote for Trump. Often they think they are not bigoted, but they just don’t see why “those” people have to be so confrontational about it, etc.
posted by eviemath at 1:15 PM on January 29 [9 favorites]
I’m with you on all Trump supporters being bigots, but I’ve absolutely met plenty of (politely) bigoted people who would never vote for Trump. Often they think they are not bigoted, but they just don’t see why “those” people have to be so confrontational about it, etc.
posted by eviemath at 1:15 PM on January 29 [9 favorites]
> I was a fan of the "they're just bigots" theory for a long time, and I thought DeSantis was a serious threat because of it.
DeSantis is a total lightweight when it comes to bigotry! He never said Mexicans are rapists. He never promised to build a wall that Mexico will pay for. He never bragged about grabbing women by the pussy. He never mocked a disabled person. He never openly banned Muslims. And on and on forever.
DeSantis is great at playing the political game to enact bigoted policies, sure, but he is not a loud brash runs-at-the-mouth bigot. People who vote for Trump are loud brash bigots. They don't care about policy or legal victories or any kind of principled stance where they actually practice their bigotries (see: republicans vote for abortion rights in droves! see: republican bigname politicians happily and openly do drag and get cheered for it!)... they only care about being loud and brash bigots at other people, screaming and shouting but literally nothing else. That is all there is to them.
posted by MiraK at 1:16 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
DeSantis is a total lightweight when it comes to bigotry! He never said Mexicans are rapists. He never promised to build a wall that Mexico will pay for. He never bragged about grabbing women by the pussy. He never mocked a disabled person. He never openly banned Muslims. And on and on forever.
DeSantis is great at playing the political game to enact bigoted policies, sure, but he is not a loud brash runs-at-the-mouth bigot. People who vote for Trump are loud brash bigots. They don't care about policy or legal victories or any kind of principled stance where they actually practice their bigotries (see: republicans vote for abortion rights in droves! see: republican bigname politicians happily and openly do drag and get cheered for it!)... they only care about being loud and brash bigots at other people, screaming and shouting but literally nothing else. That is all there is to them.
posted by MiraK at 1:16 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
DeSantis is just Beldar Conehead trying to prove to his bigoted voting base that he's human like them. And failing. Go chew on an Earth condom, Ron...
posted by zaixfeep at 1:20 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
posted by zaixfeep at 1:20 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
Why do people vote for Trump??? It's just not difficult to find people who take no responsibility for the things that have adversely affected them in life. Trump is just great at pointing fingers and saying "Them, they're the ones who've made your life hard!" which absolves his followers of any responsibility for their own shortcomings, and then he doubles down and promises that "they" are gonna get theirs if He's president. It's a formula he's perfected by having no pride about who he caters to, so the low info voters are the low hanging fruit.
posted by OHenryPacey at 1:22 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
posted by OHenryPacey at 1:22 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
Not to say I've never met someone awful at a party but if every party I went to had monsters at it I'd be asking myself some hard questions about why I was going there.
Well I mean, eventually I just developed a core friend group and then I simply "hung out with them" instead of "going to parties." But I mean, you go to a gathering of mixed company anywhere and there are a couple real shitbirds there. It's the way the world is!
posted by kensington314 at 1:23 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
Well I mean, eventually I just developed a core friend group and then I simply "hung out with them" instead of "going to parties." But I mean, you go to a gathering of mixed company anywhere and there are a couple real shitbirds there. It's the way the world is!
posted by kensington314 at 1:23 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
MiraK: I'm probably splitting hairs then (and will bow out of this thread now) but I actually think the voter motivation you talked about in your most recent comment is much more interesting and nuanced than "they're just bigots" (or "they're just fascists" which I also hear a lot) and is something that I do wish more conversations about Trump focused on.
posted by capricorn at 1:23 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
posted by capricorn at 1:23 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
People vote for Trump because the only benefit they understand themselves getting from the state is the benefit of bigotry - sometimes the material benefit that comes from being white in a racist, society, male in a sexist society, etc and sometimes only the psychic benefit of seeing the "inferior" others get put in their place. Most people who vote for Trump don't benefit materially more than they would benefit under a standard Republican or a Democrat, and in a number of cases they are markedly worse off because of Trump's policies.
Republicans and selfish, intellectually lazy comprador Democrats destroyed unions, labor protection, American jobs, welfare (which was a wage floor even if many people didn't understand this) and most other mechanisms for the state to help people. Republicans and bigots and anti-social types generally can't be bought off with anything like pork or union jobs anymore, can't be corralled into normative "it's trash but at least it's stable" American politics because our politicians ate the seed corn. The only thing anyone can offer is the spectacle of crushing the vulnerable while yelling about how the vulnerable are actually the snakes ruining our country. All we've got is spectacle, because a lot of people got very rich taking everything else away.
I can tell you, I had a straight-ticket Republican set of grandparents, and they were straight-ticket Republicans out of pure financial self-interest - they would hate Trump for being a crook instead of a stable enricher-of-suburbanites. Their politics would have caused us conflict if they'd lived until I was an adult, I know, but if nothing else they wanted a stable society where they could make money by regular, predictable means backed up under law, not a crooked society of violent spectacle and decline.
posted by Frowner at 1:27 PM on January 29 [38 favorites]
Republicans and selfish, intellectually lazy comprador Democrats destroyed unions, labor protection, American jobs, welfare (which was a wage floor even if many people didn't understand this) and most other mechanisms for the state to help people. Republicans and bigots and anti-social types generally can't be bought off with anything like pork or union jobs anymore, can't be corralled into normative "it's trash but at least it's stable" American politics because our politicians ate the seed corn. The only thing anyone can offer is the spectacle of crushing the vulnerable while yelling about how the vulnerable are actually the snakes ruining our country. All we've got is spectacle, because a lot of people got very rich taking everything else away.
I can tell you, I had a straight-ticket Republican set of grandparents, and they were straight-ticket Republicans out of pure financial self-interest - they would hate Trump for being a crook instead of a stable enricher-of-suburbanites. Their politics would have caused us conflict if they'd lived until I was an adult, I know, but if nothing else they wanted a stable society where they could make money by regular, predictable means backed up under law, not a crooked society of violent spectacle and decline.
posted by Frowner at 1:27 PM on January 29 [38 favorites]
These thinkpieces approaching every angle of analysis of shitty people voting for shitty people are tiresome. If you want to know why, talk to your shitty uncle over Thanksgiving dinner. He's an asshole. He doesn't like brown people. He doesn't think anyone deserves any kind of government assistance with exceptions for himself and maybe his wife and kids. He believes that failure is caused by lack of trying, not lack of opportunity or capability. His last rational thought was in 3rd grade when he finally internalized the truth that if he got loud and angry that people would just give him what he wanted without having to have earn it or make a convincing case. He's three toddlers in a trench coat, and no one can tell him he's wrong because, as a cis het white man, he has never been wrong in his life.
You can't change his mind, you just have to outvote, and hopefully out-live him.
That's it.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:27 PM on January 29 [52 favorites]
You can't change his mind, you just have to outvote, and hopefully out-live him.
That's it.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:27 PM on January 29 [52 favorites]
Trump is successful because he draws in two huge constituencies: assholes, and stupid people.
Dear lord, I'm the ideal Trump supporter. Going to go hide somewhere now.
Waitaminnit, I misread that. I'm just a smartass. What a relief.
posted by zaixfeep at 1:30 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
Dear lord, I'm the ideal Trump supporter. Going to go hide somewhere now.
Waitaminnit, I misread that. I'm just a smartass. What a relief.
posted by zaixfeep at 1:30 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
I'm generally in the MiraK "Trump/bigot Venn diagram is a full circle" camp. But the thing that always nags at me is the Obama-Trump voter. It's a minority of Trump voters, sure -- but I think it's something like 15%, I'll try to find a cite for that because it's not a small number even if it's a minority.
I did a bunch of door knocking in neighboring Orange County for 2018 elections. There were a lot of split-vote households where a husband had voted for Trump and a wife had not voted for Trump. An interpersonal phenomenon I experienced there was that a lot of men in these households couldn't look at you when they talked about their 2016 vote for Trump--once in particular I was talking to a guy who was holding his toddler and he was also notably unable to look at her, it was palpable and awkward.
After each shift I did on the doors I came away with a greater and greater sense that people had simply voted with their worst selves instead of their best selves. That the appeal of the dark-Trump-id-vortex thing was simply greater than what the election was offering their altruistic side, the part of them that loved their wife or or their daughter, even. Several of these guys said -- surprise, surprise -- that they were Obama and Trump voters.
This is not a defense of those guys. I didn't like a single one of them -- just flat-brimmed fitted baseball caps and flip flops and camo-shorts, other Californians will be familiar with the uniform -- these were not my people. But I felt like I did get some kind of insight into voter behavior. Surely it's one sub-demo of the larger sea of baffling Trump voters. And I am not sure what to do about the insight anyway. But I did walk away with this sense of, "Oh shit, we didn't give them enough good to motivate them not to be bad, and they are in a pretty ambiguous place about that."
posted by kensington314 at 1:35 PM on January 29 [32 favorites]
I did a bunch of door knocking in neighboring Orange County for 2018 elections. There were a lot of split-vote households where a husband had voted for Trump and a wife had not voted for Trump. An interpersonal phenomenon I experienced there was that a lot of men in these households couldn't look at you when they talked about their 2016 vote for Trump--once in particular I was talking to a guy who was holding his toddler and he was also notably unable to look at her, it was palpable and awkward.
After each shift I did on the doors I came away with a greater and greater sense that people had simply voted with their worst selves instead of their best selves. That the appeal of the dark-Trump-id-vortex thing was simply greater than what the election was offering their altruistic side, the part of them that loved their wife or or their daughter, even. Several of these guys said -- surprise, surprise -- that they were Obama and Trump voters.
This is not a defense of those guys. I didn't like a single one of them -- just flat-brimmed fitted baseball caps and flip flops and camo-shorts, other Californians will be familiar with the uniform -- these were not my people. But I felt like I did get some kind of insight into voter behavior. Surely it's one sub-demo of the larger sea of baffling Trump voters. And I am not sure what to do about the insight anyway. But I did walk away with this sense of, "Oh shit, we didn't give them enough good to motivate them not to be bad, and they are in a pretty ambiguous place about that."
posted by kensington314 at 1:35 PM on January 29 [32 favorites]
I think there is actually something interesting here about the cult of personality around Trump which seems to have elements to it that aren't just ideological.
A lot of people don't understand that "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" is actually a form of magic.
posted by Slothrup at 1:35 PM on January 29 [14 favorites]
A lot of people don't understand that "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" is actually a form of magic.
posted by Slothrup at 1:35 PM on January 29 [14 favorites]
Well written column, I generally respect Monbiot, but this seemed too neat and buttoned-up to explain why almost half of the country voted for Trump, a serial grifter, adulterer, sexual harasser, tax cheat, racist, and insurrectionist. I think a 'market segmentation' type approach would make more sense, I suspect different demographic groups have different reasons for voting for him.
posted by sid at 1:36 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
posted by sid at 1:36 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
this seemed too neat and buttoned-up to explain why almost half of the country voted for Trump
I know that this is going to seem either like a derail or sort of academic, but I really want to push back against this. About 20% of the country has ever voted for Trump, which is a number that helps you get up everyday and interact without giving up completely. And about 40% of the voting age population has, which is far too much but, again, it also points more accurately to our need to get a whole lot of non-voters into our coalition somehow.
posted by kensington314 at 1:42 PM on January 29 [28 favorites]
I know that this is going to seem either like a derail or sort of academic, but I really want to push back against this. About 20% of the country has ever voted for Trump, which is a number that helps you get up everyday and interact without giving up completely. And about 40% of the voting age population has, which is far too much but, again, it also points more accurately to our need to get a whole lot of non-voters into our coalition somehow.
posted by kensington314 at 1:42 PM on January 29 [28 favorites]
assholes, and stupid people
$10 says Hilary Clinton thinks about this at least once per week: "and to think I went with 'deplorables'"
posted by elkevelvet at 1:43 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
$10 says Hilary Clinton thinks about this at least once per week: "and to think I went with 'deplorables'"
posted by elkevelvet at 1:43 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
TFA is absurd. Written like someone who has never met a Republican.
Most people who will vote for Trump do so because he can be relied upon to support legislation and appoint judges in line with major conservative themes and priorities. Some of them dislike Trump's style, some don't care, some actually like it -- but none relies upon in his or her voting decision. There aren't enough people aren't enough to win the Presidency in 2024.
Some people will vote for Trump because they are unhappy with wages or inflation. They might be enough, together with the first group, to elect Trump, but will have nothing to do with Trump, style or substance.
No one is going to base their vote on Gaza. I know that there's a lot of wishing that were so, but it ain't.
posted by MattD at 1:47 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
Most people who will vote for Trump do so because he can be relied upon to support legislation and appoint judges in line with major conservative themes and priorities. Some of them dislike Trump's style, some don't care, some actually like it -- but none relies upon in his or her voting decision. There aren't enough people aren't enough to win the Presidency in 2024.
Some people will vote for Trump because they are unhappy with wages or inflation. They might be enough, together with the first group, to elect Trump, but will have nothing to do with Trump, style or substance.
No one is going to base their vote on Gaza. I know that there's a lot of wishing that were so, but it ain't.
posted by MattD at 1:47 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
Written like somone who's never seen a Trump rally. His base votes for Trump to make clear that if the most eloquent and decent black man in America can be President, then so can the stupidest meanest white man.
posted by nicwolff at 1:52 PM on January 29 [37 favorites]
posted by nicwolff at 1:52 PM on January 29 [37 favorites]
I know that this is going to seem either like a derail or sort of academic, but I really want to push back against this. About 20% of the country has ever voted for Trump, which is a number that helps you get up everyday and interact without giving up completely. And about 40% of the voting age population has, which is far too much but, again, it also points more accurately to our need to get a whole lot of non-voters into our coalition somehow.
Good point, to me this raises the question of why voter turnout was so low when one of the candidates is clearly not fit for any kind of public office, one would think this would spur the indifferent to vote. And again, I suspect reasons will vary by group.
Speaking for some I'm familiar with, several immigrants I know expressed support for Trump as they felt he was less likely to interfere in their home regions with disastrous outcomes; they fully recognized that he was unfit to serve, but they felt that the risk was too great that hawkish Hilary would embark on a catastrophic military misadventure that would leave their home country a smoldering wreck for the foreseeable future. They were also generally disaffected and I don't think they ended up voting; the person in charge of the country hadn't done anything to affect their existence one way or another, at least from their perspective.
posted by sid at 1:54 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]
Good point, to me this raises the question of why voter turnout was so low when one of the candidates is clearly not fit for any kind of public office, one would think this would spur the indifferent to vote. And again, I suspect reasons will vary by group.
Speaking for some I'm familiar with, several immigrants I know expressed support for Trump as they felt he was less likely to interfere in their home regions with disastrous outcomes; they fully recognized that he was unfit to serve, but they felt that the risk was too great that hawkish Hilary would embark on a catastrophic military misadventure that would leave their home country a smoldering wreck for the foreseeable future. They were also generally disaffected and I don't think they ended up voting; the person in charge of the country hadn't done anything to affect their existence one way or another, at least from their perspective.
posted by sid at 1:54 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]
Speaking for some I'm familiar with, several immigrants I know expressed support for Trump as they felt he was less likely to interfere in their home regions with disastrous outcomes; they fully recognized that he was unfit to serve, but they felt that the risk was too great that hawkish Hilary would embark on a catastrophic military misadventure that would leave their home country a smoldering wreck for the foreseeable future. They were also generally disaffected and I don't think they ended up voting.
It is kind of devastating to hear this
posted by kensington314 at 1:57 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
It is kind of devastating to hear this
posted by kensington314 at 1:57 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
I found reading this article exhausting. And I think trying to peg Trump's appeal to a single correlated variable seems pretty fruitless to me. Everybody's got an opinion. Mine is Trump is appealing to people with 'top of the pile mentality' (on whatever dimension) who feel that status slipping away. Obama's election enraged those people.
posted by bluesky43 at 1:57 PM on January 29 [12 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 1:57 PM on January 29 [12 favorites]
Oh my dear god here we go again.
It’s up to US to understand THEM.
I understand THEM just fine, thanks. I’ve known THEM my whole life.
They are deplorable filth. There’s your answer. There’s literally nothing more to it.
1/3 of the country are deplorable filth, 1/3 are fairly decent, and 1/3 simply do not care.
That’s it.
That’s all.
posted by chronkite at 1:58 PM on January 29 [42 favorites]
It’s up to US to understand THEM.
I understand THEM just fine, thanks. I’ve known THEM my whole life.
They are deplorable filth. There’s your answer. There’s literally nothing more to it.
1/3 of the country are deplorable filth, 1/3 are fairly decent, and 1/3 simply do not care.
That’s it.
That’s all.
posted by chronkite at 1:58 PM on January 29 [42 favorites]
^ my take, too, though maybe in 1/5s
posted by torokunai at 2:02 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
posted by torokunai at 2:02 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
Last week, I got a question at work from a Japanese colleague that I’ve been sort of dreading, the “(Ghidorah), why is Trump back? Why is he so popular?” The explanation I gave is pretty much what I’m writing here:
There are people, a lot of people, a lot more than we're comfortable admitting are out there that are just inwardly seething that they have been told they have to be nice, that they can’t tell blatantly racist/bigoted jokes without getting in trouble. There’s a shit ton of men out there that are pissed that the world isn’t being handed to them simply because they’re a guy, and that’s the way it’s always worked, and they feel the kind of indignity that comes from losing at musical chairs.
They don’t feel they’re free to be their true selves, they don’t feel they’re getting their proper due, and they’re outraged about it. In steps Trump, who not only does all of the things they wish they could do, he gets away with it, and he lowers the bar, making them feel like they can, too. He’s their poster child, their aspirational figure, and their revenge all at once. He speaks to them on a visceral level, lets them know that their inner bully was right all along, and that it’s time to let people be shitty again, and they fucking love it.
I don’t think my colleague was particularly ready for that answer.
Thinking more on it, the process of socialization is hard. Teaching kids the reasons and empathy behind inclusivity is hard. It’s a lot easier to tell kids “don’t do that, or you’ll get in trouble” than it is to help them come to understand why acting in selfish ways that hurt others is, in general, not a good thing to do. It takes committed communities of parents and educators with resources, time, and consistency, and those things aren’t always there, working in conjunction. Not everyone automatically arrives at the conclusion that empathy is a good thing, and trying to instill that concept in kids can be outrageously difficult. Giving rules without explanation, and punishment for breaking them without discussion is a lot more convenient, but it teaches kids how to walk the boundaries, to find out what they can and can’t get away with. It teaches them fuck all about understanding why barriers and prohibitions are there in the first place. It doesn’t remove the desire to taunt, to bully, to do any one of a thousand terrible things.
When someone comes along who talks openly and proudly of how shitty they are, all of these closeted assholes feel hope. They feel seen. They want that same thing. Think Andrew Dice Clay, think Trump. They’re from the same cloth, just different aspects. It’s what Dennis Leary’s entire routine was made out of. There are people who never learned empathy, but were forced to “behave” instead, and they’ve never stopped resenting the people they felt were responsible for not being able to act they way they thought they should be able to, which is why they thrill at attacking any small amount of equity or equality that rears its head, and they all see Trump and think, that’s the goal. That’s who I want to be. The country he’s promising to bring about, that’s the place I want to live, where I’ll be a king, just like I was supposed to be, and no one will be able to complain about my jokes anymore. It’ll be their turn to grab pussy and get away with it, and they’re fucking salivating at the prospect.
That, too, is why they defend Trump so vigorously. Any attack on Trump is an attack on their promised land.
posted by Ghidorah at 2:07 PM on January 29 [89 favorites]
There are people, a lot of people, a lot more than we're comfortable admitting are out there that are just inwardly seething that they have been told they have to be nice, that they can’t tell blatantly racist/bigoted jokes without getting in trouble. There’s a shit ton of men out there that are pissed that the world isn’t being handed to them simply because they’re a guy, and that’s the way it’s always worked, and they feel the kind of indignity that comes from losing at musical chairs.
They don’t feel they’re free to be their true selves, they don’t feel they’re getting their proper due, and they’re outraged about it. In steps Trump, who not only does all of the things they wish they could do, he gets away with it, and he lowers the bar, making them feel like they can, too. He’s their poster child, their aspirational figure, and their revenge all at once. He speaks to them on a visceral level, lets them know that their inner bully was right all along, and that it’s time to let people be shitty again, and they fucking love it.
I don’t think my colleague was particularly ready for that answer.
Thinking more on it, the process of socialization is hard. Teaching kids the reasons and empathy behind inclusivity is hard. It’s a lot easier to tell kids “don’t do that, or you’ll get in trouble” than it is to help them come to understand why acting in selfish ways that hurt others is, in general, not a good thing to do. It takes committed communities of parents and educators with resources, time, and consistency, and those things aren’t always there, working in conjunction. Not everyone automatically arrives at the conclusion that empathy is a good thing, and trying to instill that concept in kids can be outrageously difficult. Giving rules without explanation, and punishment for breaking them without discussion is a lot more convenient, but it teaches kids how to walk the boundaries, to find out what they can and can’t get away with. It teaches them fuck all about understanding why barriers and prohibitions are there in the first place. It doesn’t remove the desire to taunt, to bully, to do any one of a thousand terrible things.
When someone comes along who talks openly and proudly of how shitty they are, all of these closeted assholes feel hope. They feel seen. They want that same thing. Think Andrew Dice Clay, think Trump. They’re from the same cloth, just different aspects. It’s what Dennis Leary’s entire routine was made out of. There are people who never learned empathy, but were forced to “behave” instead, and they’ve never stopped resenting the people they felt were responsible for not being able to act they way they thought they should be able to, which is why they thrill at attacking any small amount of equity or equality that rears its head, and they all see Trump and think, that’s the goal. That’s who I want to be. The country he’s promising to bring about, that’s the place I want to live, where I’ll be a king, just like I was supposed to be, and no one will be able to complain about my jokes anymore. It’ll be their turn to grab pussy and get away with it, and they’re fucking salivating at the prospect.
That, too, is why they defend Trump so vigorously. Any attack on Trump is an attack on their promised land.
posted by Ghidorah at 2:07 PM on January 29 [89 favorites]
^ my take, too, though maybe in 1/5s
what are the other two fifths?!
posted by kensington314 at 2:07 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
what are the other two fifths?!
posted by kensington314 at 2:07 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
some pretty well-intended and decent-in-their-personal-lives people have voted for Trump, ... it's not ever been clear to me that Trump voters categorically lack "empathy, intimacy, and self-acceptance.
I know it's a bit of a "go to flyover country and figure out Trump supporters" cliche, but this Washington Post article is actually good: "In rural Iowa, an aging couple with diverging politics reflects on the past and what people owe one another in the present." The thing is, Jack Orvis is by any reasonable standard a moral person, certainly a better person than I am: "Starting early in the morning, seven days a week, Jack managed grain processing for a large hog operation. Then, in the early evenings, he tended to the corn crop on the 140-acre family farm he had inherited from a great uncle, which he cultivated alongside his brother, Tim. Jack was also the sole remaining volunteer first-responder in Lawler, which meant he could be called away at any moment to provide medical assistance before faraway rural ambulances could arrive."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 2:11 PM on January 29
I know it's a bit of a "go to flyover country and figure out Trump supporters" cliche, but this Washington Post article is actually good: "In rural Iowa, an aging couple with diverging politics reflects on the past and what people owe one another in the present." The thing is, Jack Orvis is by any reasonable standard a moral person, certainly a better person than I am: "Starting early in the morning, seven days a week, Jack managed grain processing for a large hog operation. Then, in the early evenings, he tended to the corn crop on the 140-acre family farm he had inherited from a great uncle, which he cultivated alongside his brother, Tim. Jack was also the sole remaining volunteer first-responder in Lawler, which meant he could be called away at any moment to provide medical assistance before faraway rural ambulances could arrive."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 2:11 PM on January 29
What I've never understood is why so many Christians are so keen on him.
posted by zadcat at 2:14 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
posted by zadcat at 2:14 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
A lot of Americans in the current era feel screwed by capitalist democracy. Trump voters are the ones who think democracy (e.g. “those people” voting) is the threat, and are voting accordingly. The growing number of younger leftists blame capitalism. While Monbiot’s hypothesis is interesting, the aforementioned argument better explains the behavior, and has the distinct advantage of recognizing that the far right is dangerous without dehumanizing them.
posted by vim876 at 2:16 PM on January 29 [11 favorites]
posted by vim876 at 2:16 PM on January 29 [11 favorites]
What I've never understood is why so many Christians are so keen on him.
I think the answer to this has got to be multi-part. Like you have your post-denominational types for whom Trump is a real obvious fit for religious reasons--the religion itself is a kind of reification of American secular cultural and economic values, and Donald J. Trump is himself the very embodiment of those values. Then you have your single-issue abortion Catholics, you also have your separate group of what I'd call "weirdo Catholics," and then you have people belonging to a bunch of different denominations whose attachment is to a nominal religion but not to religious values. Like aside from the people who wanted anti-abortion judges, the rest are probably voting for Trump for essentially secular xenophobic reasons. (I will spare everyone my half-formed theory that many American Christians are better understood as a subcategory of "nones" than as religious people.)
posted by kensington314 at 2:18 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
I think the answer to this has got to be multi-part. Like you have your post-denominational types for whom Trump is a real obvious fit for religious reasons--the religion itself is a kind of reification of American secular cultural and economic values, and Donald J. Trump is himself the very embodiment of those values. Then you have your single-issue abortion Catholics, you also have your separate group of what I'd call "weirdo Catholics," and then you have people belonging to a bunch of different denominations whose attachment is to a nominal religion but not to religious values. Like aside from the people who wanted anti-abortion judges, the rest are probably voting for Trump for essentially secular xenophobic reasons. (I will spare everyone my half-formed theory that many American Christians are better understood as a subcategory of "nones" than as religious people.)
posted by kensington314 at 2:18 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
Trump's meat, his drink, the air he breathes, is the fact that "serious" people hate him. That's it. That's the secret. Just about everyone I've seen who supports Trump will say "Yes X about Trump is awful, but he's the only choice, because look at what they've tried to do to him." That hatred is proof that Trump is not part of the system his supporters view as corrupt or incompetant.
Given the ungodly mess that "serious" people have made in say, the Middle East, or out of the housing market, or basically anything you care to name, I can't say that I don't see the argument.
posted by Grimgrin at 2:22 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
Given the ungodly mess that "serious" people have made in say, the Middle East, or out of the housing market, or basically anything you care to name, I can't say that I don't see the argument.
posted by Grimgrin at 2:22 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
The other day Fox News was asking if Taylor Swift is a Pentagon psyop, so maybe the mindset of the typical Trump voter isn't worth interrogating.
posted by mhoye at 2:23 PM on January 29 [33 favorites]
posted by mhoye at 2:23 PM on January 29 [33 favorites]
To beat Trump, we need to know why Americans keep voting for him keep him agitated and angry 24/7 by any possible means. Heckling on personal stuff at press conferences and apearances. Finding and distributing insulting memes and greatest-hits videos of his screwups, that make it to the infotainment shows. Anything that triggers his petulant man-baby side.
Letting him control his public image hasn't worked. Remove that control. Make him angry enough to keep screwing up.
Recently we saw how a great leak from an AfD meeting led to widespread protests in Germany, and the subsequent loss of what was considered a safe election for them. Is there anything comparably damaging to be found in the Project 2025 stuff?
People need more reasons to NOT vote for him.
posted by Artful Codger at 2:32 PM on January 29 [9 favorites]
Letting him control his public image hasn't worked. Remove that control. Make him angry enough to keep screwing up.
Recently we saw how a great leak from an AfD meeting led to widespread protests in Germany, and the subsequent loss of what was considered a safe election for them. Is there anything comparably damaging to be found in the Project 2025 stuff?
People need more reasons to NOT vote for him.
posted by Artful Codger at 2:32 PM on January 29 [9 favorites]
What I've never understood is why so many Christians are so keen on him.
Conservative Christianity has very little to do with Christianity as other Christians understand it beyond surface-level theming, like applying generic fantasy novel elements to video game mechanics that could've been sci-fi themed instead. It's ultimately about power and hierarchy and dominance and obedience, with virtue being quietly redefined to knowing your correct place in the stack (with God at the top, of course, justifying and legitimizing the hierarchy) and obeying and honoring those above you and properly bossing and disciplining those below you. It's how they describe horrific and widespread child abuse as loving childrearing, it's why they revere worldly wealth and status, it's why they hate anything that smacks of liberalism- when the correct, Godly structuring of society is as a kind of machine to determine everybody's worth and deliver them to the social and economic place they deserve, any kind of gesture toward equality, liberty, or even basic compassion for those lower on the stack than you are is literal blasphemy.
(I hear you asking, "but what about charity?" and they love charity because it's a demonstration of wealth and status by those that give it, it can be used to create obligation in those who receive it (which helps keep them in their rightful place), and because it's a function of the stack. Government-mediated assistance doesn't have any of those features, and thus is ultimately blasphemous.)
Reading the Bible and then looking at Trump won't actually help you figure out why so many Christians love Trump. You've got to look closely at which Christians love Trump. And you've got to think about which churches in this country are, ultimately, no different from their ancestor churches in the antebellum South where pastors either preached that God loved plantation owners best and demanded slaves submit to their owners, or got run out of town or disappeared. That doctrine didn't die out with the 13th amendment; it currently runs the second-largest, and arguably the most powerful, political party in the country.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:32 PM on January 29 [47 favorites]
Conservative Christianity has very little to do with Christianity as other Christians understand it beyond surface-level theming, like applying generic fantasy novel elements to video game mechanics that could've been sci-fi themed instead. It's ultimately about power and hierarchy and dominance and obedience, with virtue being quietly redefined to knowing your correct place in the stack (with God at the top, of course, justifying and legitimizing the hierarchy) and obeying and honoring those above you and properly bossing and disciplining those below you. It's how they describe horrific and widespread child abuse as loving childrearing, it's why they revere worldly wealth and status, it's why they hate anything that smacks of liberalism- when the correct, Godly structuring of society is as a kind of machine to determine everybody's worth and deliver them to the social and economic place they deserve, any kind of gesture toward equality, liberty, or even basic compassion for those lower on the stack than you are is literal blasphemy.
(I hear you asking, "but what about charity?" and they love charity because it's a demonstration of wealth and status by those that give it, it can be used to create obligation in those who receive it (which helps keep them in their rightful place), and because it's a function of the stack. Government-mediated assistance doesn't have any of those features, and thus is ultimately blasphemous.)
Reading the Bible and then looking at Trump won't actually help you figure out why so many Christians love Trump. You've got to look closely at which Christians love Trump. And you've got to think about which churches in this country are, ultimately, no different from their ancestor churches in the antebellum South where pastors either preached that God loved plantation owners best and demanded slaves submit to their owners, or got run out of town or disappeared. That doctrine didn't die out with the 13th amendment; it currently runs the second-largest, and arguably the most powerful, political party in the country.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:32 PM on January 29 [47 favorites]
this seemed too neat and buttoned-up to explain why almost half of the country voted for Trump
There are a lot of white people in America. Close to two-thirds of white American men and a slight majority of white American women vote Trump. They like the kind of guy he is. Pretty much every terrible or shocking thing Trump says or does is okay by them.
posted by pracowity at 2:34 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
There are a lot of white people in America. Close to two-thirds of white American men and a slight majority of white American women vote Trump. They like the kind of guy he is. Pretty much every terrible or shocking thing Trump says or does is okay by them.
posted by pracowity at 2:34 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
The other day Fox News was asking if Taylor Swift is a Pentagon psyop
And that was before last night's football game.
posted by box at 2:36 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]
And that was before last night's football game.
posted by box at 2:36 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]
if Taylor Swift is a Pentagon psyop OMG.
Army & Air Force Exchange Service To Offer Screenings of TAYLOR SWIFT | THE ERAS TOUR Concert Film to Military Communities
posted by clavdivs at 2:37 PM on January 29
Army & Air Force Exchange Service To Offer Screenings of TAYLOR SWIFT | THE ERAS TOUR Concert Film to Military Communities
posted by clavdivs at 2:37 PM on January 29
Slave owners were Christians too. They had just evolved a belief system where God is a white man and made white men in His image to rule over all other lesser races and genders. That developed over the entire time chattel slavery existed in the US. When they lost the civil war they didn't just stop believing those things they've believed for generations but it had to adapt.
It's evolved into the wealth doctrine (wealthy=Godly) and the conservative death cult we all know and love today. /s
posted by VTX at 2:38 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]
It's evolved into the wealth doctrine (wealthy=Godly) and the conservative death cult we all know and love today. /s
posted by VTX at 2:38 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]
They like the kind of guy he is. Pretty much every terrible or shocking thing Trump says or does is okay by them.
that's the new narrative with a lot of Republicans is that they will disagree with what Trump says but whole hardly agree with what he can get them, money, fortune and game and everything that goes with it.
posted by clavdivs at 2:42 PM on January 29
that's the new narrative with a lot of Republicans is that they will disagree with what Trump says but whole hardly agree with what he can get them, money, fortune and game and everything that goes with it.
posted by clavdivs at 2:42 PM on January 29
Both blocks of voters, Maga-heads and Obama/Trumpers, were looking for political revenge, not just on their partisan enemies, but on the parties they felt had betrayed them.
Hard-core MAGA-heads hated that the GOP was still basically a pro-immigration, pro-globalization, pro-finance party who took their votes for granted and looked down on them.
Obama/Trump voters were apolitical blue-collar men who’d originally hoped Barry was going to bring them Change They Could Believe In (which to them meant renewed prosperity in Middle America) but were disillusioned when he turned out to be just another Ivy League fancy pants who took their votes for granted and looked down on them, and who’s hand-picked successor was That Woman who took their votes for granted and looked down on them (but who still would probably have won if she’d made a couple more trips to Michigan and Wisconsin).
posted by ducky l'orange at 2:44 PM on January 29 [9 favorites]
Hard-core MAGA-heads hated that the GOP was still basically a pro-immigration, pro-globalization, pro-finance party who took their votes for granted and looked down on them.
Obama/Trump voters were apolitical blue-collar men who’d originally hoped Barry was going to bring them Change They Could Believe In (which to them meant renewed prosperity in Middle America) but were disillusioned when he turned out to be just another Ivy League fancy pants who took their votes for granted and looked down on them, and who’s hand-picked successor was That Woman who took their votes for granted and looked down on them (but who still would probably have won if she’d made a couple more trips to Michigan and Wisconsin).
posted by ducky l'orange at 2:44 PM on January 29 [9 favorites]
All politicians have two huge constituencies: assholes, and stupid people. As does Metafilter.
posted by Ideefixe at 2:44 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 2:44 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
I got a question at work from a Japanese colleague that I’ve been sort of dreading, the “(Ghidorah), why is Trump back?”
Until I saw your nickname, this was much funnier, and also seemed to set the stage for some sort of epic Monsterverse battle.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:47 PM on January 29 [21 favorites]
Until I saw your nickname, this was much funnier, and also seemed to set the stage for some sort of epic Monsterverse battle.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:47 PM on January 29 [21 favorites]
What I've never understood is why so many Christians are so keen on him.
He's useful to all Christians for expanding dominionist policies. Look at the huge win on ending federal recognition of abortion rights. Some states might be fighting this here and there, but all it takes is a dictator "for a day" to put a final end to women's rights. And put a stop to a lot of other civil liberties that Christians do not like, too — maybe even set up concentration camps to deal with problematic non-Christians who can't be saved.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:57 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
He's useful to all Christians for expanding dominionist policies. Look at the huge win on ending federal recognition of abortion rights. Some states might be fighting this here and there, but all it takes is a dictator "for a day" to put a final end to women's rights. And put a stop to a lot of other civil liberties that Christians do not like, too — maybe even set up concentration camps to deal with problematic non-Christians who can't be saved.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:57 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
If there's one thing I'm tired of, 8 years past 2016, it's people still acting like it's some deep ineffable mystery why perfectly nice moral people vote for Trump.
It's not complicated, it's just a coalition. Yes, it's partly fascists. Yes, it's partly racists. There's some "conventional" Republicans (and yes many of these categories overlap). There's some bizarre flavors of Christianity that I won't pretend to understand. But there's one part of Trump's coalition that the media and the "experts" are just mindbogglingly blind to.
Look: There are a lot of people in the United States - and in the Republican party especially (since its entire platform is essentially just grievances about the status quo) who HATE the status quo. Absolutely fuckin' despise it. If they could elect a walking, talking nuclear bomb, that ran for office with one single solitary campaign promise: "On my first day in office, I will sit behind the desk in the Oval Office and promptly explode and destroy Washington D.C. in a radioactive mushroom cloud." - they would vote for it in droves. It would crush Biden in a landslide.
Trump's appeal to a lot of these people is that he was the next-closest thing to that nuclear bomb. The people who voted for him wanted nothing so much as to have him take a wrecking ball to the status quo and make everyone whose entire life and career is focused inside the DC beltway miserable. (He was going to "Drain the Swamp", remember?) And those people - the career politicians, the political analysts, the access journalists - every single time Trump would do something shitty, those people would yell and scream bloody murder and Trump's approval rating would go up and those people would express their utter bafflement that Trump's deplorables could be so willfully blind or easily misled. And yet somehow after years of this dance the political class still, still can't see - that it played out that way because exactly what the voters who voted for Trump wanted from him was for him to make the political class miserable, so the more they yelled and screamed bloody murder, the more the average Trump voter felt Trump was succeeding. So his approval rating would go up.
Now, in 2024 Trump is a known quantity and has some liabilities: he is, even to his supporters' eyes, prone to getting distracted from The Mission by his habitual criminality or clashes of personality with other crooks, etc.. And his constant firehose of inanity is exhausting even for a lot of his supporters, which is why they don't actually listen to him, they just listen to the reaction he's getting from the people they hate (which is what they care about anyways). But the biggest liability of the Trump campaign - the one that exactly nobody has exploited because all the people in a position to capitalize on the above are somehow impossibly blind to all of the above - is that Trump had 4 years in office and at the end of it, we essentially returned immediately to the status quo. This is genuinely, among his supporters, the biggest flaw of his that they perceive: he didn't wreck shit hard enough. And early in the primary season that was a genuine weakness that looked exploitable. Ron DeSantis was starting fights with Disney and flying immigrants to Martha's Vineyard and making all the "elites" mad, while Trump was just bloviating aimlessly. But every time Trump gets hit with another indictment, every time there's another thinkpiece by a career Beltway insider about how Trump will Destroy America This Time For Sure, the more his supporters see Trump vs. the Status Quo as a fight that Trump is still in and still has a shot at winning. The more the defenders of the status quo aggressively pursue and attack him, the more he seems like their guy. This is why every new indictment is a boost to his poll numbers; it's so easy for Trump to spin them as "I went after the status quo so now the status quo is coming after me."
Now: This is all VERY BAD! I don't want anyone to think I am sympathetic to Trump's supporters or to Trump himself. Understanding is not endorsing. There are plenty of correct and true observations to be made about how Trump's supporters, who so fervently want to destroy the status quo, take for granted and are completely blind to all the parts of the status quo they actually like and need and rely on (it should come as no surprise how much overlap there is with anti-vaxxers, since it's the same basic fallacy), while only focusing the parts of the status quo they dislike. That's true! Many of the parts of the status quo they're angry about are actually good things on the whole - also true! Likewise it is also true that the people saying This Time Trump Really Might Destroy America are absolutely right - American democracy is genuinely, genuinely threatened by the prospect of a second Trump presidency.
Which is why it's so frustrating and infuriating to me to watch the people in power just Not Get Any Of This over and over for eight years running. Jesus H. Christ on a Pogo Stick am I just exhausted from people shrug and declare that this is all just unknowable, that every Trump supporter is an ineffable Riddle Of Hatred. I am exhausted from watching the political class play into Trump's hands over and over again, fail to exploit his weaknesses over and over again, simply because they are somehow constitutionally incapable of questioning or even recognizing their own part in creating and maintaining a status quo that makes so many people so angry that they'd rather nuke Washington D.C. than vote for another career politician. I get, to some extent, that it's just an illustration of the old Upton Sinclar quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." But then here on Metafilter there are plenty of people - many of whom are not big fans of the neoliberal status quo themselves - who just seem to think Trump voters are aliens, or demons, or something. They're not. Odds are you have a lot more in common with a Trump supporter than either you or they thinks you do. But if nobody ever recognizes that, the only way this story ends is in a bloody civil war.
posted by mstokes650 at 2:58 PM on January 29 [84 favorites]
It's not complicated, it's just a coalition. Yes, it's partly fascists. Yes, it's partly racists. There's some "conventional" Republicans (and yes many of these categories overlap). There's some bizarre flavors of Christianity that I won't pretend to understand. But there's one part of Trump's coalition that the media and the "experts" are just mindbogglingly blind to.
Look: There are a lot of people in the United States - and in the Republican party especially (since its entire platform is essentially just grievances about the status quo) who HATE the status quo. Absolutely fuckin' despise it. If they could elect a walking, talking nuclear bomb, that ran for office with one single solitary campaign promise: "On my first day in office, I will sit behind the desk in the Oval Office and promptly explode and destroy Washington D.C. in a radioactive mushroom cloud." - they would vote for it in droves. It would crush Biden in a landslide.
Trump's appeal to a lot of these people is that he was the next-closest thing to that nuclear bomb. The people who voted for him wanted nothing so much as to have him take a wrecking ball to the status quo and make everyone whose entire life and career is focused inside the DC beltway miserable. (He was going to "Drain the Swamp", remember?) And those people - the career politicians, the political analysts, the access journalists - every single time Trump would do something shitty, those people would yell and scream bloody murder and Trump's approval rating would go up and those people would express their utter bafflement that Trump's deplorables could be so willfully blind or easily misled. And yet somehow after years of this dance the political class still, still can't see - that it played out that way because exactly what the voters who voted for Trump wanted from him was for him to make the political class miserable, so the more they yelled and screamed bloody murder, the more the average Trump voter felt Trump was succeeding. So his approval rating would go up.
Now, in 2024 Trump is a known quantity and has some liabilities: he is, even to his supporters' eyes, prone to getting distracted from The Mission by his habitual criminality or clashes of personality with other crooks, etc.. And his constant firehose of inanity is exhausting even for a lot of his supporters, which is why they don't actually listen to him, they just listen to the reaction he's getting from the people they hate (which is what they care about anyways). But the biggest liability of the Trump campaign - the one that exactly nobody has exploited because all the people in a position to capitalize on the above are somehow impossibly blind to all of the above - is that Trump had 4 years in office and at the end of it, we essentially returned immediately to the status quo. This is genuinely, among his supporters, the biggest flaw of his that they perceive: he didn't wreck shit hard enough. And early in the primary season that was a genuine weakness that looked exploitable. Ron DeSantis was starting fights with Disney and flying immigrants to Martha's Vineyard and making all the "elites" mad, while Trump was just bloviating aimlessly. But every time Trump gets hit with another indictment, every time there's another thinkpiece by a career Beltway insider about how Trump will Destroy America This Time For Sure, the more his supporters see Trump vs. the Status Quo as a fight that Trump is still in and still has a shot at winning. The more the defenders of the status quo aggressively pursue and attack him, the more he seems like their guy. This is why every new indictment is a boost to his poll numbers; it's so easy for Trump to spin them as "I went after the status quo so now the status quo is coming after me."
Now: This is all VERY BAD! I don't want anyone to think I am sympathetic to Trump's supporters or to Trump himself. Understanding is not endorsing. There are plenty of correct and true observations to be made about how Trump's supporters, who so fervently want to destroy the status quo, take for granted and are completely blind to all the parts of the status quo they actually like and need and rely on (it should come as no surprise how much overlap there is with anti-vaxxers, since it's the same basic fallacy), while only focusing the parts of the status quo they dislike. That's true! Many of the parts of the status quo they're angry about are actually good things on the whole - also true! Likewise it is also true that the people saying This Time Trump Really Might Destroy America are absolutely right - American democracy is genuinely, genuinely threatened by the prospect of a second Trump presidency.
Which is why it's so frustrating and infuriating to me to watch the people in power just Not Get Any Of This over and over for eight years running. Jesus H. Christ on a Pogo Stick am I just exhausted from people shrug and declare that this is all just unknowable, that every Trump supporter is an ineffable Riddle Of Hatred. I am exhausted from watching the political class play into Trump's hands over and over again, fail to exploit his weaknesses over and over again, simply because they are somehow constitutionally incapable of questioning or even recognizing their own part in creating and maintaining a status quo that makes so many people so angry that they'd rather nuke Washington D.C. than vote for another career politician. I get, to some extent, that it's just an illustration of the old Upton Sinclar quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." But then here on Metafilter there are plenty of people - many of whom are not big fans of the neoliberal status quo themselves - who just seem to think Trump voters are aliens, or demons, or something. They're not. Odds are you have a lot more in common with a Trump supporter than either you or they thinks you do. But if nobody ever recognizes that, the only way this story ends is in a bloody civil war.
posted by mstokes650 at 2:58 PM on January 29 [84 favorites]
Obama/Trump voters were apolitical blue-collar men who’d originally hoped Barry was going to bring them Change They Could Believe In (which to them meant renewed prosperity in Middle America) but were disillusioned when he turned out to be just another Ivy League fancy pants who took their votes for granted and looked down on them, and who’s hand-picked successor was That Woman who took their votes for granted and looked down on them
Yeah, this tracks with my observations. In 2016, I lived in a real dump of an apartment, and I had the most flexible schedule of my housemates - so I got to know my landlord's handyman relatively well. He was a friendly guy, and we had had a previous conversation about how excited we both were about Bernie's win in the Michigan primary (where we were). I also knew he had voted for Obama. So I sorta assumed when I saw him, shortly after the election, that he too was in despair. And he was, kinda - but he had voted for Trump. I gave him a hard time about it, and his response was [very roughly paraphrasing] "I don't feel good about voting for him, I agree he's a horrible person in many ways, but I think he'll disrupt the political system, and it needs to be disrupted."
I'm hopeful that people like him won't be voting Trump in 2024, even if they won't be voting for Biden. But the Democrats really need to start coming to terms with how much they are failing working class people - even just regular middle class people (by which I mean people not making six figures).
posted by coffeecat at 3:02 PM on January 29 [28 favorites]
Yeah, this tracks with my observations. In 2016, I lived in a real dump of an apartment, and I had the most flexible schedule of my housemates - so I got to know my landlord's handyman relatively well. He was a friendly guy, and we had had a previous conversation about how excited we both were about Bernie's win in the Michigan primary (where we were). I also knew he had voted for Obama. So I sorta assumed when I saw him, shortly after the election, that he too was in despair. And he was, kinda - but he had voted for Trump. I gave him a hard time about it, and his response was [very roughly paraphrasing] "I don't feel good about voting for him, I agree he's a horrible person in many ways, but I think he'll disrupt the political system, and it needs to be disrupted."
I'm hopeful that people like him won't be voting Trump in 2024, even if they won't be voting for Biden. But the Democrats really need to start coming to terms with how much they are failing working class people - even just regular middle class people (by which I mean people not making six figures).
posted by coffeecat at 3:02 PM on January 29 [28 favorites]
mstokes650
I was just trying to type something similar to what you did, but yours is much better.
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:05 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
I was just trying to type something similar to what you did, but yours is much better.
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:05 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
Yah, well said mstokes650, love the phrase "ineffable riddle of hatred', you captured my thoughts and feelings way better than I could. It's too easy to condemn all Trump voters as irredeemable racists, I think the reality is far more complicated, uncomfortable, and interesting.
posted by sid at 3:14 PM on January 29 [12 favorites]
posted by sid at 3:14 PM on January 29 [12 favorites]
If there's one thing I'm tired of, 8 years past 2016, it's people still acting like it's some deep ineffable mystery why perfectly nice moral people vote for Trump.
It's not complicated, it's just a coalition....
And this of course is itself blind to the even simpler fact that in the rigidly, perhaps fatally bipolar US system, the number one reason a supporter of party X supports whatever candidate party X runs, is just because their candidate is not from party Y. The GOP could run a tuna sandwich and 80%+ of the GOP supporters would vote for it.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:26 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
It's not complicated, it's just a coalition....
And this of course is itself blind to the even simpler fact that in the rigidly, perhaps fatally bipolar US system, the number one reason a supporter of party X supports whatever candidate party X runs, is just because their candidate is not from party Y. The GOP could run a tuna sandwich and 80%+ of the GOP supporters would vote for it.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:26 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
I'm still going with my grand theory of American politics. It's the Axis of Assholes vs the Coalition of Finger Waggers.
This is why the left has such a hard time. Nobody likes finger waggers. Not even other finger waggers. Not even if they're right. Maybe especially if they're right.
But assholes love assholes. It's what they live and breathe. And they get joy and feel empowerment knowing the world is filled with other assholes.
posted by 2N2222 at 3:28 PM on January 29 [25 favorites]
This is why the left has such a hard time. Nobody likes finger waggers. Not even other finger waggers. Not even if they're right. Maybe especially if they're right.
But assholes love assholes. It's what they live and breathe. And they get joy and feel empowerment knowing the world is filled with other assholes.
posted by 2N2222 at 3:28 PM on January 29 [25 favorites]
> ... The values ratchet operates at the societal and the individual level: a strong set of extrinsic values often develops as a result of insecurity and unfulfilled needs. These extrinsic values then generate further insecurity and unfulfilled needs.
This sounds a lot like it's hearkening back to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, with extrinsic values representing the lower rungs of the hierarchy, and intrinsic representing the higher tiers.
> Maslow (1954) proposed that human beings possess two sets of needs. This five-stage model can be divided into deficiency needs and growth needs. The first four levels are often referred to as deficiency needs ( D-needs ), and the top level is known as growth or being needs (B-needs ).
Instead, Extrinsic represents the first two levels, while Intrinsic represents the top three.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 3:37 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]
This sounds a lot like it's hearkening back to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, with extrinsic values representing the lower rungs of the hierarchy, and intrinsic representing the higher tiers.
> Maslow (1954) proposed that human beings possess two sets of needs. This five-stage model can be divided into deficiency needs and growth needs. The first four levels are often referred to as deficiency needs ( D-needs ), and the top level is known as growth or being needs (B-needs ).
Instead, Extrinsic represents the first two levels, while Intrinsic represents the top three.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 3:37 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]
What I've never understood is why so many Christians are so keen on him.Modern evangelical Christianity in the US was founded as a project to co-opt religion into conservative politics and it has overwhelmingly succeeded. I hesitate to say “majority” because I can’t support that, but at least a massive plurality of self-identified Christians today are actually “Republican, but because God so I can claim offense if you challenge my politics.”
David Frum famously said that if conservatives cannot win democratically, they will abandon democracy rather than conservatism. We are already living this reality. Just as surely, if conservatives cannot square their politics with their religion, they will abandon their religion rather than their politics. We see this too in those who have begun calling the Sermon on the Mount “woke liberal bullshit.” They won’t stop going to churches, but will only accept content that affirms them, a combination of political cherry-picking and feel-good pablum, however far that message diverges from anything recognizably Christian.
Don’t mistake this for a “no true Scotsman,” by the way. As a pragmatic atheist I do not believe religion even possesses an independent existence apart from the beliefs and acts of those who presently claim to follow it. The flip side of this is worth mentioning: the same people who insist their Christianity reflect their increasingly fascist politics also frequently clutch their pearls at the mystery of people abandoning the religion in droves. (This seems to be a recurring theme in the 21st Century: “It’s so weird how people just suddenly stopped following fine American tradition X! If I’d known they were going to do that I wouldn’t have invested so much effort into co-opting X and twisting it for my own convenience and profit!” They usually phrase it as “Millennials killed X.”)
In sum, Christianity is not forming a bulwark against fascism because fascism hollowed out Christianity and grotesquely wears its skin.
posted by gelfin at 3:47 PM on January 29 [32 favorites]
The democrats really need to come to terms with the ways they’re failing working class people.
Turns out what a lot of working people really want (or think they want) isn’t traditional liberal-democrat-style redistribution or socialist revolution, but economic populism - protectionism, basically. Trump put it on the menu, or a least promised to, and a lot of unhappy people love him for trying.
Like some in this thread, I am surprised that this continues to surprise people.
I sometimes wonder if the surprise is real, or if certain well-meaning folks simply don’t want to engage with populist arguments, thinking that if they just act incredulous and appalled enough those arguments will go away. They won’t. People who favor progressive redistribution (myself included) need to reckon with this fact.
posted by ducky l'orange at 3:50 PM on January 29 [11 favorites]
Turns out what a lot of working people really want (or think they want) isn’t traditional liberal-democrat-style redistribution or socialist revolution, but economic populism - protectionism, basically. Trump put it on the menu, or a least promised to, and a lot of unhappy people love him for trying.
Like some in this thread, I am surprised that this continues to surprise people.
I sometimes wonder if the surprise is real, or if certain well-meaning folks simply don’t want to engage with populist arguments, thinking that if they just act incredulous and appalled enough those arguments will go away. They won’t. People who favor progressive redistribution (myself included) need to reckon with this fact.
posted by ducky l'orange at 3:50 PM on January 29 [11 favorites]
What I've never understood is why so many Christians are so keen on him.
N=1 here. My dad was an Obama voter, but may have also voted for Trump, or at least got pretty angry at me on the subject. I have an anecdote about what church meant to him that I think may highlight what some Christians might see in Trump. I was visiting him in his retirement home in 2019 and, making small talk, asked about his last visit to the town we lived in when I grew up. And someone brought up church, and of our (Catholic) parish, he said: "I went there, but I didn't recognize it. It's all poor people and illegals now." I assume what he meant is that the congregation looked Latino, or the services were in Spanish, or some such. I can count on one hand how many times I ever swore around my dad, but this was one of them. This is a guy who wanted the Beatitudes read at his funeral! But to him, church was not really about that, somehow. Church was about 1. where did the universe come from, sure seems mysterious to me and 2. where do I find my place, my family? All the "poor people and illegals" talk was him saying: I don't know where I fit here anymore. Trump offers an answer.
posted by eirias at 3:51 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
N=1 here. My dad was an Obama voter, but may have also voted for Trump, or at least got pretty angry at me on the subject. I have an anecdote about what church meant to him that I think may highlight what some Christians might see in Trump. I was visiting him in his retirement home in 2019 and, making small talk, asked about his last visit to the town we lived in when I grew up. And someone brought up church, and of our (Catholic) parish, he said: "I went there, but I didn't recognize it. It's all poor people and illegals now." I assume what he meant is that the congregation looked Latino, or the services were in Spanish, or some such. I can count on one hand how many times I ever swore around my dad, but this was one of them. This is a guy who wanted the Beatitudes read at his funeral! But to him, church was not really about that, somehow. Church was about 1. where did the universe come from, sure seems mysterious to me and 2. where do I find my place, my family? All the "poor people and illegals" talk was him saying: I don't know where I fit here anymore. Trump offers an answer.
posted by eirias at 3:51 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
So many great and insightful answers. It’s very depressing how many people support that colossal piece of shit. But I try to remember that the democratic side of the electorate had won 7 of 8 presidential elections and done pretty well on the congressional level in the face of staggering gerrymandering and the crap sandwich that is citizens of big blue states having a fraction of the tiny red states.
I think (delusional?) Biden wins. Maybe. Hopefully. Please.
And the next time (if ever) the democrats take congress and the presidency they’d better codify a right to vote for all citizens. With 20 year minimum sentences for interfering with that right (yea they’d never do this the cowards).
posted by WatTylerJr at 3:56 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
I think (delusional?) Biden wins. Maybe. Hopefully. Please.
And the next time (if ever) the democrats take congress and the presidency they’d better codify a right to vote for all citizens. With 20 year minimum sentences for interfering with that right (yea they’d never do this the cowards).
posted by WatTylerJr at 3:56 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
Prior to The Year of COVID, Trump had a 89%/ 7 % (Rep/Dem) approval rating
Biden finished his first 3 years at 5% / 83%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/609188/biden-third-year-job-approval-average-second-worst.aspx
We've picked our teams at this point I guess.
posted by torokunai at 3:57 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]
Biden finished his first 3 years at 5% / 83%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/609188/biden-third-year-job-approval-average-second-worst.aspx
We've picked our teams at this point I guess.
posted by torokunai at 3:57 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]
Trump is very beatable.
People further to the left have many strong reasons to dislike and distrust Biden, but I hope we can all agree that he needs to win. We should do whatever it takes to grow our coalition.
I would love it if my fellow Mefites could at least learn to fake a little enthusiasm for ol’ Brandon, as it will give other disaffected folks permission to support him, instead of feeling like they’re crossing a picket line.
posted by ducky l'orange at 4:03 PM on January 29 [23 favorites]
People further to the left have many strong reasons to dislike and distrust Biden, but I hope we can all agree that he needs to win. We should do whatever it takes to grow our coalition.
I would love it if my fellow Mefites could at least learn to fake a little enthusiasm for ol’ Brandon, as it will give other disaffected folks permission to support him, instead of feeling like they’re crossing a picket line.
posted by ducky l'orange at 4:03 PM on January 29 [23 favorites]
I would love it if my fellow Mefites could at least learn to fake a little enthusiasm for ol’ Brandon...
I too would love that!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:15 PM on January 29 [58 favorites]
I too would love that!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:15 PM on January 29 [58 favorites]
Trump, Evangelicals, & the "Cyrus prophecy" - The Persian king might have been a pagan, but he still served God’s plans. (Guardian, 2017) The belief that a politician is the subject of biblical prophecy gives his election an aura of inevitability and his actions an unquestionable authority. In the year of his campaign, Trump was described by a variety of religious supporters as “the last Trumpet” who would galvanize the second coming of Christ, and a modern King David, as well as Nebuchadnezzar. Most often, however, he was recognized as “Cyrus”.
White evangelicals were crucial to Trump’s electoral victory; 81%, some 28 million, voted for him.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:17 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
White evangelicals were crucial to Trump’s electoral victory; 81%, some 28 million, voted for him.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:17 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
I haven’t finished the thread but nothing interests me less than a conservative’s claimed values. They’re always lies. They seek out the opposite of everything they claim is a virtue in a leader so I can only conclude that Trump is who they all would be if they only had the cash and courage.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 4:17 PM on January 29 [14 favorites]
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 4:17 PM on January 29 [14 favorites]
Don't need psycologists to explain Trump /Christo-Fascism, we now have it here already.
Voice from afar here but we have a new government in New Zealand - they are mostly MAGA types (Christian Dominionists and Catholic Integralists) National Party, plus two libertarian parties ACT & NZ First [known collectively and very pejoratively as NAF] each led by Maori men who are deeply racist against their own people (and any other poc) and really truly horrible people. Ten thousand Maori met last week to decide how to respond.
In their first three months NAF have shown exactly what they are, and what some of us knew (and tried to warn) - but everyone was like "it's just rhetoric". Pro- oil, war, guns, tobacco, Israel ... Anti- abortion / public-health, climate change response... they are like New Zealanders from the 1940's + large helpings of American 'Christianity', the antithesis of Jesus' teachings.
I know a lot about these people as was a pentecostal myself a lifetime ago - upto early 1990's, and even then they were very Israel right or wrong, anti United Nations, anti climate change, anti-women. And now they've joined up with (some) new-agers, anti-vax, general racists and trouble makers plus several of what look like UK and/or US astroturfs working inside NZ (but even a cursory looks screams that their funding is Federalist Society & Heritage Found) - I eventually made myself persona non-grata and left.
wished I could say I'd seen the back of this terrible metastatic false religion.
posted by unearthed at 4:21 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
Voice from afar here but we have a new government in New Zealand - they are mostly MAGA types (Christian Dominionists and Catholic Integralists) National Party, plus two libertarian parties ACT & NZ First [known collectively and very pejoratively as NAF] each led by Maori men who are deeply racist against their own people (and any other poc) and really truly horrible people. Ten thousand Maori met last week to decide how to respond.
In their first three months NAF have shown exactly what they are, and what some of us knew (and tried to warn) - but everyone was like "it's just rhetoric". Pro- oil, war, guns, tobacco, Israel ... Anti- abortion / public-health, climate change response... they are like New Zealanders from the 1940's + large helpings of American 'Christianity', the antithesis of Jesus' teachings.
I know a lot about these people as was a pentecostal myself a lifetime ago - upto early 1990's, and even then they were very Israel right or wrong, anti United Nations, anti climate change, anti-women. And now they've joined up with (some) new-agers, anti-vax, general racists and trouble makers plus several of what look like UK and/or US astroturfs working inside NZ (but even a cursory looks screams that their funding is Federalist Society & Heritage Found) - I eventually made myself persona non-grata and left.
wished I could say I'd seen the back of this terrible metastatic false religion.
posted by unearthed at 4:21 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
So… if you assume “the left” has betrayed you by not voting hard enough for your candidate, what are you going to do?
Other than assume defeat and have lots of revenge fantasies about if I mean.
What do you, as responsible liberals who cannot count on “the left” and are absolutely the good ones in this picture do to give the best chance of a trump defeat?
Is it reaching across to republicans and bringing them over? Go do that. Is it campaigning or donating harder to make up for “the left” not doing it this time? Knock yourselves out.
Whatever it is I would strongly advise going off and doing it rather than whatever the fuck it is outgrown_hobnail and ducky l'orange think they are doing because I assure you that is achieving nothing.
posted by Artw at 4:25 PM on January 29 [16 favorites]
Other than assume defeat and have lots of revenge fantasies about if I mean.
What do you, as responsible liberals who cannot count on “the left” and are absolutely the good ones in this picture do to give the best chance of a trump defeat?
Is it reaching across to republicans and bringing them over? Go do that. Is it campaigning or donating harder to make up for “the left” not doing it this time? Knock yourselves out.
Whatever it is I would strongly advise going off and doing it rather than whatever the fuck it is outgrown_hobnail and ducky l'orange think they are doing because I assure you that is achieving nothing.
posted by Artw at 4:25 PM on January 29 [16 favorites]
I have not accused anybody of betraying me, and I harbor no revenge fantasies, Artw.
posted by ducky l'orange at 4:33 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]
posted by ducky l'orange at 4:33 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]
It is rare to find an American bigot who isn't a Trump supporter
Did you really just erase all those 1k+ comment political mega threads on MeFi from memory???
Joined: October 8, 2017
Ah, ok.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 4:39 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]
Did you really just erase all those 1k+ comment political mega threads on MeFi from memory???
Joined: October 8, 2017
Ah, ok.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 4:39 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]
Because
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYTQ7__NNDI
posted by torokunai at 4:39 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYTQ7__NNDI
posted by torokunai at 4:39 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
I have not accused anybody of betraying me, and I harbor no revenge fantasies, Artw.
Sure. Feel free to come up with and enact a plan anyway.
posted by Artw at 4:43 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]
Sure. Feel free to come up with and enact a plan anyway.
posted by Artw at 4:43 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]
What I've never understood is why so many Christians are so keen on him.
Recently here or NPR it was noted a specific meeting in 2016 with Trump and a range of evangelical ministers -- where he "made a deal" to do certain actions if they voted for him. The evangelical detested Trump, but it looked like he could and would deliver Roe. Basically a transactional voting decision. I suspect in the view of the evangelical leaders it was a very good deal.
Anyway, thanks to all the commenters above, I'd been thinking to make an askme to get some of these kinds of clarifications and analysis, depressing as it all is, this is an excellent thread. Now we need another on how to encourage vastly more people to actually vote.
posted by sammyo at 4:46 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
Recently here or NPR it was noted a specific meeting in 2016 with Trump and a range of evangelical ministers -- where he "made a deal" to do certain actions if they voted for him. The evangelical detested Trump, but it looked like he could and would deliver Roe. Basically a transactional voting decision. I suspect in the view of the evangelical leaders it was a very good deal.
Anyway, thanks to all the commenters above, I'd been thinking to make an askme to get some of these kinds of clarifications and analysis, depressing as it all is, this is an excellent thread. Now we need another on how to encourage vastly more people to actually vote.
posted by sammyo at 4:46 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
I'm still going with my grand theory of American politics. It's the Axis of Assholes vs the Coalition of Finger Waggers.
This is why the left has such a hard time. Nobody likes finger waggers. Not even other finger waggers. Not even if they're right. Maybe especially if they're right.
you're literally creating two political parties where the message from one is "don't be a pussy" and the other is "don't be an asshole", and you gotta pick one
posted by nikodym at 4:58 PM on January 29 [9 favorites]
LOL no they won't, they'll sneer about how their vote "has to be EARNED"
I like to point out to people that this is utter bullshit (in much nicer terms). I don't like Biden, I don't want him to be president. But I don't have to like him, he's not going to hang out with me. The political persona of Joe Biden might have some overlap with the person, Joe Biden, but they are not all the same people.
Most of us are the same way. We present a different version of ourselves for our jobs than our actual personalities.
The political persona of Joe Biden is a tool, not a real person. It's a tool for Joe Biden to get elected and it's a tool for me to get my preferred policies enacted. My vote is only a choice in which tool I prefer to get use in office. With this approach I can vote for Biden while absolutely despising him.
The reality of first-past-the-goal-post voting is that it will always come down to two candidates with both basically being the 2nd worst choice for enough people to get elected. Our system isn't designed to produce good candidates. It's designed to produce tools.
So I'll vote for Biden because turnout helps dems and that makes them more likely to expand voting rights and access. If enough people are voting dems will have a lock on almost every office. So some of them will push for ranked choice or some other alternative voting system (it really doesn't matter what, it'll be better than what we have) to be able to compete against other democrats and get around the primary system to get elected. It'll be in their self-interest!
Expanding voting rights and access is really my only issue. Everything else I want flows from there.
Our candidates suck and I want better ones. How I vote furthers that end and I don't need to give a flying fuck about liking candidates or being "the kind of guy I could have a beer with". They're employees, I don't need to have a beer with an employee for them to do the job I want. Though it's nice in the rare instance I do actually like a candidate.
posted by VTX at 5:01 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
I like to point out to people that this is utter bullshit (in much nicer terms). I don't like Biden, I don't want him to be president. But I don't have to like him, he's not going to hang out with me. The political persona of Joe Biden might have some overlap with the person, Joe Biden, but they are not all the same people.
Most of us are the same way. We present a different version of ourselves for our jobs than our actual personalities.
The political persona of Joe Biden is a tool, not a real person. It's a tool for Joe Biden to get elected and it's a tool for me to get my preferred policies enacted. My vote is only a choice in which tool I prefer to get use in office. With this approach I can vote for Biden while absolutely despising him.
The reality of first-past-the-goal-post voting is that it will always come down to two candidates with both basically being the 2nd worst choice for enough people to get elected. Our system isn't designed to produce good candidates. It's designed to produce tools.
So I'll vote for Biden because turnout helps dems and that makes them more likely to expand voting rights and access. If enough people are voting dems will have a lock on almost every office. So some of them will push for ranked choice or some other alternative voting system (it really doesn't matter what, it'll be better than what we have) to be able to compete against other democrats and get around the primary system to get elected. It'll be in their self-interest!
Expanding voting rights and access is really my only issue. Everything else I want flows from there.
Our candidates suck and I want better ones. How I vote furthers that end and I don't need to give a flying fuck about liking candidates or being "the kind of guy I could have a beer with". They're employees, I don't need to have a beer with an employee for them to do the job I want. Though it's nice in the rare instance I do actually like a candidate.
posted by VTX at 5:01 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
Also he is the anti-politician and can say things that no other candidate can say. Look at the furor when Haley didn't explicitly say the Civil War was about slavery (in a somewhat setupish situation), Trump could've said a dozen more racist things and it'd been trump-being-trump, ha ha ha.
posted by sammyo at 5:08 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 5:08 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
They worship power and that’s a power move, as it is each time he doesn’t give a shit about some norm that binds other people and he gets away with it.
Again, these people are fascism, they worship power and the aesthetics of power, they are really quite simple to understand.
posted by Artw at 5:11 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]
Again, these people are fascism, they worship power and the aesthetics of power, they are really quite simple to understand.
posted by Artw at 5:11 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]
It’s what Dennis Leary’s entire routine was made out of.
“Racism isn’t born, folks. It’s taught. I have a 2-year-old son. Know what he hates? Naps. End of list.”
― Denis Leary
posted by kirkaracha at 5:12 PM on January 29 [15 favorites]
“Racism isn’t born, folks. It’s taught. I have a 2-year-old son. Know what he hates? Naps. End of list.”
― Denis Leary
posted by kirkaracha at 5:12 PM on January 29 [15 favorites]
Spite is the mirror image of altruism. There are many younger and minority voters who are going to sit this one out to punish Biden for his genocidal foreign policy, even though the alternative is no better on the issue in question and will harm their own interests more broadly. The electoral college could easily come down to Michigan. But of course if Trump returns to power as a direct consequence of Biden's foreign policy, I would expect Biden to believe it was still worth it.
posted by nikodym at 5:13 PM on January 29
posted by nikodym at 5:13 PM on January 29
see the thing about Nikki she got it wrong because it was actually post reconstruction
that asserted that state rights could deny people their rights ex post facto
posted by clavdivs at 5:14 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
that asserted that state rights could deny people their rights ex post facto
posted by clavdivs at 5:14 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
Trump's appeal to a lot of these people is that he was the next-closest thing to that nuclear bomb. The people who voted for him wanted nothing so much as to have him take a wrecking ball to the status quo and make everyone whose entire life and career is focused inside the DC beltway miserable. (He was going to "Drain the Swamp", remember?)
But he got elected and then didn't do that. He didn't do most of the things he promised (inshallah) but they don't punish him for failing.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:18 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]
But he got elected and then didn't do that. He didn't do most of the things he promised (inshallah) but they don't punish him for failing.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:18 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]
So a country built on centuries of genocide, racism, slavery, xenophobia, and oppression elects the Nazi because he's rich and tacky?
posted by swift at 5:19 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
posted by swift at 5:19 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
He didn't do most of the things he promised (inshallah) but they don't punish him for failing.
He did lose in 2020. First president to fail at re-election in nearly 30 years.
For a more traditional politician, that would have been a devastating punishment.
posted by AdamCSnider at 5:36 PM on January 29 [10 favorites]
He did lose in 2020. First president to fail at re-election in nearly 30 years.
For a more traditional politician, that would have been a devastating punishment.
posted by AdamCSnider at 5:36 PM on January 29 [10 favorites]
Fish ponders the inscrutable mystery of why everything seems so damp.
America is deeply white supremacist. It was founded on the twin pillars of enslavement of Black people and genocide of native people. The Republican Party has been the primary political home of American white supremacy since 1968, but as Lee Atwater observed, for years it found it more strategic to keep its white supremacy more coded. Trump’s appeal is his embrace of open racism; his supporters find it thrilling and liberating. He says what they’re all thinking. He validates their resentment that their supremacy feels under threat. So many supposed mysteries evaporate if we’re willing to see American white supremacy with clear eyes. White working class Trump supporters don’t vote against their economic interests, they prioritize their white supremacy interests.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:46 PM on January 29 [19 favorites]
America is deeply white supremacist. It was founded on the twin pillars of enslavement of Black people and genocide of native people. The Republican Party has been the primary political home of American white supremacy since 1968, but as Lee Atwater observed, for years it found it more strategic to keep its white supremacy more coded. Trump’s appeal is his embrace of open racism; his supporters find it thrilling and liberating. He says what they’re all thinking. He validates their resentment that their supremacy feels under threat. So many supposed mysteries evaporate if we’re willing to see American white supremacy with clear eyes. White working class Trump supporters don’t vote against their economic interests, they prioritize their white supremacy interests.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:46 PM on January 29 [19 favorites]
So a country built on centuries of genocide, racism, slavery, xenophobia, and oppression elects the Nazi because he's rich and tacky?
This statement reads like a parody of simplistic thinking from the Left.
posted by Liquidwolf at 6:05 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
Eh. Saw what you want about “the left”, they don’t spend much time looking at Trump like he’s some complicated and intricate mystery that’s impossible to decode.
posted by Artw at 6:31 PM on January 29 [17 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:31 PM on January 29 [17 favorites]
Isn't Monbiot mostly trying to make a point about the UK?
Anyway, I know plenty of people for whom wealth and symbols of wealth are very important, but who still have great values and want society to be caring and sharing. I don't think the theory explains much.
On the other hand, I saw a random video where two young Trumpist women were asked about their right to choose, and it appeared to me that they were twisting their minds in an effort to explain why they should have the right to choose, whereas those other people shouldn't. To be fair, I got the impression that people who should be forced to bear children were all types of poor people, not only black and brown poor people.
posted by mumimor at 6:34 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
Anyway, I know plenty of people for whom wealth and symbols of wealth are very important, but who still have great values and want society to be caring and sharing. I don't think the theory explains much.
On the other hand, I saw a random video where two young Trumpist women were asked about their right to choose, and it appeared to me that they were twisting their minds in an effort to explain why they should have the right to choose, whereas those other people shouldn't. To be fair, I got the impression that people who should be forced to bear children were all types of poor people, not only black and brown poor people.
posted by mumimor at 6:34 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
There’s a lot of good comments here, but I want to draw attention to the linking of Trump to the Andrew Dice Clay affair in the 90s. Obviously, Clay wasn’t running for office, but people’s positive and negative reactions to him back then seem similar to today’s positive and negative reactions to Trump.
The comparison is enlightening.
posted by wittgenstein at 6:34 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]
The comparison is enlightening.
posted by wittgenstein at 6:34 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]
On a similar tip, there is Bandy X. Lee, a name long known here, who long story short in 2017 edited and cowrote The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Health Experts Assess a President and as a consequence got fired from Yale "for tweeting about Alan Dershowitz" in a dust up twixt the two. Here are some of her more recent essays.
I subscribed to her pamphlet and get regular emails regarding Trump, Dershowitz et al and the maga land psychotic mental hellscape. I will say this: you do not want to get on the bad side of Bandy X. Lee. They are very bracing reads. Served on plates freshly dipped in liquid nitrogen. She is right up there with Representatives Jasmine Crockett and Jared Moskowitz in this regard. Oh, the schadenfreude you will feel!
posted by y2karl at 6:47 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]
I subscribed to her pamphlet and get regular emails regarding Trump, Dershowitz et al and the maga land psychotic mental hellscape. I will say this: you do not want to get on the bad side of Bandy X. Lee. They are very bracing reads. Served on plates freshly dipped in liquid nitrogen. She is right up there with Representatives Jasmine Crockett and Jared Moskowitz in this regard. Oh, the schadenfreude you will feel!
posted by y2karl at 6:47 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]
I only know a few Trump voters, but they are pinched, selfish, scared, angry (well, that one's understandable), bigoted, uninterested in art, conservative, easily led, prickly, narrow in their empathic range, xenophobic, homophobic, and, usually: mean. I mean: MEAN!
I hate to think that much of America is like this...but, then, there are people like this in every country with which I am the least bit familiar. Don't be a self-hating American, be a self-hating human being.
posted by kozad at 7:00 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
I hate to think that much of America is like this...but, then, there are people like this in every country with which I am the least bit familiar. Don't be a self-hating American, be a self-hating human being.
posted by kozad at 7:00 PM on January 29 [8 favorites]
Trump's base have been through obedience training to accept extreme biblical doctrines, like the awaited rapture or prosperity sent from heaven. It began with parents establishing irrational authority through early physical punishment, then later conditional love into adulthood. So when confronted with a nationwide populist bully, they get behind him and serve his demands. That's what they are emotionally taught to do. What subconsciously angers them is that someone else out there is getting more sympathy than they will ever get, especially from liberals, so they end up resenting such people (the flip side of their extreme envy of others).
posted by Brian B. at 7:02 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 7:02 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
I know plenty of people for whom wealth and symbols of wealth are very important, but who still have great values and want society to be caring and sharing. I don't think the theory explains much.
When I was selling cars for a living I had quite a few training courses that used basically a variation of meyer-briggs. But the facilitator was quick to mention that people are FAR too complicated to fit into four neat little boxes. It doesn't invalidate the model, it's just a recognition that while people might fit into one box most of the time they will absolutely step into any and all of the other boxes in different situations and will switch in an instant. That tracks with my experience in both sales and in life generally.
But even at the individual level, the trends are there. So when you aggregate all that you see the trends even if every single individual can't be fit into a neat little box.
posted by VTX at 7:11 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
When I was selling cars for a living I had quite a few training courses that used basically a variation of meyer-briggs. But the facilitator was quick to mention that people are FAR too complicated to fit into four neat little boxes. It doesn't invalidate the model, it's just a recognition that while people might fit into one box most of the time they will absolutely step into any and all of the other boxes in different situations and will switch in an instant. That tracks with my experience in both sales and in life generally.
But even at the individual level, the trends are there. So when you aggregate all that you see the trends even if every single individual can't be fit into a neat little box.
posted by VTX at 7:11 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]
The original mastodon post is lost to time.
How I Defeated Fascism With the Power of Loveposted by ob1quixote at 7:34 PM on January 29 [28 favorites]
by Luigi
Chapter 1: The Power of Love
The first step in my journey was realizing that it is impossible to defeat fascism with the power of love.
Chapter 2: The Power of Incredible Violence
kirkaracha, the thing about Leary is one of those things that can be applied to a lot of public figures and entertainers. There’s what they want to say, to be known for, what they’d like the audience to hear, and what the audience actually latches onto.
Leary isn’t famous for saying babies aren’t born racist, he’s famous for singing a song about being an asshole, and being proud of it. Whether he was trying to make fun of assholes or not, the assholes thought he was on their side, and they felt seen, and loved it.
posted by Ghidorah at 7:37 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
Leary isn’t famous for saying babies aren’t born racist, he’s famous for singing a song about being an asshole, and being proud of it. Whether he was trying to make fun of assholes or not, the assholes thought he was on their side, and they felt seen, and loved it.
posted by Ghidorah at 7:37 PM on January 29 [3 favorites]
Something else: it really bothers me when pundits go on about Trump in all earnestness and sort of glide over the fact that he is a criminal who aspires to be a mobster. Some of the felonies he has been charged with are extremely serious, like stealing hundreds of government documents and attempting to overthrow the election. A jury has determined that he is guilty of sexual assault. And on top of that comes the enormous grift.
And yet the so-called serious people are reacting almost exactly like Trump's voters: ignoring the crimes and focusing on the spectacle. When the pundits spend hours discussing his inner workings or those of his followers, they are contributing to his brand.
IMO it would be better for everyone if not only the justice system, but everyone who believes in democracy and its institutions consistently spoke and wrote of Trump as the common criminal he is and always has been.
Instead of "Trump, the Republican leader"..., it should be "Trump, the fraudster who has been evading taxes, assaulting women, and defrauding ordinary Americans for at least four decades"..
posted by mumimor at 7:38 PM on January 29 [20 favorites]
And yet the so-called serious people are reacting almost exactly like Trump's voters: ignoring the crimes and focusing on the spectacle. When the pundits spend hours discussing his inner workings or those of his followers, they are contributing to his brand.
IMO it would be better for everyone if not only the justice system, but everyone who believes in democracy and its institutions consistently spoke and wrote of Trump as the common criminal he is and always has been.
Instead of "Trump, the Republican leader"..., it should be "Trump, the fraudster who has been evading taxes, assaulting women, and defrauding ordinary Americans for at least four decades"..
posted by mumimor at 7:38 PM on January 29 [20 favorites]
The choice between Trump and Biden is much like the choice between eating a Taco Bell burrito stuffed with those gross-tasting Harry Potter jelly beans, arsenic and glass, versus a hot dog you picked up off the ground. In fact, it's as if I can hear Joe Biden chortling even now, "Ha ha, yeah, buddy, that's me! I'm that hot dog! What are you gonna do, turn up your nose at a perfectly good shitty hot dog?" But the answer, for a lot of people, will be to go to bed hungry.
Who knows why assholes love Trump? The problem for Biden is that no one loves him.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:38 PM on January 29
Who knows why assholes love Trump? The problem for Biden is that no one loves him.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:38 PM on January 29
I'd say to beat Trump you need to make the radical change to the "whoever gets more votes, wins" system, TBH.
posted by signal at 7:39 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
posted by signal at 7:39 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
Speaking for some I'm familiar with, several immigrants I know expressed support for Trump as they felt he was less likely to interfere in their home regions with disastrous outcomes; they fully recognized that he was unfit to serve, but they felt that the risk was too great that hawkish Hilary would embark on a catastrophic military misadventure that would leave their home country a smoldering wreck for the foreseeable future. They were also generally disaffected and I don't think they ended up voting.
I've noticed this same sentiment after living in other countries for the last few years. Weirdly, alot more of the foreigners than I expected were into Trump, or at least didn't hate him. And really, he did focus all his shittiness inwards. The rest of the world got to laugh at America and also have no drama caused by America for a little. He's disinterest in foreign policy was a plus for alot of the people I talked to (thank goodness they can't vote!)
posted by LizBoBiz at 8:01 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
I've noticed this same sentiment after living in other countries for the last few years. Weirdly, alot more of the foreigners than I expected were into Trump, or at least didn't hate him. And really, he did focus all his shittiness inwards. The rest of the world got to laugh at America and also have no drama caused by America for a little. He's disinterest in foreign policy was a plus for alot of the people I talked to (thank goodness they can't vote!)
posted by LizBoBiz at 8:01 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]
So… if you assume “the left” has betrayed you by not voting hard enough for your candidate, what are you going to do?
Well, I'm going to go with "point out repeatedly that that makes 2000, 2016 and 2024 where 'the left', people who claim with great earnestness that their primary goal in life is to help make things better for ordinary people, have in fact fucked over ordinary people by getting Republicans elected, and therefore shown that their stated goals are lies and they're much more concerned with preening about their purity than actually making things better for ordinary people." And then I'm going to appeal to moderates sick of fascist clowns, because the moderates will show up and 'the left' won't. But please have a nice day.
Go ahead and consider Biden the hot dog or whatever, but if you're making it easier for Trump to slither back into power, you're part of the problem.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:13 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]
Well, I'm going to go with "point out repeatedly that that makes 2000, 2016 and 2024 where 'the left', people who claim with great earnestness that their primary goal in life is to help make things better for ordinary people, have in fact fucked over ordinary people by getting Republicans elected, and therefore shown that their stated goals are lies and they're much more concerned with preening about their purity than actually making things better for ordinary people." And then I'm going to appeal to moderates sick of fascist clowns, because the moderates will show up and 'the left' won't. But please have a nice day.
Go ahead and consider Biden the hot dog or whatever, but if you're making it easier for Trump to slither back into power, you're part of the problem.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:13 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]
I'm pretty sure the problem with unpopular candidates is their unpopularity. Maybe they should try to be better candidates.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:16 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:16 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]
Gonna be a long year.
posted by ducky l'orange at 8:24 PM on January 29 [25 favorites]
posted by ducky l'orange at 8:24 PM on January 29 [25 favorites]
I've thought for a long time that there's a fundamental difference in how people think of and perceive "strength".
Almost every Trump voter will eventually start talking about how strong he is, in the strong leader sense not weight lifting sense. Which always baffled me because to me, and I suspect to most people here, Trump came across as pathetically needy, cowardly, bullying, and weak.
I'm not going to say I would particularly have chosen the adjective "strong" for Obama, but if you asked me which was the stronger leader I'd instantly say Obama. Because I, like I suspect most of you here, see a calm, confident, person who doesn't need and demand praise to be "strong".
The traits Republicans identify with strength, we identify with insecurity, weakness, cowardice, and fear. Trump is a braggart. He relentlessly bullies anyone he perceives as weaker and toadies to anyone he perceives as stronger. He demands constant praise. He is always talking about how great he is. To the average Republican voter all of those are signs of a man who is strong and won't take shit off anyone.
Shortly after Osama bin Ladin was killed a right wing acquaintance of mine provided the second of the two epiphanies I experienced as a result of our relationship. He was complaining that Obama was making America look weak, that "the Muslims" would know it was safe to attack us, that he was destroying America's respect. Why? Because he hadn't had a big strutting crowing ticker tape parade celebrating his administration's successful effort to kill Osama.
He literally, I am not summarizing or exaggerating, told me that in his ideal world Obama would have put Osama's head on a pike outside the White House and had a big televised event where Obama fed his body to pigs. He conceded that was impractical and that even the late, great, Ronald Reagan probably wouldn't have done it, but in his opinion that was how America needed to show it was strong and keep/gain the respect of the world and especially "the Muslims" who, he told me, only respect strength. But at the very least, Obama needed a massive parade and celebration to let the world know who killed Osama.
Donald Trump would have agreed with every bit of that, except perhaps the dismemberment and feeding to pigs part given his well known squeamishness and disgust with blood. If Trump had been President when Osama was killed he absolutely would have had a massive party and big TV event where he demanded we all celebrate is awesomeness for killing an enemy.
One of the things Trump has said which I believe was a 100% honest representation of how he sees the world was when he was touring Mt Vernon and said that George Washington was stupid for not naming it after himself because that's the only way people will know what you did.
Remember when he rode the golf cart while all the other European leaders walked the block or so to the next big photo op place? Remember all the Trump memes that went out following that which were variations on "peasants walk, the king rides"? Remember how you probably thought he seemed like some self aggrandizing toddler, and probably was also trying to hide the fact that he wasn't physically capable of walking that far?
We see strength differently.
posted by sotonohito at 8:26 PM on January 29 [50 favorites]
Almost every Trump voter will eventually start talking about how strong he is, in the strong leader sense not weight lifting sense. Which always baffled me because to me, and I suspect to most people here, Trump came across as pathetically needy, cowardly, bullying, and weak.
I'm not going to say I would particularly have chosen the adjective "strong" for Obama, but if you asked me which was the stronger leader I'd instantly say Obama. Because I, like I suspect most of you here, see a calm, confident, person who doesn't need and demand praise to be "strong".
The traits Republicans identify with strength, we identify with insecurity, weakness, cowardice, and fear. Trump is a braggart. He relentlessly bullies anyone he perceives as weaker and toadies to anyone he perceives as stronger. He demands constant praise. He is always talking about how great he is. To the average Republican voter all of those are signs of a man who is strong and won't take shit off anyone.
Shortly after Osama bin Ladin was killed a right wing acquaintance of mine provided the second of the two epiphanies I experienced as a result of our relationship. He was complaining that Obama was making America look weak, that "the Muslims" would know it was safe to attack us, that he was destroying America's respect. Why? Because he hadn't had a big strutting crowing ticker tape parade celebrating his administration's successful effort to kill Osama.
He literally, I am not summarizing or exaggerating, told me that in his ideal world Obama would have put Osama's head on a pike outside the White House and had a big televised event where Obama fed his body to pigs. He conceded that was impractical and that even the late, great, Ronald Reagan probably wouldn't have done it, but in his opinion that was how America needed to show it was strong and keep/gain the respect of the world and especially "the Muslims" who, he told me, only respect strength. But at the very least, Obama needed a massive parade and celebration to let the world know who killed Osama.
Donald Trump would have agreed with every bit of that, except perhaps the dismemberment and feeding to pigs part given his well known squeamishness and disgust with blood. If Trump had been President when Osama was killed he absolutely would have had a massive party and big TV event where he demanded we all celebrate is awesomeness for killing an enemy.
One of the things Trump has said which I believe was a 100% honest representation of how he sees the world was when he was touring Mt Vernon and said that George Washington was stupid for not naming it after himself because that's the only way people will know what you did.
Remember when he rode the golf cart while all the other European leaders walked the block or so to the next big photo op place? Remember all the Trump memes that went out following that which were variations on "peasants walk, the king rides"? Remember how you probably thought he seemed like some self aggrandizing toddler, and probably was also trying to hide the fact that he wasn't physically capable of walking that far?
We see strength differently.
posted by sotonohito at 8:26 PM on January 29 [50 favorites]
The GOP voters have crossed over into full-on fascism mode.
Fascism needs a strongman, and the whole point of a strong man is to accept no substitutes.
Low-information voters think we're still in a "they're all the same" situation and are ready to keep flipping the switch back and forth between the two parties if they're not happy, without fully comprehending the gravity of the situation.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:29 PM on January 29 [11 favorites]
Fascism needs a strongman, and the whole point of a strong man is to accept no substitutes.
Low-information voters think we're still in a "they're all the same" situation and are ready to keep flipping the switch back and forth between the two parties if they're not happy, without fully comprehending the gravity of the situation.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:29 PM on January 29 [11 favorites]
> what are the other two fifths?!
High Fructose Corn Syrup and Soy Lecithin
posted by nickzoic at 9:09 PM on January 29 [11 favorites]
High Fructose Corn Syrup and Soy Lecithin
posted by nickzoic at 9:09 PM on January 29 [11 favorites]
The choice between Trump and Biden is much like the choice between eating a Taco Bell burrito stuffed with those gross-tasting Harry Potter jelly beans, arsenic and glass, versus a hot dog you picked up off the ground.
David Sedaris, "Undecided," October 2008:
David Sedaris, "Undecided," October 2008:
To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”posted by kirkaracha at 9:12 PM on January 29 [25 favorites]
To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.
I mean, really, what’s to be confused about?
> Well, I'm going to go with "point out repeatedly that that makes 2000, 2016 and 2024 where 'the left', people who claim with great earnestness that their primary goal in life is to help make things better for ordinary people, have in fact
“The left” ignores you. Turns out your powers of persuasion are pretty bad.
“The left” leaves, possibly plotting to not vote hard enough even more now.
You see:
Republicans
Your fellow liberals
the Democratic Party (inactive)
What do you do?
posted by Artw at 9:44 PM on January 29
“The left” ignores you. Turns out your powers of persuasion are pretty bad.
“The left” leaves, possibly plotting to not vote hard enough even more now.
You see:
Republicans
Your fellow liberals
the Democratic Party (inactive)
What do you do?
posted by Artw at 9:44 PM on January 29
Hillary Clinton got almost 3,000,000 votes more than Trump in 2016. Biden got over 7,000,000 votes than Trump in 2020.
Why not 50,000,000? Why not 100,000,000? Why is he even a candidate? Why is a bare majority sufficient for so many to believe that America's polity (all of it) isn't fundamentally fucked up?
posted by klanawa at 9:53 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]
Why not 50,000,000? Why not 100,000,000? Why is he even a candidate? Why is a bare majority sufficient for so many to believe that America's polity (all of it) isn't fundamentally fucked up?
posted by klanawa at 9:53 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]
I think mstokes650 pretty much nailed it, but I would add this: For a lot of people in this country, the nuke looks preferable because their lives have become so miserable. The complexity of living in this world just keeps increasing, the huge machinery of our corporations, governments and the very fact of their being billions of people on the planet are creating astounding levels of stress and danger, and at some point, (imo) people just throw up their hands and call for the nuke.
It's not that the game is rigged against them, it's that there is a gigantic ecosystem of interlocking rigged games dragging them down constantly. And when you get to that point, some folks will choose nihilism.
posted by chromecow at 10:04 PM on January 29 [21 favorites]
It's not that the game is rigged against them, it's that there is a gigantic ecosystem of interlocking rigged games dragging them down constantly. And when you get to that point, some folks will choose nihilism.
posted by chromecow at 10:04 PM on January 29 [21 favorites]
Not sure it matters as much why some folk vote for trump when so many of those who would vote against him are prohibited from doing so or have their votes go uncounted.
Voting is not a low-effort task for everyone. Some people have to take a day off work, and some of those can ill afford it.
The Democratic Party has known about voter suppression since at least 2004. I think the party was aware before then but there was a big stink about it that year, which the party mostly ignored at the time. Having been part of several efforts to encourage the Democratic Party to act on the issue, I've noticed a tendency to sweep it under the rug and concentrate instead on respectability politics and "unity". Maybe that's why they keep losing support: "unity" seems to translate into "my way or the highway" in DCCC-ese.
The "left" does not require unity nor depend on voting. Find your tribe and organize. Direct action gets the goods.
Vote as hard as you can afford to.
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 10:24 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
Voting is not a low-effort task for everyone. Some people have to take a day off work, and some of those can ill afford it.
The Democratic Party has known about voter suppression since at least 2004. I think the party was aware before then but there was a big stink about it that year, which the party mostly ignored at the time. Having been part of several efforts to encourage the Democratic Party to act on the issue, I've noticed a tendency to sweep it under the rug and concentrate instead on respectability politics and "unity". Maybe that's why they keep losing support: "unity" seems to translate into "my way or the highway" in DCCC-ese.
The "left" does not require unity nor depend on voting. Find your tribe and organize. Direct action gets the goods.
Vote as hard as you can afford to.
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 10:24 PM on January 29 [13 favorites]
I'm not going to say I would particularly have chosen the adjective "strong" for Obama, but if you asked me which was the stronger leader I'd instantly say Obama. Because I, like I suspect most of you here, see a calm, confident, person who doesn't need and demand praise to be "strong".On the contrary, Obama squandered much of his Presidency with futile attempts to court Republicans to support bipartisan legislation, when the Republicans' only priority was to see him fail. It was apparent to everyone that Republicans were the enemy, except, seemingly, to Obama.
That is what gets read as "weakness". When your starting point for negotiations is to give the other side half of what they want, because you think it means everyone can be winners.
With Trump, you don't get that. Instead of paeans to bipartisanship, you are given an enemy that needs to be defeated - no moral ambiguity. And people respect that. In fact I'm sure many Democrats are longing for a leader with that type of attitude.
posted by nikodym at 10:33 PM on January 29 [10 favorites]
Mod note: One from earlier removed. This is a thread for discussion about people who vote for Trump, not for flamebaiting and insulting fellow members, which is behavior that will lead to a permanent ban.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:13 AM on January 30 [3 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:13 AM on January 30 [3 favorites]
I hate this usage of the words "intrinsic" and "extrinsic"; I think they're much more useful used like this:
Extrinsically-motivated Trump voters want Trump to win so that their taxes will go down.
Intrinsically-motivated Trump voters want Trump to win because they enjoy owning libs for it's own sake.
posted by straight at 12:55 AM on January 30 [8 favorites]
Extrinsically-motivated Trump voters want Trump to win so that their taxes will go down.
Intrinsically-motivated Trump voters want Trump to win because they enjoy owning libs for it's own sake.
posted by straight at 12:55 AM on January 30 [8 favorites]
And when you get to that point, some folks will choose nihilism.
In the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, one pundit here said that the leavers saw their vote simply as a massive "Fuck You" to everyone in charge. He pictured it as a big red button with that message written on it.
MAGA Americans have got a button like that too, and it's name is Donald Trump.
posted by Paul Slade at 1:04 AM on January 30 [21 favorites]
In the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, one pundit here said that the leavers saw their vote simply as a massive "Fuck You" to everyone in charge. He pictured it as a big red button with that message written on it.
MAGA Americans have got a button like that too, and it's name is Donald Trump.
posted by Paul Slade at 1:04 AM on January 30 [21 favorites]
That is what gets read as "weakness". When your starting point for negotiations is to give the other side half of what they want, because you think it means everyone can be winners.
With Trump, you don't get that. Instead of paeans to bipartisanship, you are given an enemy that needs to be defeated - no moral ambiguity. And people respect that. In fact I'm sure many Democrats are longing for a leader with that type of attitude.
I think we might be, actually, because how do you give an opponent half of what they want when want they want is to ban abortion, or build a border wall, or defund (or criminalize) gender-affirming care? It's possible that while some -- maybe most -- of Trump's ardent supporters love him because he's a loud, stupid asshole, just like they are, I would posit that some love him because he won't compromise on issues they believe you can't be neutral on.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:07 AM on January 30 [4 favorites]
With Trump, you don't get that. Instead of paeans to bipartisanship, you are given an enemy that needs to be defeated - no moral ambiguity. And people respect that. In fact I'm sure many Democrats are longing for a leader with that type of attitude.
I think we might be, actually, because how do you give an opponent half of what they want when want they want is to ban abortion, or build a border wall, or defund (or criminalize) gender-affirming care? It's possible that while some -- maybe most -- of Trump's ardent supporters love him because he's a loud, stupid asshole, just like they are, I would posit that some love him because he won't compromise on issues they believe you can't be neutral on.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:07 AM on January 30 [4 favorites]
Trump voters are deplorable, but they are not in general the white working class. I thought that myth had been overturned ages ago. Some of them flew to the insurrection in a private jet, Goddamit. They are mostly not in economic distress. They are frustrated and scared because they believe a lot of lies, about the Democrats, about the entire US and about the rest of the world.
I saw half of a very long interview with a very nice former Trumpist who had served jail time for participating in the insurrection. She explained that she had truly believed that the Democrats were secretly trying to overturn democracy and install a godless, communist dictatorship. She wasn't deep into conspiracies, but she was ignorant of the world, and even of the cities in the US.
We can all agree that is stupid, and that godless communist dictatorship probably is some sort of code for equal rights. But she was not deprived, she was deplorable.
I really don't understand those who turn Trump voters into an argument for leftist political goals. It's true that some of them voted for Obama, but don't be confused by that. They didn't vote for policies, not even tax cuts in 2008 or in 2016. They voted for the narrative they could connect to emotionally in the moment. Voting for Obama was voting against the wars, and against the Bush and Clinton families. And it was about hope, too. They liked to imagine themselves as not bigots, they liked voting for a black person.
Now there is a cult, it is a bit different, and also Trump has told them loud and clear it is OK to be racist, it's going to take a long time to get that Jack back in the box. On the other hand, I think there are some Republicans who have been deliberately ignoring all the chaos and following the party line who will reach a breaking point during this year. Maybe they won't go as far as voting for Biden, but they could decide not to vote, which is probably freaking out the state legislators.
posted by mumimor at 3:23 AM on January 30 [18 favorites]
I saw half of a very long interview with a very nice former Trumpist who had served jail time for participating in the insurrection. She explained that she had truly believed that the Democrats were secretly trying to overturn democracy and install a godless, communist dictatorship. She wasn't deep into conspiracies, but she was ignorant of the world, and even of the cities in the US.
We can all agree that is stupid, and that godless communist dictatorship probably is some sort of code for equal rights. But she was not deprived, she was deplorable.
I really don't understand those who turn Trump voters into an argument for leftist political goals. It's true that some of them voted for Obama, but don't be confused by that. They didn't vote for policies, not even tax cuts in 2008 or in 2016. They voted for the narrative they could connect to emotionally in the moment. Voting for Obama was voting against the wars, and against the Bush and Clinton families. And it was about hope, too. They liked to imagine themselves as not bigots, they liked voting for a black person.
Now there is a cult, it is a bit different, and also Trump has told them loud and clear it is OK to be racist, it's going to take a long time to get that Jack back in the box. On the other hand, I think there are some Republicans who have been deliberately ignoring all the chaos and following the party line who will reach a breaking point during this year. Maybe they won't go as far as voting for Biden, but they could decide not to vote, which is probably freaking out the state legislators.
posted by mumimor at 3:23 AM on January 30 [18 favorites]
Count me among those who think mstokes650's comment above nails it. They think Trump a leopard that will tear up Washington, and starting over will have to be better than the status quo.
Here is a Politico piece with the perfect quote I think, "Our System Needs to Be Broken, and He Is the Man to Do It". It explains the supposed number of Obama voters who voted for Trump in 2016 (I'm sure they wont now though I hope they still vote!). Or how some can even claim they are fans of "Rage Against the Machine".
Being part of such a tribe tends to bring feedback loops that satisfy identity, and explanations for *anything* that is wrong in their lives, and in the world they see around them. Like mstokes650, I think it's crucial to figure out what is common among all of us, and build bridges. Our media environment (including social media) just reinforces these loops due to economic incentives as well.
But for most people, building a bridge with a group that is dehumanizing you is a non-starter, it is straight up life threatening.
I wish there were clearer paths thru this minefield other than what Rev. Irreverent Revenant suggested above: Find your tribe and organize. Direct action gets the goods. Vote as hard as you can afford to.
That this is so close is just insane. The timeline broke a few years back. Maybe Bush vs Gore. Maybe earlier. Maybe smartphones enabled the feedback loops, that were already in place, to get reinforced and fueled. But resist nihilism or despair - for sure that will make matters worst.
posted by kmartino at 4:18 AM on January 30 [3 favorites]
Here is a Politico piece with the perfect quote I think, "Our System Needs to Be Broken, and He Is the Man to Do It". It explains the supposed number of Obama voters who voted for Trump in 2016 (I'm sure they wont now though I hope they still vote!). Or how some can even claim they are fans of "Rage Against the Machine".
Being part of such a tribe tends to bring feedback loops that satisfy identity, and explanations for *anything* that is wrong in their lives, and in the world they see around them. Like mstokes650, I think it's crucial to figure out what is common among all of us, and build bridges. Our media environment (including social media) just reinforces these loops due to economic incentives as well.
But for most people, building a bridge with a group that is dehumanizing you is a non-starter, it is straight up life threatening.
I wish there were clearer paths thru this minefield other than what Rev. Irreverent Revenant suggested above: Find your tribe and organize. Direct action gets the goods. Vote as hard as you can afford to.
That this is so close is just insane. The timeline broke a few years back. Maybe Bush vs Gore. Maybe earlier. Maybe smartphones enabled the feedback loops, that were already in place, to get reinforced and fueled. But resist nihilism or despair - for sure that will make matters worst.
posted by kmartino at 4:18 AM on January 30 [3 favorites]
I might suggest, gently, that leftists often feel that there is no winning when it comes to dealing with liberals because nothing, short of abandoning leftism entirely, will ever be good enough.
When someone says they'll vote Biden I would suggest that the proper response is "thank you", not demands for more.
From my POV it appears that liberals are constantly demanding more. Give an inch and they demand a mile. I say I'll vote for Biden and the liberals then start demanding I do it with a smile. Learn how to take a win gracefully. I understand that you think he's super cool and want us to join the fan club and gush with you about how awesome he is. I understand that you're confused, probably even hurt, when we tell you that we hate ourselves for voting for him, and that we despise him and only vote for any Democrat because the alternative is worse. If you can't understand our reasons then just accept that we feel the way we do, that we are never, ever, going to like your candidate, and be grateful that we are willing to vote for him despite our objections to him.
To us it often seems that the instant we concede defeat liberals instantly start kicking us when we're down and glorying in our submission. It probably doesn't seem that way to you, if for no other reason than you don't see voting for Democrats as defeat. But to us it looks like we admit defeat and you want to grind our faces in our humiliation and make us feel bad for admitting we lost.
Listen, I'm not just being some sort of contrarian weirdo here. I genuinely, honestly, for real, feel sick when I vote for Democrats. I feel like I'm betraying my principles. I feel like I'm being forced to admit that, yet again, liberals have won and I've lost. You don't understand that, again I get it. You think Biden and the Democrats are super cool and awesome. Have a bit of empathy and take your win gracefully.
posted by sotonohito at 4:43 AM on January 30 [31 favorites]
When someone says they'll vote Biden I would suggest that the proper response is "thank you", not demands for more.
From my POV it appears that liberals are constantly demanding more. Give an inch and they demand a mile. I say I'll vote for Biden and the liberals then start demanding I do it with a smile. Learn how to take a win gracefully. I understand that you think he's super cool and want us to join the fan club and gush with you about how awesome he is. I understand that you're confused, probably even hurt, when we tell you that we hate ourselves for voting for him, and that we despise him and only vote for any Democrat because the alternative is worse. If you can't understand our reasons then just accept that we feel the way we do, that we are never, ever, going to like your candidate, and be grateful that we are willing to vote for him despite our objections to him.
To us it often seems that the instant we concede defeat liberals instantly start kicking us when we're down and glorying in our submission. It probably doesn't seem that way to you, if for no other reason than you don't see voting for Democrats as defeat. But to us it looks like we admit defeat and you want to grind our faces in our humiliation and make us feel bad for admitting we lost.
Listen, I'm not just being some sort of contrarian weirdo here. I genuinely, honestly, for real, feel sick when I vote for Democrats. I feel like I'm betraying my principles. I feel like I'm being forced to admit that, yet again, liberals have won and I've lost. You don't understand that, again I get it. You think Biden and the Democrats are super cool and awesome. Have a bit of empathy and take your win gracefully.
posted by sotonohito at 4:43 AM on January 30 [31 favorites]
only vote for any Democrat because the alternative is worse
There are times when we all have to hold our nose and vote for what we see as the lesser of two evils. That's still worth doing because at least we'll help to keep the greater evil out of power. Thank you for understanding the grave danger Trump represents and the role your vote could play in staving it off.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:00 AM on January 30 [7 favorites]
There are times when we all have to hold our nose and vote for what we see as the lesser of two evils. That's still worth doing because at least we'll help to keep the greater evil out of power. Thank you for understanding the grave danger Trump represents and the role your vote could play in staving it off.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:00 AM on January 30 [7 favorites]
I understand that you think [Biden]'s super cool and want us to join the fan club and gush with you about how awesome he is.
No, we don't, and no, we don't. We think Biden is "maybe 80% of the way to the best we can do, in a system that counts votes in such a way to enforce a two-party system, in a country that's thoroughly propagandized". We'll freely criticize him, Obama, Hillary, any other big-name Democrat, for being too willing to cater to the donor class, or the Israel lobby, or any number of other things. We just recognize that making a big fuss about the imperfections drives down turnout and makes it easier for the fascists to win—because the fascists ALWAYS turn out.
You want to say "Not a fan, but I recognize that it's my duty to my fellow citizens to vote for the least worst alternative?" That's cool, thanks for being a grownup about it, Sotonohito, we appreciate it. But making a huge deal about it does depress turnout: yeah, you might show up, but someone with less fortitude might not.
You want to change the voting system, to ranked choice, so you can vote "my principles, but yeah, when they only get 4%, I want my vote to count for Biden instead", I'm in your corner and so are most other Democrats. It's more small-d democratic anyway, and it solves a big problem for both of us: you can vote your principles without essentially making your vote count as half a vote for fascism.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 5:11 AM on January 30 [14 favorites]
No, we don't, and no, we don't. We think Biden is "maybe 80% of the way to the best we can do, in a system that counts votes in such a way to enforce a two-party system, in a country that's thoroughly propagandized". We'll freely criticize him, Obama, Hillary, any other big-name Democrat, for being too willing to cater to the donor class, or the Israel lobby, or any number of other things. We just recognize that making a big fuss about the imperfections drives down turnout and makes it easier for the fascists to win—because the fascists ALWAYS turn out.
You want to say "Not a fan, but I recognize that it's my duty to my fellow citizens to vote for the least worst alternative?" That's cool, thanks for being a grownup about it, Sotonohito, we appreciate it. But making a huge deal about it does depress turnout: yeah, you might show up, but someone with less fortitude might not.
You want to change the voting system, to ranked choice, so you can vote "my principles, but yeah, when they only get 4%, I want my vote to count for Biden instead", I'm in your corner and so are most other Democrats. It's more small-d democratic anyway, and it solves a big problem for both of us: you can vote your principles without essentially making your vote count as half a vote for fascism.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 5:11 AM on January 30 [14 favorites]
Extrinsic values are very compelling in a basically extraverted culture.
posted by DJZouke at 5:13 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]
posted by DJZouke at 5:13 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]
"Profound moral squalor" is also a plus for him.
posted by DJZouke at 5:15 AM on January 30 [2 favorites]
posted by DJZouke at 5:15 AM on January 30 [2 favorites]
Two things:
Firstly, I think perhaps liberals misunderstand the depth of disagreement leftists have with them.
The problem isn't that I think Biden is only 80% of what I want and I'm stamping my feet and being grumpy because I'm not getting 100% of what I want.
Biden is 0% of what I want.
To make an analogy, what I want is to listen to some Bach. But Bach isn't an option. I have a choice between listening to George Strait at 100 decibels, or listening to George Strait at 70 decibels. I'll TAKE the quieter country music, it's less bad than the louder country music. But the issue isn't that I'm only getting part of what I want and I'm grumpy because it's not more of what I want. The issue is that I'm getting nothing I want and my only options are how loud the music I despise is going to be played.
There is NOTHING about liberalism or the Democrats that appeals to me. The only question is how bad they are in comparison to the other option: the Republicans. And Republicans are definitely worse. From my POV there is no question at all that not only Trump is worse, but that any Republican at all is worse. At the risk of repeating myself: take that win and be content because that's the strongest endorsement of a Democrat you're ever going to get out of me.
But that's not the same as Biden being good, and I get that Democrats are outraged that I see it that way. This is also the cause of leftists saying that their vote must be earned. I disagree with that, sort of, in that the alternative to Democrats is worse than Democrats.
But I hope you can see where that position is coming from? It isn't petulance that we're not getting enough, it's that we're not getting anything we want at all and it would be nice to get at least the tiniest, smallest, bit of actual positive instead of just not getting quite as much negative. Like, just five minutes of Bach would be better than country 24/7, and while lowering the volume on the country is better than nothing to us, it's still not what we actually want.
At this point the American left is so desperate I'm pretty sure you could buy their votes with just a small concession. But that means something truly different from what liberals want, not just liberals doing liberalism at different intensity levels.
The second point, regarding Biden cheerleading, is twofold.
Less importantly, do you imagine I'm out there shit talking Biden to the very few "moderate" wishy washy pseudo-fascists I know? People who are all "gee, Trump and Biden both have good points, if only I could decide between the two of them?"
I don't know anyone like that. I'm not sure such people exist outside the NYT's fantasy land.
The people here on MeFi are so much more politically aware than the general population I kind of figure I don't have to try to do the gentle bullshitting routine and can be honest instead of lying for votes.
On the rare occasions I'm in a position to talk politics to a normie, I focus on how awful Trump is, because duh. I'm not stupid.
But most of the people I talk to, and my comments are directed at, are leftists who are wavering on whether to vote at all. And they are NOT going to be swayed by Biden cheerleading. The only thing that's going to get a leftist to vote Biden is a frank admission of his suckitude and urging them to vote anyway because Trump is worse.
The hardest part about convincing any leftist to vote Biden is convincing them to even listen to you instead of writing you off as just another liberal or liberal stooge. Any defense of Biden is going to get you ignored.
I cannot overstate how intensely the left opposees liberalism, what it does, and what it stands for. You will never, and I mean never, convince a leftist to vote liberal by talking up liberalism and liberal candidates.
posted by sotonohito at 7:07 AM on January 30 [35 favorites]
Firstly, I think perhaps liberals misunderstand the depth of disagreement leftists have with them.
The problem isn't that I think Biden is only 80% of what I want and I'm stamping my feet and being grumpy because I'm not getting 100% of what I want.
Biden is 0% of what I want.
To make an analogy, what I want is to listen to some Bach. But Bach isn't an option. I have a choice between listening to George Strait at 100 decibels, or listening to George Strait at 70 decibels. I'll TAKE the quieter country music, it's less bad than the louder country music. But the issue isn't that I'm only getting part of what I want and I'm grumpy because it's not more of what I want. The issue is that I'm getting nothing I want and my only options are how loud the music I despise is going to be played.
There is NOTHING about liberalism or the Democrats that appeals to me. The only question is how bad they are in comparison to the other option: the Republicans. And Republicans are definitely worse. From my POV there is no question at all that not only Trump is worse, but that any Republican at all is worse. At the risk of repeating myself: take that win and be content because that's the strongest endorsement of a Democrat you're ever going to get out of me.
But that's not the same as Biden being good, and I get that Democrats are outraged that I see it that way. This is also the cause of leftists saying that their vote must be earned. I disagree with that, sort of, in that the alternative to Democrats is worse than Democrats.
But I hope you can see where that position is coming from? It isn't petulance that we're not getting enough, it's that we're not getting anything we want at all and it would be nice to get at least the tiniest, smallest, bit of actual positive instead of just not getting quite as much negative. Like, just five minutes of Bach would be better than country 24/7, and while lowering the volume on the country is better than nothing to us, it's still not what we actually want.
At this point the American left is so desperate I'm pretty sure you could buy their votes with just a small concession. But that means something truly different from what liberals want, not just liberals doing liberalism at different intensity levels.
The second point, regarding Biden cheerleading, is twofold.
Less importantly, do you imagine I'm out there shit talking Biden to the very few "moderate" wishy washy pseudo-fascists I know? People who are all "gee, Trump and Biden both have good points, if only I could decide between the two of them?"
I don't know anyone like that. I'm not sure such people exist outside the NYT's fantasy land.
The people here on MeFi are so much more politically aware than the general population I kind of figure I don't have to try to do the gentle bullshitting routine and can be honest instead of lying for votes.
On the rare occasions I'm in a position to talk politics to a normie, I focus on how awful Trump is, because duh. I'm not stupid.
But most of the people I talk to, and my comments are directed at, are leftists who are wavering on whether to vote at all. And they are NOT going to be swayed by Biden cheerleading. The only thing that's going to get a leftist to vote Biden is a frank admission of his suckitude and urging them to vote anyway because Trump is worse.
The hardest part about convincing any leftist to vote Biden is convincing them to even listen to you instead of writing you off as just another liberal or liberal stooge. Any defense of Biden is going to get you ignored.
I cannot overstate how intensely the left opposees liberalism, what it does, and what it stands for. You will never, and I mean never, convince a leftist to vote liberal by talking up liberalism and liberal candidates.
posted by sotonohito at 7:07 AM on January 30 [35 favorites]
> I feel like I'm being forced to admit that, yet again, liberals have won and I've lost.
back to the OP, Trump's base had been getting a mirror dynamic of this '88 - '12 (Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush. Bush, McCain, Romney) which explains how giddy they are in supporting Trump now.
Going by Political Compass terms, left libertarians like me are maybe 5% of the population.
FDRs getting into power are once in a century phenomenons, and even so his administration had to coalition with the racist white conservative power bloc so wasn't all that hot on racial reform efforts.
I see politics more as the IQ quintiles battling it out*, so I always vote the least dumb choice, to do my part to balance out our friends on the other half of the IQ curve.
*cross-product with the income quintiles
posted by torokunai at 7:14 AM on January 30
back to the OP, Trump's base had been getting a mirror dynamic of this '88 - '12 (Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush. Bush, McCain, Romney) which explains how giddy they are in supporting Trump now.
Going by Political Compass terms, left libertarians like me are maybe 5% of the population.
FDRs getting into power are once in a century phenomenons, and even so his administration had to coalition with the racist white conservative power bloc so wasn't all that hot on racial reform efforts.
I see politics more as the IQ quintiles battling it out*, so I always vote the least dumb choice, to do my part to balance out our friends on the other half of the IQ curve.
*cross-product with the income quintiles
posted by torokunai at 7:14 AM on January 30
Yup. In a generalized sort of way I can get why they're so attached to Trump. We saw something similar, if much less cultlike, with some (though not all) leftists and Bernie Sanders.
Frankly, Sanders isn't a great candidate, but it was so wonderful to hear someone talking leftism even a little that a lot of leftists went all in on Bernie.
As for Trumpers, I think its that plus a combination of someone being more openly racist. All the other Republican Presidents and candidates were racist, of course, but they tended to rely on dogwhistles and while Trump never QUITE endorsed the Klan or anything that overt, e was much more open in his white supremacy than any Repubican in the last 50 years has been. They're yearning for the good ole' days when candidates could run on pro-segregation platforms and get up on stage to shout racial slurs.
chronkite I don't think you're going to get many votes with that approach.
posted by sotonohito at 7:27 AM on January 30 [7 favorites]
Frankly, Sanders isn't a great candidate, but it was so wonderful to hear someone talking leftism even a little that a lot of leftists went all in on Bernie.
As for Trumpers, I think its that plus a combination of someone being more openly racist. All the other Republican Presidents and candidates were racist, of course, but they tended to rely on dogwhistles and while Trump never QUITE endorsed the Klan or anything that overt, e was much more open in his white supremacy than any Repubican in the last 50 years has been. They're yearning for the good ole' days when candidates could run on pro-segregation platforms and get up on stage to shout racial slurs.
chronkite I don't think you're going to get many votes with that approach.
posted by sotonohito at 7:27 AM on January 30 [7 favorites]
Canada is just a couple of steps behind in this trajectory and I can assure you we're working hard to catch up
yes, in the long term a more fair electoral system is part of the answer. Federally the neoliberal (Liberal) party promised electoral reform and conveniently shelved it as soon as they'd won.. that absence of courage and integrity will haunt the party, and the country, to our end I believe. in the short term some strategic voting by riding means you will still cast a ballot for those shitheels, lest you contribute to the worse option winning a riding. The Conservative Party of Canada is like a mask-off, let's take the shittiest parts of the Liberal Party and run with it. It helps to have a somewhat viable 3rd party (National Democratic Party) but vote-splitting is a real thing.
I'm nearly certain I'd vote Biden if I lived south of the border, but I can see how many people see a Trump vote as a nihilistic Fuck All You All gesture. Some percentage of people are there, they don't have any love for a party or an individual they just want to see things burn down faster. We are really screwed in N. America, because the momentum of capital and wealth extraction has only increased over generations and I submit that efforts like our Truth and Reconciliation Commission are too late, but still important to try and arrest things long enough to know what is wrong and try to correct the course. I guess: don't let hope die, like kmartino said
posted by elkevelvet at 7:28 AM on January 30 [6 favorites]
yes, in the long term a more fair electoral system is part of the answer. Federally the neoliberal (Liberal) party promised electoral reform and conveniently shelved it as soon as they'd won.. that absence of courage and integrity will haunt the party, and the country, to our end I believe. in the short term some strategic voting by riding means you will still cast a ballot for those shitheels, lest you contribute to the worse option winning a riding. The Conservative Party of Canada is like a mask-off, let's take the shittiest parts of the Liberal Party and run with it. It helps to have a somewhat viable 3rd party (National Democratic Party) but vote-splitting is a real thing.
I'm nearly certain I'd vote Biden if I lived south of the border, but I can see how many people see a Trump vote as a nihilistic Fuck All You All gesture. Some percentage of people are there, they don't have any love for a party or an individual they just want to see things burn down faster. We are really screwed in N. America, because the momentum of capital and wealth extraction has only increased over generations and I submit that efforts like our Truth and Reconciliation Commission are too late, but still important to try and arrest things long enough to know what is wrong and try to correct the course. I guess: don't let hope die, like kmartino said
posted by elkevelvet at 7:28 AM on January 30 [6 favorites]
Mod note: Several comments removed. Please avoid interrogating other community members or attacking them, thank you.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:46 AM on January 30 [3 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:46 AM on January 30 [3 favorites]
edit window is closed, but that should read New Democratic Party above (NDP). their presence has helped steer some policy toward improved public health and they've generally been a plus in Canada's Parliament. the absence of even a 3rd party in the US is exacerbating things, from what I can tell
posted by elkevelvet at 7:51 AM on January 30 [4 favorites]
posted by elkevelvet at 7:51 AM on January 30 [4 favorites]
> "There are times when we all have to hold our nose and vote for what we see as the lesser of two evils. That's still worth doing because at least we'll help to keep the greater evil out of power. "
Almost literally the words my mom used to explain why she voted for Trump to keep the progressive democrats from turning the country into a communist dictatorship like the one we escaped in the 80s.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:52 AM on January 30 [5 favorites]
Almost literally the words my mom used to explain why she voted for Trump to keep the progressive democrats from turning the country into a communist dictatorship like the one we escaped in the 80s.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:52 AM on January 30 [5 favorites]
At this point the American left is so desperate I'm pretty sure you could buy their votes with just a small concession.
When you say this, what would a small concession be?
I'm not a big Biden fan or anything, but he's the most pro-union president in American history and, in terms of policy initiatives, easily the most progressive in my middle aged lifetime.
posted by mark k at 7:53 AM on January 30 [8 favorites]
When you say this, what would a small concession be?
I'm not a big Biden fan or anything, but he's the most pro-union president in American history and, in terms of policy initiatives, easily the most progressive in my middle aged lifetime.
posted by mark k at 7:53 AM on January 30 [8 favorites]
I’m gonna be laughing at the ‘zero percent of what I want’ line all day.
Thank you.
Comedy gold.
posted by chronkite at 7:57 AM on January 30 [4 favorites]
Thank you.
Comedy gold.
posted by chronkite at 7:57 AM on January 30 [4 favorites]
I'd like to ask it as a general hypothetical, not interrogating a particular person.
What would be a rhetorical or policy choice that a) would satisfy a leftist that they were being recognized, acknowledged, however you want to frame it, such that at least in public they'd not make choices that might depress turnout in the runup to the election, b) would not drive away net votes because the sort of small-c conservative suburban voters that we have to have because of the stupid electoral college will recoil?
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:02 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]
What would be a rhetorical or policy choice that a) would satisfy a leftist that they were being recognized, acknowledged, however you want to frame it, such that at least in public they'd not make choices that might depress turnout in the runup to the election, b) would not drive away net votes because the sort of small-c conservative suburban voters that we have to have because of the stupid electoral college will recoil?
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:02 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]
2024-28 is turning into a literal "Good Cop" / "Bad Cop" situation for us, sigh.
posted by torokunai at 8:08 AM on January 30
posted by torokunai at 8:08 AM on January 30
But the issue isn't that I'm only getting part of what I want and I'm grumpy because it's not more of what I want. The issue is that I'm getting nothing I want
That's what so hard for me and maybe others to understand when Democrats represent for me the barest ability to cling to our civil rights. Like...nothing you want? It's so...absolute. Language is a paltry thing that divides though, I know.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:19 AM on January 30 [10 favorites]
That's what so hard for me and maybe others to understand when Democrats represent for me the barest ability to cling to our civil rights. Like...nothing you want? It's so...absolute. Language is a paltry thing that divides though, I know.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:19 AM on January 30 [10 favorites]
The idea that random leftists on a dying website are to be held personally responsible for depressing voters is laughable, especially considering we're still ten months out and Pelosi is calling for Biden to sic the FBI on protests against genocide because of Russian influence. That's straight-out fascist nonsense that is a million times more likely to split the party than me dunking on Biden here.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 8:35 AM on January 30 [31 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 8:35 AM on January 30 [31 favorites]
outgrown_hobnail
I dispute the framing both that leftists in general are depressing the vote, or that leftism is such a vile and repulsive concept that the sacred cis het white suburban/exurban Christian man will recoil in horror and vote Trump at the slightest hint of leftism.
I'm not sure to be honest. The entire problem is due to a fundamental conflict in how liberals and leftists think systems should work and be set up. It's hard to compromise on stuff that fundamental.
Maybe a small gesture would be some significant funding for assisting people trying to start up worker owned businesses, government preference for worker owned businesses, etc? That's pretty small potatoes and could be spun as "helping small business" to appease the all important white supremacist voters.
But most importantly, I don't think you're correct in your belief that leftists are scaring away the normies if they are critical of Biden. You yourself just argued that they hate leftists and leftism, so shouldn't icky leftists sayin they don't like Biden be a positive and help push them to vote for him?
tiny frying pan
Nothing I want in the positive sense of getting something good. Quieter country music is better than louder, so in that very limited sense of the concept I "want" quieter country music. But that's just negative, not being hurt quite so much, "want". Not positive getting stuff I think is actively positively good type want.
I absolutely agree that civil rights are important and the Democrats are better on that front than the Republicans. There are some similarities between leftism and liberalism in that there are some similarities between country music and Bach. Bach and country are both music. Liberalism and leftism are both non-fascist or anti-fascist political systems.
I may have overstated it when I say nothing, I don't know. But what I want is fundamentally, quintessentially, different from what liberals want.
I want the hierarchy torn down. Liberals want the hierarchy reformed and to be nicer.
In that reform efforts very rarely achieve results and having a more cruel hierarchy is worse than having a marginally less cruel hierarchy you could say I "want" reform. But that's only "I want you to kick the shit out of me less intensely" stuff.
The SOLUTION to racism is not to reform white supremacy, it is to eradicate white supremacy on an instiutional level. That's going to take radical changes to everything from policing to the courts to laws to workplace regulations and probably more. It can't be done by tinkering with mandatory minimums.
Same for healthcare. The problem isn't fixed by giving everyone "access" to healthcare via "insurance' that's cripplingly expensive, doesn't cover anything, and we routinely have personal bankruptcy due to medical expenses. The solution is to throw out the entire healthcare denial industry and implement universal zero cost healthcare. Get sick, go to the doctor, get treated, no bills, the end. Vision and dental included.
Etc. Liberals want a better health insurance system that's still essentially capitalist not a fully socialized medical system. Liberals want to be "non-racist" and fail to realize that's impossible and the only options are anti, and pro.
To a leftist a liberal looks like a Republican with the volume turned down. Not as bad, but still the same old crap. To a liberal I suppose a leftist must look like a wild eyed bomb throwing not-the-fun-kind-of-anarchist anarchist.
posted by sotonohito at 8:51 AM on January 30 [17 favorites]
I dispute the framing both that leftists in general are depressing the vote, or that leftism is such a vile and repulsive concept that the sacred cis het white suburban/exurban Christian man will recoil in horror and vote Trump at the slightest hint of leftism.
I'm not sure to be honest. The entire problem is due to a fundamental conflict in how liberals and leftists think systems should work and be set up. It's hard to compromise on stuff that fundamental.
Maybe a small gesture would be some significant funding for assisting people trying to start up worker owned businesses, government preference for worker owned businesses, etc? That's pretty small potatoes and could be spun as "helping small business" to appease the all important white supremacist voters.
But most importantly, I don't think you're correct in your belief that leftists are scaring away the normies if they are critical of Biden. You yourself just argued that they hate leftists and leftism, so shouldn't icky leftists sayin they don't like Biden be a positive and help push them to vote for him?
tiny frying pan
Nothing I want in the positive sense of getting something good. Quieter country music is better than louder, so in that very limited sense of the concept I "want" quieter country music. But that's just negative, not being hurt quite so much, "want". Not positive getting stuff I think is actively positively good type want.
I absolutely agree that civil rights are important and the Democrats are better on that front than the Republicans. There are some similarities between leftism and liberalism in that there are some similarities between country music and Bach. Bach and country are both music. Liberalism and leftism are both non-fascist or anti-fascist political systems.
I may have overstated it when I say nothing, I don't know. But what I want is fundamentally, quintessentially, different from what liberals want.
I want the hierarchy torn down. Liberals want the hierarchy reformed and to be nicer.
In that reform efforts very rarely achieve results and having a more cruel hierarchy is worse than having a marginally less cruel hierarchy you could say I "want" reform. But that's only "I want you to kick the shit out of me less intensely" stuff.
The SOLUTION to racism is not to reform white supremacy, it is to eradicate white supremacy on an instiutional level. That's going to take radical changes to everything from policing to the courts to laws to workplace regulations and probably more. It can't be done by tinkering with mandatory minimums.
Same for healthcare. The problem isn't fixed by giving everyone "access" to healthcare via "insurance' that's cripplingly expensive, doesn't cover anything, and we routinely have personal bankruptcy due to medical expenses. The solution is to throw out the entire healthcare denial industry and implement universal zero cost healthcare. Get sick, go to the doctor, get treated, no bills, the end. Vision and dental included.
Etc. Liberals want a better health insurance system that's still essentially capitalist not a fully socialized medical system. Liberals want to be "non-racist" and fail to realize that's impossible and the only options are anti, and pro.
To a leftist a liberal looks like a Republican with the volume turned down. Not as bad, but still the same old crap. To a liberal I suppose a leftist must look like a wild eyed bomb throwing not-the-fun-kind-of-anarchist anarchist.
posted by sotonohito at 8:51 AM on January 30 [17 favorites]
I gotta say that I don't understand leftists refusing to vote for Biden. I believe the distinction between a leftist and a liberal is that liberals believe that we can go towards a more just, 'perfect' system using our current political system, whereas leftists believe we need to fundamentally restructure society and our political system to move forward.
I would think leftists are working hard outside of the political system to achieve those ends, can't they also show up and vote for the non-fascist so that the world doesn't go to all hell while they're out fomenting change through other means? Or is part of the belief system that things have to get much worse before they get better?
posted by sid at 8:55 AM on January 30 [8 favorites]
I would think leftists are working hard outside of the political system to achieve those ends, can't they also show up and vote for the non-fascist so that the world doesn't go to all hell while they're out fomenting change through other means? Or is part of the belief system that things have to get much worse before they get better?
posted by sid at 8:55 AM on January 30 [8 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Let's avoid speculating or turning the conversation about a member's identity within a conversation. For more info please check our Content Policy.
posted by loup (staff) at 8:56 AM on January 30
posted by loup (staff) at 8:56 AM on January 30
It is so interesting that when faced with our present situation, we blame voters instead of the party.
Who is to blame that in 2024 we will choose between genocide and border abuse but some labor rights and genocide plus border abuse plus god knows what violence against trans people?
We take it as read that nothing we can do will affect the priorities of the Democratic party - even "voting harder" isn't enough to keep them from affirmatively funding a genocide in the view of all the world and against the recommendations of the Hague. We just have to keep voting and take what they dish out, and if our stomachs rebel at voting for genocide, too bad for us.
It's a political choice to make people choose between Genocide and Genocide Plus, it's a disgusting choice and however people vote, the result is on the party.
Honestly, I have no idea how I'll vote. "Vote for Trump, he's wooooooorrse", sure, but then there's that photo of the man carrying the remains of his baby in two wet plastic sacks. "Vote for Biden or Trump will genocide even harder and also put trans people in camps" is the message I'm hearing and the people promulgating it should take a hard look at themselves.
posted by Frowner at 8:58 AM on January 30 [16 favorites]
Who is to blame that in 2024 we will choose between genocide and border abuse but some labor rights and genocide plus border abuse plus god knows what violence against trans people?
We take it as read that nothing we can do will affect the priorities of the Democratic party - even "voting harder" isn't enough to keep them from affirmatively funding a genocide in the view of all the world and against the recommendations of the Hague. We just have to keep voting and take what they dish out, and if our stomachs rebel at voting for genocide, too bad for us.
It's a political choice to make people choose between Genocide and Genocide Plus, it's a disgusting choice and however people vote, the result is on the party.
Honestly, I have no idea how I'll vote. "Vote for Trump, he's wooooooorrse", sure, but then there's that photo of the man carrying the remains of his baby in two wet plastic sacks. "Vote for Biden or Trump will genocide even harder and also put trans people in camps" is the message I'm hearing and the people promulgating it should take a hard look at themselves.
posted by Frowner at 8:58 AM on January 30 [16 favorites]
"There are times when we all have to hold our nose and vote for what we see as the lesser of two evils."
Why is this always the phrasing? Like, "once in a blue moon you have to do this." No, no: it's every fucking cycle of the moon you have to hold your nose and vote for a lesser evil. With the single exception of Obama, about whom I was genuinely excited, every democrat I've voted for in a general election was a lesser evil vote.
posted by Don Pepino at 8:59 AM on January 30 [18 favorites]
Why is this always the phrasing? Like, "once in a blue moon you have to do this." No, no: it's every fucking cycle of the moon you have to hold your nose and vote for a lesser evil. With the single exception of Obama, about whom I was genuinely excited, every democrat I've voted for in a general election was a lesser evil vote.
posted by Don Pepino at 8:59 AM on January 30 [18 favorites]
Or is part of the belief system that things have to get much worse before they get better?
how much worse? if Pelosi thinks the most salient feature of pro-Palestinian protests, and demands for a ceasefire, is "This is what Putin wants" then things are pretty fucking bad. No, an immediate ceasefire halts war crimes. An immediate cease fire halts genocide. You'd think those items might supersede whatever Putin is thinking, on a list of why things are happening.
posted by elkevelvet at 9:00 AM on January 30 [5 favorites]
how much worse? if Pelosi thinks the most salient feature of pro-Palestinian protests, and demands for a ceasefire, is "This is what Putin wants" then things are pretty fucking bad. No, an immediate ceasefire halts war crimes. An immediate cease fire halts genocide. You'd think those items might supersede whatever Putin is thinking, on a list of why things are happening.
posted by elkevelvet at 9:00 AM on January 30 [5 favorites]
I add that I've long been a "voting isn't a referendum on your personal morality" person, but at some point the stomach rebels.
posted by Frowner at 9:00 AM on January 30 [7 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 9:00 AM on January 30 [7 favorites]
To bring it around to the original post, what would have you enthusiastically/not-risk-depressing-the-turnout vote for Trump? Not "he has a complete change of personality/politics", he's still the exact same guy he is today. Who would he have to be facing that would have you going "I know he's not great on the things I feel are important, but you have to show up and vote so the world doesn't go to hell; right?"
(Not saying the current candidates are equivalent/literally identical, but I'm curious if it's a smooth gradient at all levels of "got to vote incrementally" or if there's a step-too-far at some point)
posted by CrystalDave at 9:02 AM on January 30
(Not saying the current candidates are equivalent/literally identical, but I'm curious if it's a smooth gradient at all levels of "got to vote incrementally" or if there's a step-too-far at some point)
posted by CrystalDave at 9:02 AM on January 30
tiny frying pan
Nothing I want in the positive sense of getting something good. Quieter country music is better than louder, so in that very limited sense of the concept I "want" quieter country music. But that's just negative, not being hurt quite so much, "want". Not positive getting stuff I think is actively positively good type want.
I guess what I think immediately of is stuff that absolutely helps people when the Democrats are in charge. Like, not hurting quite so much is fantastic!
A kid gets a school lunch, a person gets an abortion while miscarrying and doesnt die. A person gets an abortion, period. A person gets health insurance, even though that world is fucked up. I don't know. I can't agree that it's a barren nothing of what you'd want without knowing the specifics beyond an analogy about the music you don't like being too loud. I see and acknowledge you tried there with that comment, I do.
But the only viable way to currently tear it all down is coming from the Republicans and we can imagine how that will go. So I just remain kind of stuck on the "nothing I want." I personally do want less harm to befall our citizens.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:03 AM on January 30 [9 favorites]
Nothing I want in the positive sense of getting something good. Quieter country music is better than louder, so in that very limited sense of the concept I "want" quieter country music. But that's just negative, not being hurt quite so much, "want". Not positive getting stuff I think is actively positively good type want.
I guess what I think immediately of is stuff that absolutely helps people when the Democrats are in charge. Like, not hurting quite so much is fantastic!
A kid gets a school lunch, a person gets an abortion while miscarrying and doesnt die. A person gets an abortion, period. A person gets health insurance, even though that world is fucked up. I don't know. I can't agree that it's a barren nothing of what you'd want without knowing the specifics beyond an analogy about the music you don't like being too loud. I see and acknowledge you tried there with that comment, I do.
But the only viable way to currently tear it all down is coming from the Republicans and we can imagine how that will go. So I just remain kind of stuck on the "nothing I want." I personally do want less harm to befall our citizens.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:03 AM on January 30 [9 favorites]
>To a liberal I suppose a leftist must look like a wild eyed bomb throwing not-the-fun-kind-of-anarchist anarchist
No, just someone who's never going to get what they want in this fallen world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_California_gubernatorial_election#Results_3
(Progressives last century were the liberal republicans)
posted by torokunai at 9:04 AM on January 30
No, just someone who's never going to get what they want in this fallen world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_California_gubernatorial_election#Results_3
(Progressives last century were the liberal republicans)
posted by torokunai at 9:04 AM on January 30
Here’s why this is big trouble:
This election, like all recent elections, will be a battle between voter suppression on the Republican side and other turnout on the democrat side.
Securing the votes of some internet “leftists” barely has any direct effect in this whatsoever.
However, what drives turnout? On the ground activists i.e. all the leftists everyone is suddenly very keen to shit on. That there is such a push to drive them away at this time seems like a very bad sign Re:Democrat priorities.
My wackadoodle conspiracy theory would be Democrats know they are on course to lose the election, having done the numbers on the MI vote, and are now steering into left punching so they get a fall guy for it and a nice purge as consolation prize.
A silly theory, but boy does every unconvincing attempt to scold people into voting reinforce it.
posted by Artw at 9:05 AM on January 30 [15 favorites]
This election, like all recent elections, will be a battle between voter suppression on the Republican side and other turnout on the democrat side.
Securing the votes of some internet “leftists” barely has any direct effect in this whatsoever.
However, what drives turnout? On the ground activists i.e. all the leftists everyone is suddenly very keen to shit on. That there is such a push to drive them away at this time seems like a very bad sign Re:Democrat priorities.
My wackadoodle conspiracy theory would be Democrats know they are on course to lose the election, having done the numbers on the MI vote, and are now steering into left punching so they get a fall guy for it and a nice purge as consolation prize.
A silly theory, but boy does every unconvincing attempt to scold people into voting reinforce it.
posted by Artw at 9:05 AM on January 30 [15 favorites]
but also, what would be more Democratic Party than planning early for a loss, and planning early for who to pin it on
posted by elkevelvet at 9:08 AM on January 30 [4 favorites]
posted by elkevelvet at 9:08 AM on January 30 [4 favorites]
Here's what the Biden administration considers important that they've done. An awful lot of this stuff is half-measures (e.g. protecting reproductive rights, decriminalizing marijuana, student debt relief) where I know they weren't able to accomplish everything they wanted, and it's way closer to what I want than Trump of course would be. Some of it is pretty impressive (I work in oncology and am pretty jazzed about ARPA-H stuff for instance). A lot of it is wonkish and hard to explain in a soundbite. It's broadly speaking just kind of fine.
I know that they have to get stuff through Congress and the President is not a King, etc., but boy howdy I find it hard to be excited about most of this stuff.
I don't think of my vote as an endorsement though, so my frustration with the Dems doesn't prevent me from voting for them. I'm just picking the person I'd rather fight with.
posted by joannemerriam at 9:12 AM on January 30 [10 favorites]
I know that they have to get stuff through Congress and the President is not a King, etc., but boy howdy I find it hard to be excited about most of this stuff.
I don't think of my vote as an endorsement though, so my frustration with the Dems doesn't prevent me from voting for them. I'm just picking the person I'd rather fight with.
posted by joannemerriam at 9:12 AM on January 30 [10 favorites]
but then there's that photo of the man carrying the remains of his baby in two wet plastic sacks
That there is such a push to drive them [leftists] away at this time
What are these two statements referring to? I don't dare google the first one and I have no idea how to google the second.
posted by joannemerriam at 9:13 AM on January 30
That there is such a push to drive them [leftists] away at this time
What are these two statements referring to? I don't dare google the first one and I have no idea how to google the second.
posted by joannemerriam at 9:13 AM on January 30
I'm a nihilist. Given the option, I'd vote for the nuke. But Trump (whose name disgusts me even to type) is not that nuke. The destruction done by a nuke is universal and indiscriminate. The destruction done by Trump will be targeted and very, very discriminate. That's not fair, and to me it's unacceptable. So I'll be voting for Biden come November, because I've only been given two choices, and I'm choosing genocide over there instead of genocide over here. Shower me with praise, liberals, because you've won my vote. But never forget that, given a real choice, I'd vote for the nuke.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:15 AM on January 30 [5 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:15 AM on January 30 [5 favorites]
El problema con La Revolución es que al día siguiente estaríamos pegados con los mismos imbéciles de siempre.
posted by torokunai at 9:18 AM on January 30 [3 favorites]
posted by torokunai at 9:18 AM on January 30 [3 favorites]
I have no idea how to google the second.
Currently “Nancy Pelosi” “Russia”.
posted by Artw at 9:22 AM on January 30
Currently “Nancy Pelosi” “Russia”.
posted by Artw at 9:22 AM on January 30
but then there's that photo of the man carrying the remains of his baby in two wet plastic sacks
If you follow a lot of Palestinians on twitter, or follow a lot of people with connections in Palestine, you will see a lot of things you can't unsee. The mother using a rudimentary hand-held respirator to keep her child breathing on the floor in a crowded bloodstained hospital room, for instance, and that was in the good old days before the hospitals got bombed. Never so many reminders that humans are made of meat. Not to mention the city blocks just going up in smoke and flames like it's a video game, or the children getting sniped. Or the man with the baby.
It is so bad, these are things that will stay with me until I die. It's so bad that I don't for the most part even tell people who don't look at twitter/nitter/etc about them because I feel, frankly, that there is nothing any of us can do at this point and the images are so horrible. That doesn't mean that I'm not doing anything, I just feel that it's useless. I'm only doing it because I can't stand not to.
This is one among many terrible genocides in human history, I'm not saying that there aren't many other instances as horrible. But this is the one that is literally on video on my computer every day. For me, morally speaking, accepting something that I know in detail and think about every day is different from simply not thinking about something that is just the usual vague "Senate Torture and Murder Committee renews Torture and Murder Funding for FY24" stuff. You can't take a stand on every evil in the world, but the ones that are thrust in front of you are different.
posted by Frowner at 9:25 AM on January 30 [17 favorites]
If you follow a lot of Palestinians on twitter, or follow a lot of people with connections in Palestine, you will see a lot of things you can't unsee. The mother using a rudimentary hand-held respirator to keep her child breathing on the floor in a crowded bloodstained hospital room, for instance, and that was in the good old days before the hospitals got bombed. Never so many reminders that humans are made of meat. Not to mention the city blocks just going up in smoke and flames like it's a video game, or the children getting sniped. Or the man with the baby.
It is so bad, these are things that will stay with me until I die. It's so bad that I don't for the most part even tell people who don't look at twitter/nitter/etc about them because I feel, frankly, that there is nothing any of us can do at this point and the images are so horrible. That doesn't mean that I'm not doing anything, I just feel that it's useless. I'm only doing it because I can't stand not to.
This is one among many terrible genocides in human history, I'm not saying that there aren't many other instances as horrible. But this is the one that is literally on video on my computer every day. For me, morally speaking, accepting something that I know in detail and think about every day is different from simply not thinking about something that is just the usual vague "Senate Torture and Murder Committee renews Torture and Murder Funding for FY24" stuff. You can't take a stand on every evil in the world, but the ones that are thrust in front of you are different.
posted by Frowner at 9:25 AM on January 30 [17 favorites]
LBJ & HHH ran into this in '68, too. Nixon played the Trump in this picture, didn't turn out so well for SE Asia 1969 - 76 though.
posted by torokunai at 9:32 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]
posted by torokunai at 9:32 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]
Maybe a small gesture would be some significant funding for assisting people trying to start up worker owned businesses, government preference for worker owned businesses, etc? That's pretty small potatoes and could be spun as "helping small business" to appease the all important white supremacist voters.
Okay, that's not a bad one at all. Sure, I'd support that. I don't think it's a bad idea in the first place, and if that gets you on board and gets you to say that staying home or whatever bullshit Jill Stein third party challenge will only get Republicans elected, that's quite reasonable.
To a liberal I suppose a leftist must look like a wild eyed bomb throwing not-the-fun-kind-of-anarchist anarchist.
No, that's not it at all. Wrong stereotype. The sort of leftists you're talking about look to us like people living in a makebelieve world, where even though they represent like 3% of the electorate, have this wishful thinking thing going where were the Democratic Party to suddenly embrace socialism, every working-class voter in America would suddenly rush to them in support, and this is just absolutely not true, and only some of that is due to propaganda. Case in point: Bernie in 2016, when he kept saying "we're going to break up the big banks", and Hillary and others would ask, "How? What is the process by which that happens?" and he both could not and would not answer the question.
And yes, I am well aware that this sort of leftist is in fact a small minority of same, and that most actual leftists are well aware they're a fringe and vote pragmatically out of respect for fellow citizens.
With respect to the Palestinian thing, I'm truly baffled. Yes, we can agree that the Democratic Party is too beholden to the Israel lobby, but imagine what this would be like were Trump still president. He'd absolutely say "turn Gaza into glass". Just watch: as we get closer to the election, Biden's going to become increasingly impatient with Israel.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 9:41 AM on January 30 [10 favorites]
Okay, that's not a bad one at all. Sure, I'd support that. I don't think it's a bad idea in the first place, and if that gets you on board and gets you to say that staying home or whatever bullshit Jill Stein third party challenge will only get Republicans elected, that's quite reasonable.
To a liberal I suppose a leftist must look like a wild eyed bomb throwing not-the-fun-kind-of-anarchist anarchist.
No, that's not it at all. Wrong stereotype. The sort of leftists you're talking about look to us like people living in a makebelieve world, where even though they represent like 3% of the electorate, have this wishful thinking thing going where were the Democratic Party to suddenly embrace socialism, every working-class voter in America would suddenly rush to them in support, and this is just absolutely not true, and only some of that is due to propaganda. Case in point: Bernie in 2016, when he kept saying "we're going to break up the big banks", and Hillary and others would ask, "How? What is the process by which that happens?" and he both could not and would not answer the question.
And yes, I am well aware that this sort of leftist is in fact a small minority of same, and that most actual leftists are well aware they're a fringe and vote pragmatically out of respect for fellow citizens.
With respect to the Palestinian thing, I'm truly baffled. Yes, we can agree that the Democratic Party is too beholden to the Israel lobby, but imagine what this would be like were Trump still president. He'd absolutely say "turn Gaza into glass". Just watch: as we get closer to the election, Biden's going to become increasingly impatient with Israel.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 9:41 AM on January 30 [10 favorites]
I highly doubt it, and damage in MI is already done. You don’t get votes from people when you murder their relatives or tell them the other guy will murder them slightly less.
I would not suggest hyper-fixating on persuading them as a course of action either.
posted by Artw at 9:54 AM on January 30 [2 favorites]
I would not suggest hyper-fixating on persuading them as a course of action either.
posted by Artw at 9:54 AM on January 30 [2 favorites]
With respect to the Palestinian thing, I'm truly baffled.
say no more
posted by elkevelvet at 9:57 AM on January 30 [12 favorites]
say no more
posted by elkevelvet at 9:57 AM on January 30 [12 favorites]
Idealists refuse to make choices that lead to tradeoffs. Realists say not possible. The two have different biases on any guilt or morality of the situation.
posted by Brian B. at 10:09 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 10:09 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]
Here's what the Biden administration considers important that they've done.
It's telling, to me, that the first item in that list is, effectively, a lie. Even if you give Biden all of the credit for improvements to the economy, it's just not true that the costs of the typical family's everyday expenses has gone down or has any reasonable chance of going down in the near future. What is true is that the rate of increase of those costs has come back to almost "normal" -- as in, the rate of inflation has returned to something just a little higher than what it was from 2010 to 2020. Prices are still increasing. Maybe Biden's PR folks have just picked the wrong ordering on their list of "top accomplishments," but if that's the best they have, it's not a good sign.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:18 AM on January 30 [10 favorites]
It's telling, to me, that the first item in that list is, effectively, a lie. Even if you give Biden all of the credit for improvements to the economy, it's just not true that the costs of the typical family's everyday expenses has gone down or has any reasonable chance of going down in the near future. What is true is that the rate of increase of those costs has come back to almost "normal" -- as in, the rate of inflation has returned to something just a little higher than what it was from 2010 to 2020. Prices are still increasing. Maybe Biden's PR folks have just picked the wrong ordering on their list of "top accomplishments," but if that's the best they have, it's not a good sign.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:18 AM on January 30 [10 favorites]
I think calling yourself a “realist” if you’re confused by things like “why people think genocide is bad” and you can’t answer questions like “if you don’t think you can count on those idealist bastards how are you going to make up the shortfall in votes?” is a bit much, tbh.
And to drag things back to the subject of the post it’s the “realists” that can’t stomach calling an obvious upwelling of fascist sentiment what it is and want to hold endless diner meetings with it to try and call it anything else.
posted by Artw at 10:19 AM on January 30 [13 favorites]
And to drag things back to the subject of the post it’s the “realists” that can’t stomach calling an obvious upwelling of fascist sentiment what it is and want to hold endless diner meetings with it to try and call it anything else.
posted by Artw at 10:19 AM on January 30 [13 favorites]
They’re in front of my house all the time. So I have a feeling for what feelings they have, but we have to think about what we’re doing,” she said. “And what we have to do is try to stop the suffering and gossip. This is women and children. People don’t have a place to go, so let’s address that.That word salad is Rep Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, explaining why even though she wants the FBI to "investigate" people calling for a ceasefire in Gaza just in case they're being funded by Putin she believes that the protesters are... something.
If you ever wonder why sometimes you hear a frusturated leftist say that the two parties are the same, there's why. On some critical issues they are identical. The Democrats are just as rabidly pro-genocide as the Republicans and they're not a whole lot better on being anti-protester either.
On other issues there are indeed significant differences. But on many they're basically different colors for the same horrible thing. Red warmongering genocide fans vs blue warmongering genocide fans.
A vote for Biden is a vote for more dead Palestinian children. But so is a vote for Trump so, God help us, we have to sy "well, other than both of them supporting a genocide what do you think about the two candidates?"
Like, yes, there really are other issues that do matter, but JFC can't you see how that choice is so soul destroying? I'll vote for a genocide in Palestine to protect American trans kids. Trading the lives of Palestinian children for hte lives of American children. That's... there aren't words strong enough to describe how vile that is.
I'll do it. I urge others to do it. But maybe, possibly, just a little, you can understand why a lot of people are not going to pretend to be happy to vote for genocidal Biden?
Can you see just a hint of the vast oceans of resentment the Democrats have produced in us? Every election the force us to make that choice, to make that evaluation? Can you see how we might hate them for inflicting so much utterly needless harm on the world and then making us vote for htem anyway?
There has never been a President in my entire life who wasn't a war criminal. Not one. Not even Carter, and he came closest to being a decent human being instead of a dispicable monster.
outgrown_hobnail If you are confused by why people might have moral qualms about voting for a pro-genocide candidate then you may want to reevaluate your moral code and how you decide what is moral and what is immoral. To reduce the ongoing mass murder in Gaza as "the Palestine thing" is so shockingly outside my way of thinking I feel gobsmacked seeing it in print.
tiny frying pan i suppose I'm drawing a distinction between positive want and negative want.
I want people to stop oppressing LGBT people, and Black people, and women, and Muslims, and basically every minority group that exists.
The Democrats do, no argument at all, some actual good there. Not anywhere near enough, not anywhere complete, always so self contratulatory I want to puke, but they do measurably improve conditions for many people.
But that's a negative want. You're not getting good things, you're reducing the harm of the bad things. Which, again, beats the shit out of increasing the harm of the bad things. But, can't you see how there's a real, important, difference between stopping someone from harming another person and helping that other person obtain justice?
posted by sotonohito at 10:21 AM on January 30 [23 favorites]
Logical fallacy: intrinsic = liberals, Democrats; extrinsic = conservatives, Republicans.
False premise: Whoever gets the most votes wins the election. (Maybe we should look into this. Never mind. This time, we'll elect a good king and hit the SCOTUS / POTUS / Congressional trifecta; then, we'll have things our way. Now, let's see, how can we stack those pesky electoral votes in swing states to override the ballots of those ignorant, fascist Trumpoids?)
posted by mule98J at 10:24 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]
False premise: Whoever gets the most votes wins the election. (Maybe we should look into this. Never mind. This time, we'll elect a good king and hit the SCOTUS / POTUS / Congressional trifecta; then, we'll have things our way. Now, let's see, how can we stack those pesky electoral votes in swing states to override the ballots of those ignorant, fascist Trumpoids?)
posted by mule98J at 10:24 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]
Can you see just a hint of the vast oceans of resentment the Democrats have produced in us? Every election the force us to make that choice, to make that evaluation? Can you see how we might hate them for inflicting so much utterly needless harm on the world and then making us vote for htem anyway?
Yes? Oh my, yes.
But, can't you see how there's a real, important, difference between stopping someone from harming another person and helping that other person obtain justice?
Yes?
But the difference on the ground is the harm reduction, that we have very limited control of, can happen. Harm reduction is not nothing. That's it, for me.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:36 AM on January 30 [4 favorites]
Yes? Oh my, yes.
But, can't you see how there's a real, important, difference between stopping someone from harming another person and helping that other person obtain justice?
Yes?
But the difference on the ground is the harm reduction, that we have very limited control of, can happen. Harm reduction is not nothing. That's it, for me.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:36 AM on January 30 [4 favorites]
"A liberal is someone who opposes every war except the current war and supports all civil rights movements except the one that's going on."
posted by Richard Saunders at 10:45 AM on January 30 [18 favorites]
posted by Richard Saunders at 10:45 AM on January 30 [18 favorites]
If you follow a lot of Palestinians on twitter, or follow a lot of people with connections in Palestine, you will see a lot of things you can't unsee.
posted by Frowner
Thanks, Frowner. I thought the original poster was saying there was a photo of Biden carrying the remains of his baby in two wet plastic sacks!
posted by joannemerriam at 10:48 AM on January 30
posted by Frowner
Thanks, Frowner. I thought the original poster was saying there was a photo of Biden carrying the remains of his baby in two wet plastic sacks!
posted by joannemerriam at 10:48 AM on January 30
Great work on making an unreadably long thread people. I scanned it, after looking at TFA, and came here to object that while TFA might be OK as diagnosis, I didn't see a treatment plan there. To beat Trump, "we" need to... ?
Sad clickbait. I have not read much Monbiot but had the impression that he was more worthwhile than this.
As for the "Why so many Christian Trump voters?" question, I think it helps to examine those "Christians" a little more closely. I see three groups.
1. The crosstabs on these people that came out after the '16 election, and in the polling going in to '20, is that while a big group of them strongly self-identify as Christian, they don't actually practice any (to a good approximation) religious observances. They don't go to church, except maybe on Easter or Christmas Eve. They don't have a daily prayer practice. They don't spend any time reading the Bible. They are more sports fans rooting for Team Jesus than they are athletes in the Run for Salvation.
2. The fundamentalists/charismatics who do spend time in church, and reading their Bibles, and also drivel like this, are so disengaged from the reality-based community, and so invested in various delusions, that making Donald Trump into a salvific secular leader is no stretch at all for their suspension of disbelief. There's a whole industry of Republican talking points to Sunday sermons, and the people behind that have decided that Trump suits their purposes.
3. Then there are the conservative Catholics, who have whipped the loyal rump of their congregations into single-issue fixation on embryo personhood rights, who also judge Trump to be suitable for their purposes. I think these last have some delusions of their own, of becoming the Richelieus of an explicitly Christian America.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:55 AM on January 30 [5 favorites]
Sad clickbait. I have not read much Monbiot but had the impression that he was more worthwhile than this.
As for the "Why so many Christian Trump voters?" question, I think it helps to examine those "Christians" a little more closely. I see three groups.
1. The crosstabs on these people that came out after the '16 election, and in the polling going in to '20, is that while a big group of them strongly self-identify as Christian, they don't actually practice any (to a good approximation) religious observances. They don't go to church, except maybe on Easter or Christmas Eve. They don't have a daily prayer practice. They don't spend any time reading the Bible. They are more sports fans rooting for Team Jesus than they are athletes in the Run for Salvation.
2. The fundamentalists/charismatics who do spend time in church, and reading their Bibles, and also drivel like this, are so disengaged from the reality-based community, and so invested in various delusions, that making Donald Trump into a salvific secular leader is no stretch at all for their suspension of disbelief. There's a whole industry of Republican talking points to Sunday sermons, and the people behind that have decided that Trump suits their purposes.
3. Then there are the conservative Catholics, who have whipped the loyal rump of their congregations into single-issue fixation on embryo personhood rights, who also judge Trump to be suitable for their purposes. I think these last have some delusions of their own, of becoming the Richelieus of an explicitly Christian America.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:55 AM on January 30 [5 favorites]
At my very most Rust Cohle/Thomas Ligotti moments, I'm not sure it even matters who wins in 2024 when Trump fired a slow and uncorrectable bullet into the American brainpan in his first term; the damage his SCOTUS has done will only go on for decades to come.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:58 AM on January 30 [13 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:58 AM on January 30 [13 favorites]
Can you see just a hint of the vast oceans of resentment the Democrats have produced in us? Every election the force us to make that choice, to make that evaluation? Can you see how we might hate them for inflicting so much utterly needless harm on the world and then making us vote for them anyway?
But surely every leftist is aware that the national presidential election every four years was never about, is not now about, will perhaps never in our lifetimes be about, anything other than harm reduction and picking the fractionally lesser of two evils?
Surely every leftist is aware that the kind of change they're looking for will never, ever, ever start at the presidential level, and always and only happens from the bottom up, in local initiatives? That the only way a presidential election will ever be anything other than an eye-rolling bile-swallowing frustration to the left is by spending the other three years doing the work on the ground? (And even then, in this country, probably never?)
I *know* leftists know this, and in fact it's ridiculously insulting for me to even point it out. So why must we do this same dance, every four years? Why the battle lines? Why the antagonism? Why the big dramatic fight, every time? When the stakes leftists care about were never on this ballot?
It's especially fraught this year because of the genocide in Gaza, yes, I know. I see the same pictures and hear the same stories. But the presidential election, in my lifetime at least, has only ever been and is only ever going to be a finger in the dike. It's where we commit, every four years, to rolling back the self-destruct countdown. Some years it's more effective than others, some years the lowlands flood either way and the self-destruct counter keeps on ticking toward doomsday, but we grit our teeth and make the effort anyway, because the only other option is losing faster.
I desperately want to see the bloodshed in Gaza stop. But that's not on the menu we're looking at, not today anyway and probably not in November. The menu has only two realistically available options and neither of those has any justice for Palestine in it, not today. But again, this election -- THIS election -- is only about the least shitty option, the one that loses us the least ground and gives us the slightly better position to fight for another four years for the causes and in the venues that actually matter.
So what value is there in all this acrimonious infighting? Who benefits from that?
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 11:30 AM on January 30 [31 favorites]
But surely every leftist is aware that the national presidential election every four years was never about, is not now about, will perhaps never in our lifetimes be about, anything other than harm reduction and picking the fractionally lesser of two evils?
Surely every leftist is aware that the kind of change they're looking for will never, ever, ever start at the presidential level, and always and only happens from the bottom up, in local initiatives? That the only way a presidential election will ever be anything other than an eye-rolling bile-swallowing frustration to the left is by spending the other three years doing the work on the ground? (And even then, in this country, probably never?)
I *know* leftists know this, and in fact it's ridiculously insulting for me to even point it out. So why must we do this same dance, every four years? Why the battle lines? Why the antagonism? Why the big dramatic fight, every time? When the stakes leftists care about were never on this ballot?
It's especially fraught this year because of the genocide in Gaza, yes, I know. I see the same pictures and hear the same stories. But the presidential election, in my lifetime at least, has only ever been and is only ever going to be a finger in the dike. It's where we commit, every four years, to rolling back the self-destruct countdown. Some years it's more effective than others, some years the lowlands flood either way and the self-destruct counter keeps on ticking toward doomsday, but we grit our teeth and make the effort anyway, because the only other option is losing faster.
I desperately want to see the bloodshed in Gaza stop. But that's not on the menu we're looking at, not today anyway and probably not in November. The menu has only two realistically available options and neither of those has any justice for Palestine in it, not today. But again, this election -- THIS election -- is only about the least shitty option, the one that loses us the least ground and gives us the slightly better position to fight for another four years for the causes and in the venues that actually matter.
So what value is there in all this acrimonious infighting? Who benefits from that?
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 11:30 AM on January 30 [31 favorites]
Slave owners were Christians too. They had just evolved a belief system where God is a white man and made white men in His image to rule over all other lesser races and genders.
Which is how the Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists came to be.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:41 AM on January 30
Which is how the Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists came to be.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:41 AM on January 30
@sotonohito:
would does happen when the Rs win, and decide, yes, we need to keep going through that humiliation to keep things from being immeasurably worse?
Leftists stayed home or voted Nader in 2000, and GW Bush cancelled the nuclear nonproliferation deal with North Korea for no good reason at all except that modern Republicans hate treaties, and now the world has another nuclear armed power than it did in 1999, because of that.
Leftists stayed home in 2016, and the Trump crew seated enough Supremes to make abortion illegal in America, while also shitcanning the JCPOA which was also going to prevent there from being Yet Another nuclear-armed State, again for no good reason at all other than that they hate treaties.
I don't want to dump on you. If you really cannot engage in politics without unendurable despair, do not engage in politics. Step zero is by not being in discussion threads like this. If you want to engage in politics, but you really cannot bear to support the D candidate (in literally any election you are likely to see in American for the foreseeable future), then write in your own name. That is the only way you will get a candidate that supports everything you support, and opposes everything that you oppose. You can even campaign for yourself.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 11:46 AM on January 30 [24 favorites]
Can you see just a hint of the vast oceans of resentment the Democrats have produced in us? Every election the force us to make that choice, to make that evaluation? Can you see how we might hate them for inflicting so much utterly needless harm on the world and then making us vote for htem anyway?Can you see that those of us who went before you have been forced to make that choice all our lives, every time there was an election? Can you see that everyone who has ever voted in real-world politics has always made that choice? Can you see that we feel the resentment, and look at what
Leftists stayed home or voted Nader in 2000, and GW Bush cancelled the nuclear nonproliferation deal with North Korea for no good reason at all except that modern Republicans hate treaties, and now the world has another nuclear armed power than it did in 1999, because of that.
Leftists stayed home in 2016, and the Trump crew seated enough Supremes to make abortion illegal in America, while also shitcanning the JCPOA which was also going to prevent there from being Yet Another nuclear-armed State, again for no good reason at all other than that they hate treaties.
I don't want to dump on you. If you really cannot engage in politics without unendurable despair, do not engage in politics. Step zero is by not being in discussion threads like this. If you want to engage in politics, but you really cannot bear to support the D candidate (in literally any election you are likely to see in American for the foreseeable future), then write in your own name. That is the only way you will get a candidate that supports everything you support, and opposes everything that you oppose. You can even campaign for yourself.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 11:46 AM on January 30 [24 favorites]
Mod note: Another removed. Can we take the conversation back to the subject and stop insulting other members?
posted by loup (staff) at 12:19 PM on January 30
posted by loup (staff) at 12:19 PM on January 30
‘ So what value is there in all this acrimonious infighting? Who benefits from that?’
Trump does. That’s why these ‘leftists’ find ‘zero to like’ about Biden. They are pissing in the pool, spoiling it for everyone. On purpose, with glee.
Because it helps their hero.
It’s all bullshit, and we fall for it every time.
posted by chronkite at 12:33 PM on January 30 [3 favorites]
Trump does. That’s why these ‘leftists’ find ‘zero to like’ about Biden. They are pissing in the pool, spoiling it for everyone. On purpose, with glee.
Because it helps their hero.
It’s all bullshit, and we fall for it every time.
posted by chronkite at 12:33 PM on January 30 [3 favorites]
I mean I suppose "zero to like about Biden" might be a tad hyperbolic. He likes trains; that's kind of cool. Still, though, wouldn't it be better to field a candidate more appealing than a bowl of congealed oatmeal who isn't the person mainly responsible for Clarence Thomas being on the supreme court?
posted by Don Pepino at 1:00 PM on January 30 [8 favorites]
posted by Don Pepino at 1:00 PM on January 30 [8 favorites]
Quoting straight from TFA:
There's some straight-up 'extrinsic values' on display right here in this god-damn thread.
posted by KHAAAN! at 1:09 PM on January 30 [7 favorites]
People at the extrinsic end of the spectrum...
...behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts.
...They have little interest in cooperation or community.
There's some straight-up 'extrinsic values' on display right here in this god-damn thread.
posted by KHAAAN! at 1:09 PM on January 30 [7 favorites]
‘congealed oatmeal’ is clownishly disingenuous
Yes, you're absolutely right, he's a fresh bowl of steaming hot oatmeal with raisins and cinnamon who ushered Clarence Thomas onto the supreme court.
posted by Don Pepino at 1:09 PM on January 30 [5 favorites]
Yes, you're absolutely right, he's a fresh bowl of steaming hot oatmeal with raisins and cinnamon who ushered Clarence Thomas onto the supreme court.
posted by Don Pepino at 1:09 PM on January 30 [5 favorites]
Liberals see any criticism of the Dem candidates as a threat, because it leads to Trump.
Progressives see weak Dem candidates themselves as a threat, because they lead to Trump.
posted by figurant at 1:11 PM on January 30 [15 favorites]
Progressives see weak Dem candidates themselves as a threat, because they lead to Trump.
posted by figurant at 1:11 PM on January 30 [15 favorites]
I'm sure there are hordes of fake ‘leftists’ online causing strife and disharmony to benefit Trump, but the people you're directing this at in this thread are long-time members with established bona fides as real people.
Some people just don't agree with you.
posted by joannemerriam at 1:11 PM on January 30 [20 favorites]
Some people just don't agree with you.
posted by joannemerriam at 1:11 PM on January 30 [20 favorites]
‘Weak Dem Candidates’ who already beat trump once, and by receiving literally the most votes of anyone in history.
Amazing.
posted by chronkite at 1:15 PM on January 30 [4 favorites]
Amazing.
posted by chronkite at 1:15 PM on January 30 [4 favorites]
‘Weak Dem Candidates’ who already beat trump once, and by receiving literally the most votes of anyone in history.
And hopefully will again, but a 50% success rate isn't that reassuring.
posted by figurant at 1:20 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]
And hopefully will again, but a 50% success rate isn't that reassuring.
posted by figurant at 1:20 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]
Aardvark Cheeselog I respect the work you put into those Christian categories, but I think to a large extent you're overthinking it.
Evangelical hasn't been a religious label for decades, around about the time of Roe it started morphing into a political group organized around white supremacy with some Jesus talk as sort of decoration. It is not even slightly coincidental that all the Evangelical universities have faced racial discrimination lawsuits.
Their love of Trump is simply explained: he's a white supremacist. Since religion is basically a sideshow for them, there isn't really any theological complexity involved.
In 2020 positive views of racism corelated more strongly with voting for Trump than being a registered Republican. It really is all about the white supremacy. And I think that explains most of the other right wing religious people too. It's motivated reasoning based on wanting the power to overturn Roe so they can punish sluts and white supremacy.
I don't think "it's all white supremacy" is capital T true, but a bit like Newtonian physics it's a useful model that can usually accurately predict the outcome. Ask what a white supremacist would do in situation X, and that's almost guaranteed to be what the Trumpers will do in situation X.
Which is why I find this near monthly ritual of some Very Serious Person publishing yet another article doing a deep analys of the Trump voter, and the Democrats saying they need to punch left to appeal to white supremacists. It's practically as inevitable as entropy these days.
That's why these always drift into left vs liberal stuff, the article itself is nothing worth talking about. Ho hum, another deep personality examination of Trump voters. I could porbably write a summary of the article based purely on the headline and it'd be at least 70% accurate becasue they're all the same.
The only real question is if they'll talk about small town diners or not. So the talk rapidly slides away to other topics that are only tangentally related.
posted by sotonohito at 1:24 PM on January 30 [8 favorites]
Evangelical hasn't been a religious label for decades, around about the time of Roe it started morphing into a political group organized around white supremacy with some Jesus talk as sort of decoration. It is not even slightly coincidental that all the Evangelical universities have faced racial discrimination lawsuits.
Their love of Trump is simply explained: he's a white supremacist. Since religion is basically a sideshow for them, there isn't really any theological complexity involved.
In 2020 positive views of racism corelated more strongly with voting for Trump than being a registered Republican. It really is all about the white supremacy. And I think that explains most of the other right wing religious people too. It's motivated reasoning based on wanting the power to overturn Roe so they can punish sluts and white supremacy.
I don't think "it's all white supremacy" is capital T true, but a bit like Newtonian physics it's a useful model that can usually accurately predict the outcome. Ask what a white supremacist would do in situation X, and that's almost guaranteed to be what the Trumpers will do in situation X.
Which is why I find this near monthly ritual of some Very Serious Person publishing yet another article doing a deep analys of the Trump voter, and the Democrats saying they need to punch left to appeal to white supremacists. It's practically as inevitable as entropy these days.
That's why these always drift into left vs liberal stuff, the article itself is nothing worth talking about. Ho hum, another deep personality examination of Trump voters. I could porbably write a summary of the article based purely on the headline and it'd be at least 70% accurate becasue they're all the same.
The only real question is if they'll talk about small town diners or not. So the talk rapidly slides away to other topics that are only tangentally related.
posted by sotonohito at 1:24 PM on January 30 [8 favorites]
by receiving literally the most votes of anyone in history
Can we please stop trotting out this mathematically illiterate canard? I'm not even asking to stop the whole Progressives vs. Liberals Battle, Round #7,000,001; just drop this one singularly idiotic talking point.
posted by mstokes650 at 1:27 PM on January 30 [6 favorites]
Can we please stop trotting out this mathematically illiterate canard? I'm not even asking to stop the whole Progressives vs. Liberals Battle, Round #7,000,001; just drop this one singularly idiotic talking point.
posted by mstokes650 at 1:27 PM on January 30 [6 favorites]
Which is why I find this near monthly ritual of some Very Serious Person publishing yet another article doing a deep analys of the Trump voter, and the Democrats saying they need to punch left to appeal to white supremacists. It's practically as inevitable as entropy these days
The “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” values thing is a bit more useful than most in this regard because basically a hard turn to extrinsic values IS what you would expect from a fascist candidate, unfortunately that’s undercut by all the people already saying “yo, this dudes a fascist and his followers are fascist and everything they do is fully explicable based on that.”
Honestly, if you’re thinking “that can’t be right because of X, Y and Z” read some more books on the subject, because X, Y and Z are probably nothing new and fully something we’ve seen before in the history of fascism.
posted by Artw at 1:35 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]
The “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” values thing is a bit more useful than most in this regard because basically a hard turn to extrinsic values IS what you would expect from a fascist candidate, unfortunately that’s undercut by all the people already saying “yo, this dudes a fascist and his followers are fascist and everything they do is fully explicable based on that.”
Honestly, if you’re thinking “that can’t be right because of X, Y and Z” read some more books on the subject, because X, Y and Z are probably nothing new and fully something we’ve seen before in the history of fascism.
posted by Artw at 1:35 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Several comments deleted. One member banned temporarily. If you are not willing to allow others to express themselves and be sensitive to context please give your fingers a rest, take a step back and allow other to move on with the conversation.
posted by loup (staff) at 1:48 PM on January 30 [3 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 1:48 PM on January 30 [3 favorites]
> Evangelical hasn't been a religious label for decades, around about the time of Roe it started morphing into a political group organized around white supremacy with some Jesus talk as sort of decoration.
Those are the people in my Group 1. You are confusing them with the people in Group 2, who probably are white supremacists in addition to what I said, but they are deluded about a lot of things. But who really are the heirs of evangelical Christianity.
Yes I am familiar with the mechanics of how the religious right was recruited, via window-dressing for segregation academies.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 1:54 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]
Those are the people in my Group 1. You are confusing them with the people in Group 2, who probably are white supremacists in addition to what I said, but they are deluded about a lot of things. But who really are the heirs of evangelical Christianity.
Yes I am familiar with the mechanics of how the religious right was recruited, via window-dressing for segregation academies.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 1:54 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]
The Dem presidents of my lifetime – Carter, Clinton, Obama, Biden – would, with my politics, make pretty good liberal Republican alternatives and the Dems we actually had would be perfect DSA-types (like Truman I guess) across the board, if we were in the Good Timeline.
We are not in the Good Timeline. The Coke machine is going to vend Biden/Harris or Trump/Swampmonster in November, please push the button for your selection.
posted by torokunai at 2:01 PM on January 30 [6 favorites]
We are not in the Good Timeline. The Coke machine is going to vend Biden/Harris or Trump/Swampmonster in November, please push the button for your selection.
posted by torokunai at 2:01 PM on January 30 [6 favorites]
by receiving literally the most votes of anyone in history
Can we please stop trotting out this mathematically illiterate canard?
But it's literally not mathematically illiterate. Now, granted, 75+% of those people were voting Not-Trump, but still, while BIden may not tickle the fancy of leftists, everyone from moderate conservatives all the way to very-liberal-but-not-leftists were like "he will absolutely do", and he did.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 2:34 PM on January 30
Can we please stop trotting out this mathematically illiterate canard?
But it's literally not mathematically illiterate. Now, granted, 75+% of those people were voting Not-Trump, but still, while BIden may not tickle the fancy of leftists, everyone from moderate conservatives all the way to very-liberal-but-not-leftists were like "he will absolutely do", and he did.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 2:34 PM on January 30
It would be more useful to look at percentage of the population or percentage of the voting-age population.
Whoever wins the election in 2024 will receive literally the most votes of anyone in history because there will be more people.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:52 PM on January 30 [9 favorites]
Whoever wins the election in 2024 will receive literally the most votes of anyone in history because there will be more people.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:52 PM on January 30 [9 favorites]
Trump Allies Pledge ‘Holy War’ Against Taylor Swift
posted by Artw at 2:55 PM on January 30 [6 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:55 PM on January 30 [6 favorites]
Trump Allies Pledge ‘Holy War’ Against Taylor Swift
The Rs really aren't that bright, are they.
posted by Melismata at 2:59 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]
The Rs really aren't that bright, are they.
posted by Melismata at 2:59 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]
I really hope they lean hard into this one.
posted by Artw at 3:00 PM on January 30 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 3:00 PM on January 30 [7 favorites]
re population:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1eXFo shows age 16+ is up 7M since 11/2020.
Plus we are getting 3.5M deaths/yr now, so there's going to be a lot more Gen Z voters and millions fewer pre-Boomer voters, not even counting the horrific C19 mortality effects we went through these 4 years.
posted by torokunai at 3:01 PM on January 30 [4 favorites]
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1eXFo shows age 16+ is up 7M since 11/2020.
Plus we are getting 3.5M deaths/yr now, so there's going to be a lot more Gen Z voters and millions fewer pre-Boomer voters, not even counting the horrific C19 mortality effects we went through these 4 years.
posted by torokunai at 3:01 PM on January 30 [4 favorites]
But it's literally not mathematically illiterate.
The candidate who got the second-most popular votes in history was Donald Trump -- in the same election. Looking at an absolute total of votes doesn't prove much except that the voting population has increased over time. It is a certainty that whoever wins this next election will win with one of the top 3 vote totals in history, and the loser in this next election will very likely hit top 3 as well, even if turnout sucks and lots of people stay home! It's quite likely they'll be the new #1 and #2 spots on the list.
Trotting a vote total out as though it's proof that Joe Biden (who received 51.3% of the popular vote) is a better candidate or more popular than any of the many, many presidents who've won with a higher percentage of the votes cast in their election year(s) is absolutely a ridiculous fallacy and it needs to die in a fire. Or does the fact that George Washington won the presidency in 1792 with only ~28,000 popular votes (note: that was 100% of the votes; turnout was low compared to 1788) prove the opposite of whatever Joe Biden's really big number is supposed to prove?
posted by mstokes650 at 3:06 PM on January 30 [12 favorites]
The candidate who got the second-most popular votes in history was Donald Trump -- in the same election. Looking at an absolute total of votes doesn't prove much except that the voting population has increased over time. It is a certainty that whoever wins this next election will win with one of the top 3 vote totals in history, and the loser in this next election will very likely hit top 3 as well, even if turnout sucks and lots of people stay home! It's quite likely they'll be the new #1 and #2 spots on the list.
Trotting a vote total out as though it's proof that Joe Biden (who received 51.3% of the popular vote) is a better candidate or more popular than any of the many, many presidents who've won with a higher percentage of the votes cast in their election year(s) is absolutely a ridiculous fallacy and it needs to die in a fire. Or does the fact that George Washington won the presidency in 1792 with only ~28,000 popular votes (note: that was 100% of the votes; turnout was low compared to 1788) prove the opposite of whatever Joe Biden's really big number is supposed to prove?
posted by mstokes650 at 3:06 PM on January 30 [12 favorites]
Trump Allies Pledge ‘Holy War’ Against Taylor Swift
they’re going to swiftboat taylor swift… boat
posted by logicpunk at 3:09 PM on January 30 [13 favorites]
they’re going to swiftboat taylor swift… boat
posted by logicpunk at 3:09 PM on January 30 [13 favorites]
echoing mstokes650, but if you look at the 2020 election and isolate Joe Biden as the reason for the record number of votes, I think that does constitute, if not a type of illiteracy, a willful misinterpretation of the facts
the series of elections leading to the dissolution of the republic will receive their due scrutiny, assuming we have scholars doing that type of work in 100 years
posted by elkevelvet at 3:18 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]
the series of elections leading to the dissolution of the republic will receive their due scrutiny, assuming we have scholars doing that type of work in 100 years
posted by elkevelvet at 3:18 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]
Not voting is stupid, full stop. I mean, it's not easy for everyone in every place and that's definitely something to be worked on. If you don't vote because of voter suppression and/or whatever other dumb BS in your state, I get it. But you're a person that already votes on the regular, there is no reason to ever sit out an election.
Yeah, the vending machine only has two shitty options. But you ARE going to consume whatever comes out of that machine whether you make a choice or not.
I really want an election where someone like Joe Biden is the conservative candidate. Especially among mefites, a scenario where the like three most liberal republican's (Liz Cheney maybe?) leave the GOP in the dust and join with the democrats to campaign against all the new DSA candidates cropping up (because republican's have lost the ability to win elections anymore) would make a lot of people pretty happy right?
Well, if that's your goal, the GOP has to hold so little power it might as well be none. You need a scenario where democrats winning in the general election is a forgone conclusion in most places most of the time. Then there will room for a new two-party dynamic with a MUCH more leftist oriented party starting to pick up steam.
I seem to remember some data in some previous politics thread (there've been...a few) where the data showed that if all eligible actually voted, democrats win in landslides. We already know that turnout is good for the left most party available. Getting more people voting hurts the GOP. That's how we can get them to go away, everyone votes. With two parties that mostly agree that more people voting is good, then it turns into a virtuous cycle of more people voting, more leftward candidates, leading to more voting rights and eventually better voting systems that allow for multiple parties.
So if you're going to tell me that you just can't stomach to vote for Joe Biden, you had better be DEEP into a massive effort to stage a peaceful coup and rebuild the whole-ass thing from the ground up. if you show up at my door with a crowd full of people telling me we're going to DC to create a new US Constitution, I call shotgun, but unless you've got that, get off your ass and fucking vote.
I don't mean to insult anyone here because it's been a problem in this thread but people telling me they won't vote for sound like petulant children to me. There is no moral reason not to vote. Sitting at home is still a choice that affects the outcome of the election. You're going to influence the decision one way or another and you're going to live with the consequences regardless. Sitting it out is just stupid.
If there is anything that "real Americans" do, it's vote.
posted by VTX at 4:07 PM on January 30 [12 favorites]
Yeah, the vending machine only has two shitty options. But you ARE going to consume whatever comes out of that machine whether you make a choice or not.
I really want an election where someone like Joe Biden is the conservative candidate. Especially among mefites, a scenario where the like three most liberal republican's (Liz Cheney maybe?) leave the GOP in the dust and join with the democrats to campaign against all the new DSA candidates cropping up (because republican's have lost the ability to win elections anymore) would make a lot of people pretty happy right?
Well, if that's your goal, the GOP has to hold so little power it might as well be none. You need a scenario where democrats winning in the general election is a forgone conclusion in most places most of the time. Then there will room for a new two-party dynamic with a MUCH more leftist oriented party starting to pick up steam.
I seem to remember some data in some previous politics thread (there've been...a few) where the data showed that if all eligible actually voted, democrats win in landslides. We already know that turnout is good for the left most party available. Getting more people voting hurts the GOP. That's how we can get them to go away, everyone votes. With two parties that mostly agree that more people voting is good, then it turns into a virtuous cycle of more people voting, more leftward candidates, leading to more voting rights and eventually better voting systems that allow for multiple parties.
So if you're going to tell me that you just can't stomach to vote for Joe Biden, you had better be DEEP into a massive effort to stage a peaceful coup and rebuild the whole-ass thing from the ground up. if you show up at my door with a crowd full of people telling me we're going to DC to create a new US Constitution, I call shotgun, but unless you've got that, get off your ass and fucking vote.
I don't mean to insult anyone here because it's been a problem in this thread but people telling me they won't vote for
If there is anything that "real Americans" do, it's vote.
posted by VTX at 4:07 PM on January 30 [12 favorites]
I live in Seattle. If it makes any difference wether I vote for Biden or not things are so profoundly fucked it’s going to be the least of your worries.
I do believe in voting every time though… against the bastard libs and their DINO shit.
posted by Artw at 4:19 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]
I do believe in voting every time though… against the bastard libs and their DINO shit.
posted by Artw at 4:19 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]
Yeah I feel you there. It really does still make a difference though. I mean, dems data crunching is, as I understand it, kind of shitty (I'm being nice) but they do pay attention to how many votes come from each voting district. It tells them how many people in that area care enough to vote which implies how important the wants and needs of that voting district are to their election efforts.
It's basically a sign that says, "You need to pay attention to the people here 'cause we goddamn vote!"
Even if you're in an area where the presidential race is a foregone conclusion, there are still local races that will matter to you a LOT more, a TON more than the national races. I always dig into each office on my ballot and there are real weirdos that try to sneak into a lot of those small offices and end up getting a scary number of votes because most people just don't pay that much attention. Call out to the water inspector candidate who's appeal was, "I need a job and I think I can do this one." Against the very very qualified other candidate. I vote for judges here and those don't get labeled with a party on the ballot but whoo boy do the candidates make it clear what they're about.
We got some people on the city council where I live we replaced the conservative mayor and a couple of very conservative city council seats with much more liberal candidates and it's made a dramatic difference.
When we first moved here I wrote to the city council about our lack of good internet options (I shit you not, the cable internet company is worse that Comcast). The reply I got was basically, "It's not the governments job to get you good internet access."
I replied right back that he had better make it his job or I would find someone who will. I should be able to get my municipal fiber connection this spring.
posted by VTX at 4:32 PM on January 30 [11 favorites]
It's basically a sign that says, "You need to pay attention to the people here 'cause we goddamn vote!"
Even if you're in an area where the presidential race is a foregone conclusion, there are still local races that will matter to you a LOT more, a TON more than the national races. I always dig into each office on my ballot and there are real weirdos that try to sneak into a lot of those small offices and end up getting a scary number of votes because most people just don't pay that much attention. Call out to the water inspector candidate who's appeal was, "I need a job and I think I can do this one." Against the very very qualified other candidate. I vote for judges here and those don't get labeled with a party on the ballot but whoo boy do the candidates make it clear what they're about.
We got some people on the city council where I live we replaced the conservative mayor and a couple of very conservative city council seats with much more liberal candidates and it's made a dramatic difference.
When we first moved here I wrote to the city council about our lack of good internet options (I shit you not, the cable internet company is worse that Comcast). The reply I got was basically, "It's not the governments job to get you good internet access."
I replied right back that he had better make it his job or I would find someone who will. I should be able to get my municipal fiber connection this spring.
posted by VTX at 4:32 PM on January 30 [11 favorites]
Trump Allies Pledge ‘Holy War’ Against Taylor Swift
...yeah! Rap battle! Dance-off!
posted by Artful Codger at 4:53 PM on January 30 [6 favorites]
...yeah! Rap battle! Dance-off!
posted by Artful Codger at 4:53 PM on January 30 [6 favorites]
It's basically a sign that says, "You need to pay attention to the people here 'cause we goddamn vote!"
I absolutely do not want more national Democratic Party interest in local races here, they are the opposition.
posted by Artw at 5:01 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]
I absolutely do not want more national Democratic Party interest in local races here, they are the opposition.
posted by Artw at 5:01 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]
Counterpoint, then I'm done thread sitting for a minute, but yes you kinda do. Because it means that the opinions of the voters in your district shape the kind of candidates that run. If your district is full of rabid socialists that all vote in every election, that will influence the candidates that run and who finds success locally.
It's the kind of thing that makes it clear candidates that YOU like can find success so more candidates like that will run. I assume you're voting in the dem primaries too and both of those things together can drive candidates for local office to the left.
I want dems to be the opposition party too, that's why I vote for dems. We need to get rid of the current opposition party to make room for a new order. It's dumb and slow and frustrating as hell and I would really love if someone did show up at my door ready to do a leftist coup. But I'm not a leader, I don't have the skills to organize all of that. So until that happens, I will vote for the slightly less shitty meal. I don't like it but I know it's the most viable path to what I actually want.
Let me clear that voting is the least politically involved thing I do. I consider it the bare minimum. Mostly I also donate to a lot of organizations that encourage voting in various ways.
posted by VTX at 5:21 PM on January 30 [4 favorites]
It's the kind of thing that makes it clear candidates that YOU like can find success so more candidates like that will run. I assume you're voting in the dem primaries too and both of those things together can drive candidates for local office to the left.
I want dems to be the opposition party too, that's why I vote for dems. We need to get rid of the current opposition party to make room for a new order. It's dumb and slow and frustrating as hell and I would really love if someone did show up at my door ready to do a leftist coup. But I'm not a leader, I don't have the skills to organize all of that. So until that happens, I will vote for the slightly less shitty meal. I don't like it but I know it's the most viable path to what I actually want.
Let me clear that voting is the least politically involved thing I do. I consider it the bare minimum. Mostly I also donate to a lot of organizations that encourage voting in various ways.
posted by VTX at 5:21 PM on January 30 [4 favorites]
I'm honestly very skeptical that a far left president is as impossible as centrist democrats laughingly insist it is. Let me tell you what I mean.
When people voted for Obama in 2008, there was a general perception that he would be an incredibly liberal president. I remember being rather surprised to discover that his voting record...did not support this impression. Republicans believed it, naturally, but so did democrats. And I don't think that hurt him. Quite the contrary.
On the other hand, centrist democrats talked about John McCain, generally, with great respect. To be honest, I don't think McCain would have been a terribly different president than Joe Biden. And I think the thinking was that this man would appeal to voters on both sides. And it didn't work. The democrats had their guy, but perhaps more importantly, the moderate McCain was not the republican voter's guy. He was meant to be a guy everyone would vote for, like Reagan. But that ship had sailed, and the similarly centrist Romney also lost.
I think Trump won in 2016 for two reasons. One, the electoral college, which is bullshit. Two, because he represented the unleaded conservative that republican voters could get excited about, God help us all.
I think Biden won in 2020 because so many people hated Trump. But I think it's a mistake to presume the average democratic voter really wants a democrat so moderate he could just as easily pass for a mellow republican, any more than the average republican voter really wants a republican so moderate he could pass for a particularly authoritarian democrat.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:39 PM on January 30 [17 favorites]
When people voted for Obama in 2008, there was a general perception that he would be an incredibly liberal president. I remember being rather surprised to discover that his voting record...did not support this impression. Republicans believed it, naturally, but so did democrats. And I don't think that hurt him. Quite the contrary.
On the other hand, centrist democrats talked about John McCain, generally, with great respect. To be honest, I don't think McCain would have been a terribly different president than Joe Biden. And I think the thinking was that this man would appeal to voters on both sides. And it didn't work. The democrats had their guy, but perhaps more importantly, the moderate McCain was not the republican voter's guy. He was meant to be a guy everyone would vote for, like Reagan. But that ship had sailed, and the similarly centrist Romney also lost.
I think Trump won in 2016 for two reasons. One, the electoral college, which is bullshit. Two, because he represented the unleaded conservative that republican voters could get excited about, God help us all.
I think Biden won in 2020 because so many people hated Trump. But I think it's a mistake to presume the average democratic voter really wants a democrat so moderate he could just as easily pass for a mellow republican, any more than the average republican voter really wants a republican so moderate he could pass for a particularly authoritarian democrat.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:39 PM on January 30 [17 favorites]
The truth is, a lot of people are fascists. We like to imagine that fascists are all socially dysfunctional neo-Nazis, but they aren't. Fascism offers easy, emotionally gratifying answers to scary situations and rationalizes the prejudices that people already have. A lot more people may not gravitate to fascism when the status quo is unquestioned, but will happily ally with fascists against an organized political left or powerful anti-racist movement.
In the long term, building a more just, more equal, and more secure society will help, because there will be less of the raw existential terror that fascism thrives on. But in the mean time, every move towards that better world will be met with irrationality and violence. There is an entire industry devoted to scaring and enraging people and then selling them strongmen and scapegoats.
Dismantling that industry and making a better world will probably have to come after defeating fascism. I think hoping to find some secret key that makes people start acting rationally and empathically on a national level is a fool's errand.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 6:45 PM on January 30 [5 favorites]
In the long term, building a more just, more equal, and more secure society will help, because there will be less of the raw existential terror that fascism thrives on. But in the mean time, every move towards that better world will be met with irrationality and violence. There is an entire industry devoted to scaring and enraging people and then selling them strongmen and scapegoats.
Dismantling that industry and making a better world will probably have to come after defeating fascism. I think hoping to find some secret key that makes people start acting rationally and empathically on a national level is a fool's errand.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 6:45 PM on January 30 [5 favorites]
‘Weak Dem Candidates’ who already beat trump once, and by receiving literally the most votes of anyone in history -chronkite
Can we please stop trotting out this mathematically illiterate canard? -mstokes650
But it's literally not mathematically illiterate. Now, granted, 75+% of those people were voting Not-Trump, but still, while BIden may not tickle the fancy of leftists, everyone from moderate conservatives all the way to very-liberal-but-not-leftists were like "he will absolutely do", and he did. -outgrown hobnail
Whoever wins the election in 2024 will receive literally the most votes of anyone in history because there will be more people. -kirkarache
Thank you mstokes650 and kirkarache.
You are correct hobnail that it is literally correct that Biden got the most votes in [US Presidential election] history but it's meaningless. There are more people swimming and breathing and talking than ever before in history as well, but those things aren't more popular than they were before.
51% of a growing population will always be more than any election in history, but 51% is really not anything special other than barely winning.
posted by LizBoBiz at 7:18 PM on January 30 [5 favorites]
Can we please stop trotting out this mathematically illiterate canard? -mstokes650
But it's literally not mathematically illiterate. Now, granted, 75+% of those people were voting Not-Trump, but still, while BIden may not tickle the fancy of leftists, everyone from moderate conservatives all the way to very-liberal-but-not-leftists were like "he will absolutely do", and he did. -outgrown hobnail
Whoever wins the election in 2024 will receive literally the most votes of anyone in history because there will be more people. -kirkarache
Thank you mstokes650 and kirkarache.
You are correct hobnail that it is literally correct that Biden got the most votes in [US Presidential election] history but it's meaningless. There are more people swimming and breathing and talking than ever before in history as well, but those things aren't more popular than they were before.
51% of a growing population will always be more than any election in history, but 51% is really not anything special other than barely winning.
posted by LizBoBiz at 7:18 PM on January 30 [5 favorites]
Artw: “Trump Allies Pledge ‘Holy War’ Against Taylor Swift”“Donald Trump is Partially Right About Taylor Swift,” Daniel W. Drezner, Drezner’s World, 30 January 2024
The clickbait, it burns.posted by ob1quixote at 7:30 PM on January 30 [3 favorites]
She’s richer than him. War is inevitable.
posted by Artw at 7:43 PM on January 30 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:43 PM on January 30 [3 favorites]
She’s richer than him. War is inevitable.
I hope she knows that she could squash him like a bug at the right time. Trump's followers all consider themselves losers in one way or another, and are hoping against hope someone young and intelligent doesn't erase them from the headlines because of her charm and success.
posted by Brian B. at 8:00 PM on January 30 [4 favorites]
I hope she knows that she could squash him like a bug at the right time. Trump's followers all consider themselves losers in one way or another, and are hoping against hope someone young and intelligent doesn't erase them from the headlines because of her charm and success.
posted by Brian B. at 8:00 PM on January 30 [4 favorites]
Trump Allies Pledge ‘Holy War’ Against Taylor Swift
Have you heard about the lonesome loser?
Beaten by the queen of hearts every time
posted by kirkaracha at 8:17 PM on January 30 [7 favorites]
Have you heard about the lonesome loser?
Beaten by the queen of hearts every time
posted by kirkaracha at 8:17 PM on January 30 [7 favorites]
I seem to remember some data in some previous politics thread (there've been...a few) where the data showed that if all eligible actually voted, democrats win in landslides. We already know that turnout is good for the left most party available. Getting more people voting hurts the GOP. That's how we can get them to go away, everyone votes. .
The data actually didn't bear that out. Here's a Pew research study of voting habits: new voters time voters (counted as not voting since before 2016), were split pretty evenly.
That was also my gut feeling after the 2020 election: just getting out more votes is not enough. Assholes are also as lazy and disengaged as non-assholes and indiscriminately telling people to vote (while is good on it's own and good for democracy) will not guarantee a win for the democrats.
Some stats (ignoring 3rd party here for simplicity sake):
2016 Election:
D: 65.85m (51%)
R: 62.98m
Total: 128.84m
2020 Election:
D: 81.28m (52%)
R: 74.22m
Total: 155.51m
Change:
D: 15.43m (58%)
R: 11.24m
Total: 26.67m
More 20m people voting did not mean the landslide that everyone thinks it does. New voters are only more into Biden because of the share of young people who are first-time voters. For anyone over 30 (according to the Pew article), they went the other way.
This is not an argument to restrict voting - definitely not! - but more people voting is not the silver bullet to fix everything.
posted by LizBoBiz at 9:54 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]
The data actually didn't bear that out. Here's a Pew research study of voting habits: new voters time voters (counted as not voting since before 2016), were split pretty evenly.
That was also my gut feeling after the 2020 election: just getting out more votes is not enough. Assholes are also as lazy and disengaged as non-assholes and indiscriminately telling people to vote (while is good on it's own and good for democracy) will not guarantee a win for the democrats.
Some stats (ignoring 3rd party here for simplicity sake):
2016 Election:
D: 65.85m (51%)
R: 62.98m
Total: 128.84m
2020 Election:
D: 81.28m (52%)
R: 74.22m
Total: 155.51m
Change:
D: 15.43m (58%)
R: 11.24m
Total: 26.67m
More 20m people voting did not mean the landslide that everyone thinks it does. New voters are only more into Biden because of the share of young people who are first-time voters. For anyone over 30 (according to the Pew article), they went the other way.
This is not an argument to restrict voting - definitely not! - but more people voting is not the silver bullet to fix everything.
posted by LizBoBiz at 9:54 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]
With respect to the Palestinian thing, I'm truly baffled. Yes, we can agree that the Democratic Party is too beholden to the Israel lobby, but imagine what this would be like were Trump still president.But Trump isn't President. And when you're committing a crime in broad daylight, it's no defence to say "if I weren't doing it, someone else would be"
The crime that we are talking about here is essentially the worst crime that exists. Voters have the option of demonstrating that there is an electoral cost to committing genocide, or that there isn't one.
posted by nikodym at 10:08 PM on January 30 [10 favorites]
Voters have the option of demonstrating that there is an electoral cost to committing genocide, or that there isn't one.
Trouble is, if voters choose to penalise Biden in this way they increase the chances of Trump beating him in November. If that happens, the end result of their vote would be to make the world in general - and the Palestinians' plight in particular - even worse than it is now.
posted by Paul Slade at 11:44 PM on January 30 [7 favorites]
Trouble is, if voters choose to penalise Biden in this way they increase the chances of Trump beating him in November. If that happens, the end result of their vote would be to make the world in general - and the Palestinians' plight in particular - even worse than it is now.
posted by Paul Slade at 11:44 PM on January 30 [7 favorites]
If that happens, the end result of their vote would be to make the world in general - and the Palestinians' plight in particular - even worse than it is now.
But it's worse now than it's ever been, including under Trump.
It's a genocide. And the argument is: vote for this genocide if you don't want a worse genocide...?
Sorry but I think there reaches a certain volume of mass-slaughter where the "good cop / bad cop" routine simply becomes too morally atrocious to work. Nobody deserves Trump as much as the people making this argument.
If Biden loses because he remorselessly slaughtered thousands of kids and disgusted the electorate, the end result will be that Democrats recognize that there are limits to what they can get away with, at least if they want re-election.
The alternative is to affirm that there are absolutely no limits to the evil they can commit, given the cover of a sufficiently grotesque Republican alternative. Which means that there truly is no hope.
posted by nikodym at 1:07 AM on January 31 [11 favorites]
But it's worse now than it's ever been, including under Trump.
It's a genocide. And the argument is: vote for this genocide if you don't want a worse genocide...?
Sorry but I think there reaches a certain volume of mass-slaughter where the "good cop / bad cop" routine simply becomes too morally atrocious to work. Nobody deserves Trump as much as the people making this argument.
If Biden loses because he remorselessly slaughtered thousands of kids and disgusted the electorate, the end result will be that Democrats recognize that there are limits to what they can get away with, at least if they want re-election.
The alternative is to affirm that there are absolutely no limits to the evil they can commit, given the cover of a sufficiently grotesque Republican alternative. Which means that there truly is no hope.
posted by nikodym at 1:07 AM on January 31 [11 favorites]
Voting is such a limited tool for behavior shaping. With children, positive reinforcement works better than threats. Trying to imagine alternatives now. “I’m really proud of you today, Joey! Benny asked you to help him genocide the neighbors again and you said no! That’s another sticker on your sticker chart! Once you get five, I’ll give you a nice big donation!”
posted by eirias at 2:08 AM on January 31 [1 favorite]
posted by eirias at 2:08 AM on January 31 [1 favorite]
I'm surprised that so many Americans hold Biden responsible for the situation in Gaza. You are all aware that Netanyahu is on a suicide mission and will continue regardless of what support he gets, right?
I am very disappointed that there are so few visible efforts from the West to get Israel to stop what they are doing, but USA and Western Europe are not the perpetrators here.
I'll get back to that, but I first want to state that I am pretty darn sure that the Hamas attack on Israel is the direct result of Kuschner's "Middle East Deal". So we don't have to speculate about what Trump will do about it, if he becomes president. Trump supports an unholy alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia and increased isolation of Iran. That is one of his otherwise rare actual policies, because he gets paid very handsomely for upholding it.
Now for the Western support for Israel right now. My impression is that support for Israel is so deeply ingrained in most Western countries that there is no real reflection going on. All the institutions and all the systems are geared that way, and in order to turn around, something monumental has to happen. This might be it, and if it is, Hamas' plan is working, at the cost of thousands of innocent human beings.
I haven't participated in the relevant threads, and I won't. I just wanted to state that I think Biden's guilt, which is real, is a derail when it comes to the US elections. Because there is no imaginable president who could do differently (except those who would do worse). I don't think Bernie Sanders could have done it differently, even if he wanted. Congress would roll over him.
posted by mumimor at 2:41 AM on January 31 [20 favorites]
I am very disappointed that there are so few visible efforts from the West to get Israel to stop what they are doing, but USA and Western Europe are not the perpetrators here.
I'll get back to that, but I first want to state that I am pretty darn sure that the Hamas attack on Israel is the direct result of Kuschner's "Middle East Deal". So we don't have to speculate about what Trump will do about it, if he becomes president. Trump supports an unholy alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia and increased isolation of Iran. That is one of his otherwise rare actual policies, because he gets paid very handsomely for upholding it.
Now for the Western support for Israel right now. My impression is that support for Israel is so deeply ingrained in most Western countries that there is no real reflection going on. All the institutions and all the systems are geared that way, and in order to turn around, something monumental has to happen. This might be it, and if it is, Hamas' plan is working, at the cost of thousands of innocent human beings.
I haven't participated in the relevant threads, and I won't. I just wanted to state that I think Biden's guilt, which is real, is a derail when it comes to the US elections. Because there is no imaginable president who could do differently (except those who would do worse). I don't think Bernie Sanders could have done it differently, even if he wanted. Congress would roll over him.
posted by mumimor at 2:41 AM on January 31 [20 favorites]
On 10 August, when American envoy Philip Habib submitted a draft agreement to Israel, Sharon, probably impatient with what he regarded as American meddling, ordered a saturation bombing of Beirut, during which at least 300 people were killed. That bombing was followed by a protest to the Israeli government by President Ronald Reagan. Within 20 minutes of a phone call between Reagan and Begin, in which the former said the bombings were going too far and needed to stop, Begin ordered the bombings stopped
If Biden couldn't end this in 20 minutes, he could at least try.
posted by nikodym at 3:17 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
If Biden couldn't end this in 20 minutes, he could at least try.
Who says he hasn't?
Netanyahu is not Begin.
posted by mumimor at 4:11 AM on January 31 [6 favorites]
Who says he hasn't?
Netanyahu is not Begin.
posted by mumimor at 4:11 AM on January 31 [6 favorites]
Sorry but I think there reaches a certain volume of mass-slaughter where the "good cop / bad cop" routine simply becomes too morally atrocious to work. Nobody deserves Trump as much as the people making this argument.
This is what I've been thinking. "Hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil" is a utilitarian position, and while I broadly agree with utilitarianism, there's a limit to what we can expect anyone to be willing to take a positive action to enable. I hope I'd pull the lever in a 1:100 trolley problem, but doing so in a 99:100 version is abhorrent to me, even if you're technically saving a life.
When the calculus is "genocide or *probably* but not *certainly* even more genocide" I think that's a pretty reasonable point for someone to say they have had enough.
To say nothing of the idea that not only should people knowngly vote for genocide, they should also be silent on that genocide because it makes Biden look bad.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:14 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
This is what I've been thinking. "Hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil" is a utilitarian position, and while I broadly agree with utilitarianism, there's a limit to what we can expect anyone to be willing to take a positive action to enable. I hope I'd pull the lever in a 1:100 trolley problem, but doing so in a 99:100 version is abhorrent to me, even if you're technically saving a life.
When the calculus is "genocide or *probably* but not *certainly* even more genocide" I think that's a pretty reasonable point for someone to say they have had enough.
To say nothing of the idea that not only should people knowngly vote for genocide, they should also be silent on that genocide because it makes Biden look bad.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:14 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
If Biden couldn't end this in 20 minutes, he could at least try.
Who says he hasn't?
Netanyahu is not Begin.
Cut off all military and financial aid, full trade embargo, charge and try any US citizen who fights for the IDF or is involved in illegal settlements, or in any other way provides aid and comfort to a rogue state which is openly flaunting the rules of war, disguising its soldiers as medical personnel and executing wounded enemies out of combat.
That's the threat that could be made. You really think it wouldn't work?
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:27 AM on January 31 [8 favorites]
Who says he hasn't?
Netanyahu is not Begin.
Cut off all military and financial aid, full trade embargo, charge and try any US citizen who fights for the IDF or is involved in illegal settlements, or in any other way provides aid and comfort to a rogue state which is openly flaunting the rules of war, disguising its soldiers as medical personnel and executing wounded enemies out of combat.
That's the threat that could be made. You really think it wouldn't work?
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:27 AM on January 31 [8 favorites]
I absolutely think it would work. What I think is that no president can make that decision and Netanyahu knows they can't. But let's end the derail here.
posted by mumimor at 5:35 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 5:35 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
Even if you're in an area where the presidential race is a foregone conclusion, there are still local races that will matter to you a LOT more, a TON more than the national races.
This is where I'm at. The national races are of course incredibly important too, but for some reason a lot of people ignore local races, except for motivated right-wingers and a sliver of the population across the board who just believe in voting every election no matter how small (bless those people). I'm in Nashville and in municipal elections, primaries, and runoffs we get like 10-20% turnout of eligible voters (vs around 65% in presidential elections). We have an election March 5 which is the primaries for the presidential race (so we might get a bump from that? but probably not much of one) and it decides things like whether our school board is reasonable people or crazed loons.
A few years ago I did a postcard campaign to get out the vote for my city counsellor - the options were a fairly progressive woman or a former councilor who was pretty classic Maga (and who later died of Covid he had contracted to prove it wasn't real). I wrote over 1,000 hand-crafted postcards (it was all I did in my free time for about 6 weeks prior to the election) and my councilor won by a lot less than 1,000 votes. Her campaign did a lot of doorknocking (this was pre-pandemic) and texting and other outreach so she probably would have won without my efforts, but maybe not, the other guy had pretty massive name recognition and turnout for that municipal-only race was in the low teens.
If leftists engaged in this kind of local electoral work (and I know a lot of us are, but also a lot of people aren't), the crop of people available to move up to state and federal races in a decade or two would be so much more progressive and leftwing than currently.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:21 AM on January 31 [10 favorites]
This is where I'm at. The national races are of course incredibly important too, but for some reason a lot of people ignore local races, except for motivated right-wingers and a sliver of the population across the board who just believe in voting every election no matter how small (bless those people). I'm in Nashville and in municipal elections, primaries, and runoffs we get like 10-20% turnout of eligible voters (vs around 65% in presidential elections). We have an election March 5 which is the primaries for the presidential race (so we might get a bump from that? but probably not much of one) and it decides things like whether our school board is reasonable people or crazed loons.
A few years ago I did a postcard campaign to get out the vote for my city counsellor - the options were a fairly progressive woman or a former councilor who was pretty classic Maga (and who later died of Covid he had contracted to prove it wasn't real). I wrote over 1,000 hand-crafted postcards (it was all I did in my free time for about 6 weeks prior to the election) and my councilor won by a lot less than 1,000 votes. Her campaign did a lot of doorknocking (this was pre-pandemic) and texting and other outreach so she probably would have won without my efforts, but maybe not, the other guy had pretty massive name recognition and turnout for that municipal-only race was in the low teens.
If leftists engaged in this kind of local electoral work (and I know a lot of us are, but also a lot of people aren't), the crop of people available to move up to state and federal races in a decade or two would be so much more progressive and leftwing than currently.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:21 AM on January 31 [10 favorites]
Artw: “Trump Allies Pledge ‘Holy War’ Against Taylor Swift”“Trump Declares War on Taylor Swift”—Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 31 January 2024
Because this is the way to overcome a record stock market high, universal employment, and the suspicion that he's an insane treasonous rapist in some kind of mental health crisis who'll be in jail before Inauguration Day, Trump has now declared "Holy War" against... Taylor Swift.posted by ob1quixote at 6:37 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
It's SWIFT BOAT '24!
While I would never wish for Taylor Swift to be harassed by Republicans or targeted by Republican politicians, I must confess I do feel a certain anticipatory glee due to the decision of the Republicans to make an unforced error and start attacking Taylor Swift for (checks notes), um... dating a football player who's team is going to the Superbowl?
Swift is richer than Trump, more popular than Trump, and she's had decades of experience in making rich white men regret trying to fuck her around.
Plus of course, she's got a lot of fans and if "Trump hates Taylor" becomes a thing some meaningful percentage of them might be motivated to vote against Trump.
nikodym I don't think anyone is arguing that Biden can instantly stop the genocide, or that he's directly responsible. The problem is he's complicit, and he's continuing to give Israel the weapons it is using to carry out the genocide.
It's that last that is especially damning. If it was just a case of Biden being a typical mealy mouthed wimpy Democrat and not denouncing the genocide that'd be sub-optimal but probably wouldn't cost him much. The problem is that he's out there defending the genocide as "self defense" and he's working overtime and bending or even outright ignoring laws to get as many weapons to Israel as possible. [1]
Biden isn't just some helpless bystander here even if he isn't all powerful and can just instantly make Israel stop. His continued and remorseless support for Israel's program of murdering children and journalists is causing him severe electoral damage and he doesn't seem to give a shit. If the people scolding leftists for not obeying the Tinkerbell Rule and clapping loudly enough actually cared about elections they'd be a LOT more concerned about Biden's decision to tell Muslim voters to go fuck themselves than about my failure to say he's the greatest president ever.
[1] I find that especially galling becasue people keep telling me that the Democrats must always respect the sacred rules and that under no circumstances can they ever even try to find loopholes much less bend the rules. In fact I've been accused of being an authoritarian because I suggested that it would have been better if Obama just seated Garland once the Republicans anounced that they would never hold a hearing.
But when Biden just says "fuck the law, let's help Israel kill as many babies as possible" that's apparently not authoritarian in the slightest?
posted by sotonohito at 6:51 AM on January 31 [12 favorites]
Swift is richer than Trump, more popular than Trump, and she's had decades of experience in making rich white men regret trying to fuck her around.
Plus of course, she's got a lot of fans and if "Trump hates Taylor" becomes a thing some meaningful percentage of them might be motivated to vote against Trump.
nikodym I don't think anyone is arguing that Biden can instantly stop the genocide, or that he's directly responsible. The problem is he's complicit, and he's continuing to give Israel the weapons it is using to carry out the genocide.
It's that last that is especially damning. If it was just a case of Biden being a typical mealy mouthed wimpy Democrat and not denouncing the genocide that'd be sub-optimal but probably wouldn't cost him much. The problem is that he's out there defending the genocide as "self defense" and he's working overtime and bending or even outright ignoring laws to get as many weapons to Israel as possible. [1]
Biden isn't just some helpless bystander here even if he isn't all powerful and can just instantly make Israel stop. His continued and remorseless support for Israel's program of murdering children and journalists is causing him severe electoral damage and he doesn't seem to give a shit. If the people scolding leftists for not obeying the Tinkerbell Rule and clapping loudly enough actually cared about elections they'd be a LOT more concerned about Biden's decision to tell Muslim voters to go fuck themselves than about my failure to say he's the greatest president ever.
[1] I find that especially galling becasue people keep telling me that the Democrats must always respect the sacred rules and that under no circumstances can they ever even try to find loopholes much less bend the rules. In fact I've been accused of being an authoritarian because I suggested that it would have been better if Obama just seated Garland once the Republicans anounced that they would never hold a hearing.
But when Biden just says "fuck the law, let's help Israel kill as many babies as possible" that's apparently not authoritarian in the slightest?
posted by sotonohito at 6:51 AM on January 31 [12 favorites]
The data actually didn't bear that out.
Thank you for this.
but more people voting is not the silver bullet to fix everything
You're right that there are no silver bullets. But another big shift that should happen as a result of greatly increased voter participation is that more candidates on both sides gravitate towards the middle.
Once so many people are voting that it's not mostly just us politically engaged cranks and includes a lot more folks in the middle, those moderate votes get to be more important.
Right now, few enough actual moderates vote that there's no use appealing to them or trying to peel off votes from the other side. When that's most of the votes then they have a much greater influence on who gets votes and it pushes them toward the middle.
I'm too lazy to dig it up but there was a thread about how in countries with much greater voter participation tend to have much more moderate politicians.
That's no silver bullet either and even if it were, the whole thing takes such massive effort it would be a silver bullet that you made yourself after making the gun to fire it, having started with bare ground gathering all the materials and building all the tools you need to build the tools you need...etc until you have fancy enough tools to produce a modern, high quality, pistol.
posted by VTX at 7:02 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
Thank you for this.
but more people voting is not the silver bullet to fix everything
You're right that there are no silver bullets. But another big shift that should happen as a result of greatly increased voter participation is that more candidates on both sides gravitate towards the middle.
Once so many people are voting that it's not mostly just us politically engaged cranks and includes a lot more folks in the middle, those moderate votes get to be more important.
Right now, few enough actual moderates vote that there's no use appealing to them or trying to peel off votes from the other side. When that's most of the votes then they have a much greater influence on who gets votes and it pushes them toward the middle.
I'm too lazy to dig it up but there was a thread about how in countries with much greater voter participation tend to have much more moderate politicians.
That's no silver bullet either and even if it were, the whole thing takes such massive effort it would be a silver bullet that you made yourself after making the gun to fire it, having started with bare ground gathering all the materials and building all the tools you need to build the tools you need...etc until you have fancy enough tools to produce a modern, high quality, pistol.
posted by VTX at 7:02 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
for a strained analogy it's actually pretty effective, VTX
posted by elkevelvet at 7:28 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
posted by elkevelvet at 7:28 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
I never know what to think about the question of political moderation. When I was young, supporting equal rights for gay people was truly a fringe position. I’m glad this changed; it was one of the first political commitments I remember having. Did it change because the left moved further left? It felt for a brief window like a consensus position, but what with all the anti-trans stuff happening over the last few years that feels like it was illusory. I don’t want to give up the gains, though. Does that make me an extremist?
posted by eirias at 8:26 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
posted by eirias at 8:26 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
In a stupidly bipolar system, it's dangerous to be a single-issue voter (or abstainer*); there are too many other things put at risk in doing that. Especially with this issue and the two most likely contenders. You can rightly hate on Biden for his current uncritical support of Israel.... but would enabling a Trump victory improve any of that ?
To achieve a big goal, you have to do all the things. You should help elect the best (or the least worst) candidate, AND still continue to beat on them for their wrong actions.
*well, if you abstain because you're actively working to change or overthrow the system, and not just having a sulk, that's also a responsible position. But again, you can do both; cast a vote in the system you still intend to dismantle
posted by Artful Codger at 8:47 AM on January 31 [7 favorites]
To achieve a big goal, you have to do all the things. You should help elect the best (or the least worst) candidate, AND still continue to beat on them for their wrong actions.
*well, if you abstain because you're actively working to change or overthrow the system, and not just having a sulk, that's also a responsible position. But again, you can do both; cast a vote in the system you still intend to dismantle
posted by Artful Codger at 8:47 AM on January 31 [7 favorites]
It felt for a brief window like a consensus position, but what with all the anti-trans stuff happening over the last few years that feels like it was illusory. I don’t want to give up the gains, though. Does that make me an extremist?
Labour in the UK is fully chasing the transphobia wave and calling anyone who doesn’t agree an extremist. It’s commendable and more surprising than it should be that Dems haven’t done a similar thing. Pretty sure if they get spooked enough they will.
And of course they back KOSA to the hilt so maybe I am speaking too soon.
In the event that it happens yes you will be an extremist and yes people on Metafilter will yell at you for not voting hard enough even if you voted.
Also you will be doing the right thing.
posted by Artw at 8:52 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
Labour in the UK is fully chasing the transphobia wave and calling anyone who doesn’t agree an extremist. It’s commendable and more surprising than it should be that Dems haven’t done a similar thing. Pretty sure if they get spooked enough they will.
And of course they back KOSA to the hilt so maybe I am speaking too soon.
In the event that it happens yes you will be an extremist and yes people on Metafilter will yell at you for not voting hard enough even if you voted.
Also you will be doing the right thing.
posted by Artw at 8:52 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
To achieve a big goal, you have to do all the things. You should help elect the best (or the least worst) candidate, AND still continue to beat on them for their wrong actions.
I'm not sure how else to say this, but the only reason Joe Biden gives a shit what anyone reading this thinks about anything, at all, is because those thoughts could affect one's willingness to vote for him. There is no other way to "beat on" the democratic party for running centrist candidates than to choose not to vote for them. I am not sure any other strategy will convince the democratic party to run other candidates for president in our lifetimes.
For me, living in a state that could easily go red or blue based on a relatively small number of votes, I am not sure yet whether voting for Joe Biden in an effort to temporarily stave off a moderately worse conservative candidate is a better use of my vote than, effectively, protest; I know that, obviously, my vote for a write-in or a third party candidate would not be successful in the sense that my vote would help that person win office. I am constitutionally incapable of not voting, and my hope is that a protest vote, if I cast one, would be evidence that I was not simply too lazy to cast a vote, but actively chose not to support a candidate whose presidency, I feel, has been actively bad for America. Joe Biden took office with the lowest expectations I have ever held for a winning candidate for whom I voted, and over and over he has failed to clear that bar, and frankly he seems proud of how disappointing his time in office has been to the very people who voted for him. I am just not sure that's something I want to support anymore.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:04 AM on January 31 [8 favorites]
I'm not sure how else to say this, but the only reason Joe Biden gives a shit what anyone reading this thinks about anything, at all, is because those thoughts could affect one's willingness to vote for him. There is no other way to "beat on" the democratic party for running centrist candidates than to choose not to vote for them. I am not sure any other strategy will convince the democratic party to run other candidates for president in our lifetimes.
For me, living in a state that could easily go red or blue based on a relatively small number of votes, I am not sure yet whether voting for Joe Biden in an effort to temporarily stave off a moderately worse conservative candidate is a better use of my vote than, effectively, protest; I know that, obviously, my vote for a write-in or a third party candidate would not be successful in the sense that my vote would help that person win office. I am constitutionally incapable of not voting, and my hope is that a protest vote, if I cast one, would be evidence that I was not simply too lazy to cast a vote, but actively chose not to support a candidate whose presidency, I feel, has been actively bad for America. Joe Biden took office with the lowest expectations I have ever held for a winning candidate for whom I voted, and over and over he has failed to clear that bar, and frankly he seems proud of how disappointing his time in office has been to the very people who voted for him. I am just not sure that's something I want to support anymore.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:04 AM on January 31 [8 favorites]
An alternative strategy would be to vote in more progressive candidates further down the ticket. There's no doubt that the progressives in congress and out there in the state governments are influencing the main Democratic policies.
Even in this socialist parliamentary paradise, that is what I do, because the Social Democrats are just too immersed in the status quo and need to be constantly kicked in the butt. I even have two different leftist parties to choose between.
I want our PM to be a Social Democrat, further left is not a real option, and sometimes I vote for her in the general as needed. But I can use my local votes to force her to remember I'm here.
posted by mumimor at 9:19 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
Even in this socialist parliamentary paradise, that is what I do, because the Social Democrats are just too immersed in the status quo and need to be constantly kicked in the butt. I even have two different leftist parties to choose between.
I want our PM to be a Social Democrat, further left is not a real option, and sometimes I vote for her in the general as needed. But I can use my local votes to force her to remember I'm here.
posted by mumimor at 9:19 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
If you would have voted for not-Trump and instead do some kind of protest vote, you help Trump.
No matter what you choose to do, you're making a choice that affects the outcome of the election.
posted by VTX at 9:34 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
No matter what you choose to do, you're making a choice that affects the outcome of the election.
posted by VTX at 9:34 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
Energy people are expending trying to get people to affirmatively vote for genocide could perhaps be better spent taking steps to oppose a genocide. Call your reps now. Call to your state party now. Tell a friend. Take it to the next level if you have the juice. If the US posture changes then the argument will be moot.
posted by StarkRoads at 9:49 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
posted by StarkRoads at 9:49 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
There is no other way to "beat on" the democratic party for running centrist candidates than to choose not to vote for them. I am not sure any other strategy will convince the democratic party to run other candidates for president in our lifetimes.
It's tough to hear the despair in that position. I guess it's a matter of finding and encouraging the right sort of people to run. In a system that pits a center-right party against a further-right party, it's an uphill battle to promote a center-left candidate, for true.
I am not sure yet whether voting for Joe Biden in an effort to temporarily stave off a moderately worse conservative candidate is a better use of my vote than, effectively, protest.
TFG would just be "moderately worse"? I confess this is incomprehensible to me. Just in terms of the Gaza war and current US support for Israel... it's probably accurate. But there's so much more to the job, and so much more at stake, in the US, and in the world, no?
posted by Artful Codger at 9:51 AM on January 31 [12 favorites]
It's tough to hear the despair in that position. I guess it's a matter of finding and encouraging the right sort of people to run. In a system that pits a center-right party against a further-right party, it's an uphill battle to promote a center-left candidate, for true.
I am not sure yet whether voting for Joe Biden in an effort to temporarily stave off a moderately worse conservative candidate is a better use of my vote than, effectively, protest.
TFG would just be "moderately worse"? I confess this is incomprehensible to me. Just in terms of the Gaza war and current US support for Israel... it's probably accurate. But there's so much more to the job, and so much more at stake, in the US, and in the world, no?
posted by Artful Codger at 9:51 AM on January 31 [12 favorites]
moderately worse conservative candidate
I would respectfully and gently suggest that "moderately worse" is not the modifier that applies to someone who has repeatedly said he would be a Fascist dictator from day one. I hope and ask you to reconsider your decision in light of the potential consequences of helping install a Fascist dictator.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:17 AM on January 31 [22 favorites]
I would respectfully and gently suggest that "moderately worse" is not the modifier that applies to someone who has repeatedly said he would be a Fascist dictator from day one. I hope and ask you to reconsider your decision in light of the potential consequences of helping install a Fascist dictator.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:17 AM on January 31 [22 favorites]
Artw: “Trump Allies Pledge ‘Holy War’ Against Taylor Swift”“There Is No Overstating How Frightened White Loser MAGA Republicans Are Of Taylor Swift,” Evan Hurst, The Wonkette, 31 January 2024
Taylor Swift is going to be the thing that pushes them over the edge. And we get to point and laugh at it.posted by ob1quixote at 10:27 AM on January 31 [7 favorites]
It honestly blows my mind, how casually some folks are like, idk, maybe I'll vote, maybe I won't, maybe I'll vote for Biden but the Dems will never learn anything if I keep voting for weak candidates, meh, both sides sucks, tear it all down, yawn.
If your goal is reduction of harm -- to yourself, sure, but certainly to the most vulnerable people in our society -- you hold your nose and vote for Biden. Full stop. If you don't give a shit about the most vulnerable people in our society, the people who are in peril now and will certainly be harmed under Republican leadership, then do whatever the fuck you want. Stay home. Protest vote. Support Trump. Knock yourself out.
But then don't come back here and hang out in other threads about how social programs are being shut down, healthcare dismantled, voting rights stripped away, gay and trans existence being made more and more illegal, abortion rights and birth control and really any sort of womens healthcare at all existing -- don't you dare show up in those threads and say stuff like, oh this is terrible, I wish there was something I could do to help. Because there was something you could do to help, and you chose not to. You had an opportunity to do a small, simple thing that could have helped things go the other way, but you just couldn't bring yourself to do it.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 10:29 AM on January 31 [29 favorites]
If your goal is reduction of harm -- to yourself, sure, but certainly to the most vulnerable people in our society -- you hold your nose and vote for Biden. Full stop. If you don't give a shit about the most vulnerable people in our society, the people who are in peril now and will certainly be harmed under Republican leadership, then do whatever the fuck you want. Stay home. Protest vote. Support Trump. Knock yourself out.
But then don't come back here and hang out in other threads about how social programs are being shut down, healthcare dismantled, voting rights stripped away, gay and trans existence being made more and more illegal, abortion rights and birth control and really any sort of womens healthcare at all existing -- don't you dare show up in those threads and say stuff like, oh this is terrible, I wish there was something I could do to help. Because there was something you could do to help, and you chose not to. You had an opportunity to do a small, simple thing that could have helped things go the other way, but you just couldn't bring yourself to do it.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 10:29 AM on January 31 [29 favorites]
If you would have voted for not-Trump and instead do some kind of protest vote, you help Trump.
No matter what you choose to do, you're making a choice that affects the outcome of the election.
Math doesn’t check out on that for me, FWIW. If Washington is in contention he’s already lost.
posted by Artw at 10:33 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
No matter what you choose to do, you're making a choice that affects the outcome of the election.
Math doesn’t check out on that for me, FWIW. If Washington is in contention he’s already lost.
posted by Artw at 10:33 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
I think part of the despair comes from seeing the vote for the position of president as a singular, binary thing when the government is in fact composed of a whole lot of other people than just the President - and in fact the president couldn't be committing genocide or installing himself as a fascist dictator without the enthusiastic support of the rest of the pieces of government.
Your votes for Senator and House reps, and your votes for local candidates, and your involvement in who even runs to begin with, if you have the spoons and juice for that, should all be part of that same calculus. Ideally you have the option of voting for more progressive Congressfolk, and between that and calling or writing them about the issues important to you, you can push the office of president and the rule of the nation one way or the other. If like me you live in a state with only worthless traitor Republicans as Congressfolk then you can still exert pressure by getting involved in local races to make sure that the next crop of people running is less bad. Or even run yourself.
Instead of looking at it like a single decision, I think it should be seen as one thing in a long-term strategy.
posted by joannemerriam at 10:35 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
Your votes for Senator and House reps, and your votes for local candidates, and your involvement in who even runs to begin with, if you have the spoons and juice for that, should all be part of that same calculus. Ideally you have the option of voting for more progressive Congressfolk, and between that and calling or writing them about the issues important to you, you can push the office of president and the rule of the nation one way or the other. If like me you live in a state with only worthless traitor Republicans as Congressfolk then you can still exert pressure by getting involved in local races to make sure that the next crop of people running is less bad. Or even run yourself.
Instead of looking at it like a single decision, I think it should be seen as one thing in a long-term strategy.
posted by joannemerriam at 10:35 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
But then don't come back here and hang out in other threads about how social programs are being shut down, healthcare dismantled, voting rights stripped away, gay and trans existence being made more and more illegal, abortion rights and birth control and really any sort of womens healthcare at all existing -- don't you dare show up in those threads and say stuff like, oh this is terrible, I wish there was something I could do to help.
Yeah I’m going to dare doing all of that shit regardless.
posted by Artw at 10:35 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
Yeah I’m going to dare doing all of that shit regardless.
posted by Artw at 10:35 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
Or, you know, someone who understands the electoral college, it sounds like?
posted by sagc at 10:40 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
posted by sagc at 10:40 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
I don't see cutesy gotchas like "oh it doesn't matter what I vote, my state is blue/red, that's why I can be so flippant about this thing that clearly means so much to all the rest of you" -- I don't see that adding any value to the thread, beyond noise.
Sure. Lots of us are in states where the presidential candidate is a foregone conclusion. Some of us are not, which is a large part of what the broader discussion is about. And every one of us will have plenty of downballot races that actually matter more to our daily lives and the lives of the people in our communities than the presidential race does.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 10:47 AM on January 31 [7 favorites]
Sure. Lots of us are in states where the presidential candidate is a foregone conclusion. Some of us are not, which is a large part of what the broader discussion is about. And every one of us will have plenty of downballot races that actually matter more to our daily lives and the lives of the people in our communities than the presidential race does.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 10:47 AM on January 31 [7 favorites]
It doesn't matter how often the leftists here say they voted for Biden, they ate the lesser weevil, how the stats show that the vast majority of Bernie voters went to Clinton, how many people get complicated with electorates where protest votes were harmless, whether they swallowed their bile and voted Democrat.
I would love it if my fellow Mefites could at least learn to fake a little enthusiasm for ol’ Brandon
This is the point where this thread degenerated into the usual fight. Don't just vote for him, you have to pretend to love him.
It's a straight line from there to the idea that one should be silent on genocide for votes. An active demand for genocide denial. That's where the conversation is still sitting for me, because I can't go past that point.
I would love to be proved wrong, but I'm yet to see a single hardcore liberal here accept that there is a core human duty to speak out about genocide, no matter what. If I'm mistaken, and you're all fine with people talking about Biden's complicity in genocide, let me know.
posted by Audreynachrome at 10:47 AM on January 31 [12 favorites]
I would love it if my fellow Mefites could at least learn to fake a little enthusiasm for ol’ Brandon
This is the point where this thread degenerated into the usual fight. Don't just vote for him, you have to pretend to love him.
It's a straight line from there to the idea that one should be silent on genocide for votes. An active demand for genocide denial. That's where the conversation is still sitting for me, because I can't go past that point.
I would love to be proved wrong, but I'm yet to see a single hardcore liberal here accept that there is a core human duty to speak out about genocide, no matter what. If I'm mistaken, and you're all fine with people talking about Biden's complicity in genocide, let me know.
posted by Audreynachrome at 10:47 AM on January 31 [12 favorites]
But then don't come back here and hang out in other threads about how social programs are being shut down, healthcare dismantled, voting rights stripped away, gay and trans existence being made more and more illegal, abortion rights and birth control and really any sort of womens healthcare at all existing
This is literally what is happening now, three years into Biden's presidency.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:48 AM on January 31 [13 favorites]
This is literally what is happening now, three years into Biden's presidency.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:48 AM on January 31 [13 favorites]
I regret posting that remark, Audreynachrome, because it did seem to start fight that I didn’t intend. The goal was not to jeer at people’s sincere convictions, particularly surrounding the unmitigated horror in Gaza. So let me apologize.
posted by ducky l'orange at 10:54 AM on January 31 [11 favorites]
posted by ducky l'orange at 10:54 AM on January 31 [11 favorites]
This is literally what is happening now, three years into Biden's presidency.
Gosh I guess I just didn't stop and consider how much better things would be under Trump, all other things being equal. What a revelation. Thank you for opening my eyes, kittens for breakfast.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 10:57 AM on January 31 [6 favorites]
Gosh I guess I just didn't stop and consider how much better things would be under Trump, all other things being equal. What a revelation. Thank you for opening my eyes, kittens for breakfast.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 10:57 AM on January 31 [6 favorites]
I've been hesitant to comment in these threads lately. I'm no idealist; I have always been a pragmatic and strategic voter. Voting for Nader in 2000 seemed foolish and unthinkable, and Stein exponentially moreso. I have never abstained from voting in a race in which I was eligible, provided I knew something of the candidates running.
An NBC article from the 28th states that the Biden administration is considering slowing sales of weapons to Israel. The implication is that this is not only something within the administration's power, but also something they could have already been doing. The State Department is withholding funds from UNWRA. If the argument is that the executive branch, contaning the State Department and Pentagon, is institutionally incapable of both halting material support for genocide and resuming aid to the victims of said genocide, I can't blame anyone for simply refusing to participate in voting for president.
I don't know whether or not I will vote for Biden, and I'm finding this quandary extremely stressful. It's keeping me up most nights. This is not something I am taking lightly. Maybe I'd feel differently if the popular vote mattered. I recognize that my privilege shields me from some of the dangers of a fascist republican presidency -- I'm not cis, but I generally present as such, and I'm not straight, but I'm currently in a seemingly hetero relationship, and I'm definitely white. My plan is to consult with my younger, queerer, more publically non-binary sibling; they would be in much more danger than I would, so I will do whatever they prefer.
I hope to see the Biden administration take real action to, at the very least, stop actively supporting the Netanyahu administration's ongoing mass murder of Palestinians. And I certainly plan to vote on the rest of the ballot.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 10:58 AM on January 31 [10 favorites]
An NBC article from the 28th states that the Biden administration is considering slowing sales of weapons to Israel. The implication is that this is not only something within the administration's power, but also something they could have already been doing. The State Department is withholding funds from UNWRA. If the argument is that the executive branch, contaning the State Department and Pentagon, is institutionally incapable of both halting material support for genocide and resuming aid to the victims of said genocide, I can't blame anyone for simply refusing to participate in voting for president.
I don't know whether or not I will vote for Biden, and I'm finding this quandary extremely stressful. It's keeping me up most nights. This is not something I am taking lightly. Maybe I'd feel differently if the popular vote mattered. I recognize that my privilege shields me from some of the dangers of a fascist republican presidency -- I'm not cis, but I generally present as such, and I'm not straight, but I'm currently in a seemingly hetero relationship, and I'm definitely white. My plan is to consult with my younger, queerer, more publically non-binary sibling; they would be in much more danger than I would, so I will do whatever they prefer.
I hope to see the Biden administration take real action to, at the very least, stop actively supporting the Netanyahu administration's ongoing mass murder of Palestinians. And I certainly plan to vote on the rest of the ballot.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 10:58 AM on January 31 [10 favorites]
I'm yet to see a single hardcore liberal here accept that there is a core human duty to speak out about genocide, no matter what.
I'm not hardcore liberal, I skew too progressive for purity. But yes, I think I've been reasonably clear about where I land on that, in the Gaza threads.
you have to pretend to love [Biden].
For the record, not my position. Given a purely binary choice, it's strictly choosing the lesser of two evils, the least harm, the greater chance of doing better. It's important to be clear-eyed about what has been done, or not done, in the last 4 years. And in particular, who was doing or not-doing. Congress, Senate, Supremes, etc. Yes we all have disappointment around lack of advancement on important progressive goals. And despair at the Gaza situation. But governing is also about just keeping the lights on and the wheels turning, and so much more.
Are people here actually thinking that Biden has been a worse president in this term than TFG was in his?
posted by Artful Codger at 11:03 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
I'm not hardcore liberal, I skew too progressive for purity. But yes, I think I've been reasonably clear about where I land on that, in the Gaza threads.
you have to pretend to love [Biden].
For the record, not my position. Given a purely binary choice, it's strictly choosing the lesser of two evils, the least harm, the greater chance of doing better. It's important to be clear-eyed about what has been done, or not done, in the last 4 years. And in particular, who was doing or not-doing. Congress, Senate, Supremes, etc. Yes we all have disappointment around lack of advancement on important progressive goals. And despair at the Gaza situation. But governing is also about just keeping the lights on and the wheels turning, and so much more.
Are people here actually thinking that Biden has been a worse president in this term than TFG was in his?
posted by Artful Codger at 11:03 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
Count me among those who thinks leftists can't be expected or even asked to enthusiastically, publicly support Biden, particularly in light of his positioning vis a vis Gaza. (And among those who thinks that all the lefty opprobrium on offer on this small legacy website doesn't matter. And among those who thinks that when voters sour on someone, it isn't necessarily the voters' fault or responsibility--it is, rather, just the behavior of voters, which it is the literal job of smart pols and their six figure consultants to somehow figure out.)
Because let us be real: what are we leftists being asked to do? Throw up our hands and post Dark Brandon memes on our IG? Go to the badly organized local phone bank like we did in 2016 and 2020 and experience the doom-realization that people in Michigan or Wisconsin or Georgia are so fucked in the economy that they don't have a stable enough phone number for Dems to reach them? Donate to the overflowing coffers of various official Dem Party presidential fundraising instruments?
Honestly most average individuals left of liberal have actually done this kind of stuff over the last several years and walked away feeling like we're being asked to participate, primarily, in an ineffective aesthetics of solidarity with elites who actively hate us and our views.
What I hope that disaffected leftists do get into this season, though, is very committed election activity in their city and state, including, yes, a politics of compromise and lesser evils where necessary. If Trump wins (and I think he won't, FYI!), it's going to be the wacky decentralization and inefficiency of our political system that is our only hope--not just Federalism itself, but also just the totally flummoxing and frustrating crazy quilt of overlapping jurisdictions and agencies and institutions and choke points. And in a swing state, someone to the polls for the downballot candidate or ballot measure is more than likely going to vote for Biden too--the secret ballot booth is a cold splash of water to the face, and it's not the place where we trumpet how we feel about what kind of world we'd rather be living in.
posted by kensington314 at 11:07 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
Because let us be real: what are we leftists being asked to do? Throw up our hands and post Dark Brandon memes on our IG? Go to the badly organized local phone bank like we did in 2016 and 2020 and experience the doom-realization that people in Michigan or Wisconsin or Georgia are so fucked in the economy that they don't have a stable enough phone number for Dems to reach them? Donate to the overflowing coffers of various official Dem Party presidential fundraising instruments?
Honestly most average individuals left of liberal have actually done this kind of stuff over the last several years and walked away feeling like we're being asked to participate, primarily, in an ineffective aesthetics of solidarity with elites who actively hate us and our views.
What I hope that disaffected leftists do get into this season, though, is very committed election activity in their city and state, including, yes, a politics of compromise and lesser evils where necessary. If Trump wins (and I think he won't, FYI!), it's going to be the wacky decentralization and inefficiency of our political system that is our only hope--not just Federalism itself, but also just the totally flummoxing and frustrating crazy quilt of overlapping jurisdictions and agencies and institutions and choke points. And in a swing state, someone to the polls for the downballot candidate or ballot measure is more than likely going to vote for Biden too--the secret ballot booth is a cold splash of water to the face, and it's not the place where we trumpet how we feel about what kind of world we'd rather be living in.
posted by kensington314 at 11:07 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
This is a comment that is going to read as some attempt at a gotcha, but it is intended as a serious question.
Is there a point at which voting as harm reduction stops?
Let's take a hypothetical presidency in the grim future of 2036 where Jo Democrat and Jae Republican are running. Obviously, things are much worse than they are in 2024 because climate change has continued to worsen, causing mass migrations, instability, intensified racism/nationalism globally, etc. Under these pressures, the United States has continued to trend rightward on immigration, LGBTQ issues and the amount of violence we support abroad. Both parties have moved rightward from their 2024 positions on all issues.
The position of the GOP is that we're going to increase militarization at the border and any border-crossers are shot. The position of the Democrats is that we're going to increase militarization of the border and border-crossers are going to be put in bare minimum desert labor camps until they are processed and returned home. The position of the GOP is that trans people should be put in mental health facilities to be gender-corrected. The position of the Democrats is that trans people must be banned from holding any job which places them in sustained contact with people under 21.
But the GOP also wants to abolish the minimum wage, abolish the forty hour week and end Medicare and Medicaid, while the Democrats want to maintain all programs and raise taxes to fund Social Security.
These are positions that I, in all sincerity, think could be palatable to large percentages of the American public in twelve years if there's a propaganda barrage; they're not positions I've picked purely to be extreme. They are positions that follow, I think, from what a number of comparatively mainstream people propose.
We still have elections; we still have Democrats and Republicans. Do we vote for harm reduction? Do we encourage others to vote for harm reduction when they no longer want to vote?
Is there a cut-off point? I think few of us would say, "don't vote for Clinton in 1992, he is insufficiently left, better to elect a Republican"...and yet, when I look back, I think to myself, "if only we could have punished the Democrats for anti-labor and anti-welfare policies back when the stakes were lower, maybe things wouldn't be so extreme now".
posted by Frowner at 11:12 AM on January 31 [18 favorites]
Is there a point at which voting as harm reduction stops?
Let's take a hypothetical presidency in the grim future of 2036 where Jo Democrat and Jae Republican are running. Obviously, things are much worse than they are in 2024 because climate change has continued to worsen, causing mass migrations, instability, intensified racism/nationalism globally, etc. Under these pressures, the United States has continued to trend rightward on immigration, LGBTQ issues and the amount of violence we support abroad. Both parties have moved rightward from their 2024 positions on all issues.
The position of the GOP is that we're going to increase militarization at the border and any border-crossers are shot. The position of the Democrats is that we're going to increase militarization of the border and border-crossers are going to be put in bare minimum desert labor camps until they are processed and returned home. The position of the GOP is that trans people should be put in mental health facilities to be gender-corrected. The position of the Democrats is that trans people must be banned from holding any job which places them in sustained contact with people under 21.
But the GOP also wants to abolish the minimum wage, abolish the forty hour week and end Medicare and Medicaid, while the Democrats want to maintain all programs and raise taxes to fund Social Security.
These are positions that I, in all sincerity, think could be palatable to large percentages of the American public in twelve years if there's a propaganda barrage; they're not positions I've picked purely to be extreme. They are positions that follow, I think, from what a number of comparatively mainstream people propose.
We still have elections; we still have Democrats and Republicans. Do we vote for harm reduction? Do we encourage others to vote for harm reduction when they no longer want to vote?
Is there a cut-off point? I think few of us would say, "don't vote for Clinton in 1992, he is insufficiently left, better to elect a Republican"...and yet, when I look back, I think to myself, "if only we could have punished the Democrats for anti-labor and anti-welfare policies back when the stakes were lower, maybe things wouldn't be so extreme now".
posted by Frowner at 11:12 AM on January 31 [18 favorites]
Mod note: "At the risk of making this further about you, then, I believe that would make you a [redacted]."
Comment deleted, please don't. Name calling goes against our content policy and also the community guidelines: Speak for yourself, not others.
posted by loup (staff) at 11:15 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
Comment deleted, please don't. Name calling goes against our content policy and also the community guidelines: Speak for yourself, not others.
posted by loup (staff) at 11:15 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
Are people here actually thinking that Biden has been a worse president in this term than TFG was in his?
I'm not going to say yes to this. Oh, God no, not for my part I am not thinking that. But I'll say that when I think about the worst things that Trump accomplished--kidnapping and permanently separating so many migrant children from their families, literally just losing human beings you have stolen from their parents comes to mind--well fuck, US support of a genocide is a situation where, it's agonizing to say, people see Biden doing something worse than the things that immediately come to many people's Trump-traumatized minds.
Of course, Trump's response to Covid was basically an insane effort to inflate the number of dead people in the US and worldwide, but now we're just in the world of Trump's versus Biden's gruesome maths. Most people aren't going to say "Biden and Trump, same asshole"--to be clear, as someone who never liked Biden and now hates him, I would certainly not say this. But others in this thread have made the comparison between LBJ and Biden, and it seems at least a little bit apt.
posted by kensington314 at 11:15 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
I'm not going to say yes to this. Oh, God no, not for my part I am not thinking that. But I'll say that when I think about the worst things that Trump accomplished--kidnapping and permanently separating so many migrant children from their families, literally just losing human beings you have stolen from their parents comes to mind--well fuck, US support of a genocide is a situation where, it's agonizing to say, people see Biden doing something worse than the things that immediately come to many people's Trump-traumatized minds.
Of course, Trump's response to Covid was basically an insane effort to inflate the number of dead people in the US and worldwide, but now we're just in the world of Trump's versus Biden's gruesome maths. Most people aren't going to say "Biden and Trump, same asshole"--to be clear, as someone who never liked Biden and now hates him, I would certainly not say this. But others in this thread have made the comparison between LBJ and Biden, and it seems at least a little bit apt.
posted by kensington314 at 11:15 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
Frowner, my takeaway from your hypothetical is, we're on a ride that is going to dead-end into a wall at some point, which does raise the question of when harm reduction becomes moot.
But the problem is, there's no getting off this ride. Stopping the ride early is just as harmful, possibly more harmful, than the inevitable dead-end.
Is it just a question then of how quickly and dramatically a lot of people get hurt? Are our only choices between hurt for a lot of people now, or hurt for a lot of people later?
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 11:19 AM on January 31
But the problem is, there's no getting off this ride. Stopping the ride early is just as harmful, possibly more harmful, than the inevitable dead-end.
Is it just a question then of how quickly and dramatically a lot of people get hurt? Are our only choices between hurt for a lot of people now, or hurt for a lot of people later?
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 11:19 AM on January 31
Some supporters of a far-right convoy headed to the Texas border are calling for civil war
Clearly we need to understand them more.
posted by Artw at 12:52 PM on January 31 [6 favorites]
Clearly we need to understand them more.
posted by Artw at 12:52 PM on January 31 [6 favorites]
Frowner: Is there a point at which voting as harm reduction stops?
OK, guess I'm back in the thread now.
The point where voting as harm reduction stops is when we overhaul the US government! There are two ways this could play out
1) getting rid of the electoral college and two-party system (I want this to happen very much). I think there's really no way to punish both the Democrats and the Republicans at the same time without this, especially at this point in the development of the US party system. In the system we've got, not voting just punishes yourself. It tells both parties that they do not need to court your vote.
2) coup/armed rebellion to wipe out the government and start with a new one (I very much do not want this to happen, a lot of people would die and we'd probably end up with something worse)
posted by capricorn at 1:10 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
OK, guess I'm back in the thread now.
The point where voting as harm reduction stops is when we overhaul the US government! There are two ways this could play out
1) getting rid of the electoral college and two-party system (I want this to happen very much). I think there's really no way to punish both the Democrats and the Republicans at the same time without this, especially at this point in the development of the US party system. In the system we've got, not voting just punishes yourself. It tells both parties that they do not need to court your vote.
2) coup/armed rebellion to wipe out the government and start with a new one (I very much do not want this to happen, a lot of people would die and we'd probably end up with something worse)
posted by capricorn at 1:10 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
Gosh I guess I just didn't stop and consider how much better things would be under Trump, all other things being equal. What a revelation. Thank you for opening my eyes, kittens for breakfast.
You bet.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:14 PM on January 31 [1 favorite]
You bet.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:14 PM on January 31 [1 favorite]
I obviously don't think things would be better under Trump. I do, however, think they would be better under a very large number of people who are not Joe Biden. No one here thinks Trump was a good president.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:19 PM on January 31 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:19 PM on January 31 [2 favorites]
I do, however, think they would be better under a very large number of people who are not Joe Biden
That much we can agree on. I wish any at all of them were viable options in November.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:46 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
That much we can agree on. I wish any at all of them were viable options in November.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:46 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
I wish Biden were viable in November.
Having dumb assholes blaming for him throwing an election forever is going to be boring as fuck.
posted by Artw at 1:49 PM on January 31
Having dumb assholes blaming for him throwing an election forever is going to be boring as fuck.
posted by Artw at 1:49 PM on January 31
I wish any at all of them were viable options in November.
Wish into one hand and shit into the other, see which fills up first.
I mean, I hear the people who wish that Biden were not the nominee. I think the pushback is that unless something really strange happens, Trump is going to most likely be the REPUBLICAN nominee, and back in 2016 there are a number of people who declared they were going to simply not vote because Hilary was the nominee instead of Bernie Sanders - and we all know what happened THERE. So I think that some of us are just afraid of a reboot of 2016, and I think we can also all agree we don't want THAT.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:49 PM on January 31 [7 favorites]
Wish into one hand and shit into the other, see which fills up first.
I mean, I hear the people who wish that Biden were not the nominee. I think the pushback is that unless something really strange happens, Trump is going to most likely be the REPUBLICAN nominee, and back in 2016 there are a number of people who declared they were going to simply not vote because Hilary was the nominee instead of Bernie Sanders - and we all know what happened THERE. So I think that some of us are just afraid of a reboot of 2016, and I think we can also all agree we don't want THAT.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:49 PM on January 31 [7 favorites]
I never know what to think about the question of political moderation.... Does that make me an extremist?
In a modern democratic framework without censorship, extremism is part of the information system. Extremism promotes too much power, but also a purity scale of power fever and compliance, which sets up a genocide of dissent in its fail mode. People don't fear it for nothing, and if one extremism outlaws something, it is not another extremism that frees it, but rather an anti-extremism that promotes equality. Political moderation is by nature suspicious, and seeks to avoid bad ideas and bad reasons, often rejecting impassioned belief as unconvincing. It is a common mental shortcut to see moderation as a stalled middle ground between two stark choices, but this negative view of moderation implies that one political extreme is the goal.
I am not sure yet whether voting for Joe Biden in an effort to temporarily stave off a moderately worse conservative candidate is a better use of my vote than, effectively, protest.
I don't know if there is a such a thing as an anonymous protest vote because you can vote for Biden and tell people you voted for someone else. I'm not advocating doing that, just making a point about the self-deception of voting a message and not an effect. A president may only last a few years, but federal judges are appointed for life by the vote winner and they preserve our legal rights by their judicial philosophy, not something known to religious fundamentalism.
posted by Brian B. at 1:49 PM on January 31 [6 favorites]
In a modern democratic framework without censorship, extremism is part of the information system. Extremism promotes too much power, but also a purity scale of power fever and compliance, which sets up a genocide of dissent in its fail mode. People don't fear it for nothing, and if one extremism outlaws something, it is not another extremism that frees it, but rather an anti-extremism that promotes equality. Political moderation is by nature suspicious, and seeks to avoid bad ideas and bad reasons, often rejecting impassioned belief as unconvincing. It is a common mental shortcut to see moderation as a stalled middle ground between two stark choices, but this negative view of moderation implies that one political extreme is the goal.
I am not sure yet whether voting for Joe Biden in an effort to temporarily stave off a moderately worse conservative candidate is a better use of my vote than, effectively, protest.
I don't know if there is a such a thing as an anonymous protest vote because you can vote for Biden and tell people you voted for someone else. I'm not advocating doing that, just making a point about the self-deception of voting a message and not an effect. A president may only last a few years, but federal judges are appointed for life by the vote winner and they preserve our legal rights by their judicial philosophy, not something known to religious fundamentalism.
posted by Brian B. at 1:49 PM on January 31 [6 favorites]
If Biden couldn't end this in 20 minutes, he could at least try.
Who says he hasn't?
Netanyahu is not Begin.
Who says he hasn't???
Biden literally stood up and lied about seeing beheaded babies with his own eyes. He called the civilian death toll "fake news". He went over the top of Congress to send weapons. He responded to the ICJ provisional measures ruling by cutting all funding to the only UN agency standing between Gaza and mass starvation, and corralled other western countries to do the same.
He is, personally, a genocidaire. He needs to lose.
posted by nikodym at 1:51 PM on January 31 [9 favorites]
Who says he hasn't?
Netanyahu is not Begin.
Who says he hasn't???
Biden literally stood up and lied about seeing beheaded babies with his own eyes. He called the civilian death toll "fake news". He went over the top of Congress to send weapons. He responded to the ICJ provisional measures ruling by cutting all funding to the only UN agency standing between Gaza and mass starvation, and corralled other western countries to do the same.
He is, personally, a genocidaire. He needs to lose.
posted by nikodym at 1:51 PM on January 31 [9 favorites]
they would be better under a very large number of people who are not Joe Biden
Agreed, but the choice is going to be between Biden and Trump unless one of them slips on a banana peel and dies before November. I don't like that, but I can't change it, and neither can you.
As an ardent leftist, I will get on my knees and beg other ardent leftists to vote against Trump. Whether Biden deserves our votes is irrelevant: a second Trump term will be the death blow for democracy in America.
Trump's win in 2016 was the dog catching the the car. He was unprepared; the Republicans were unprepared. They were incompetent in their fascism. Now they've had time to think about it, and from day 1, they will set about ripping out every obstacle in government that still stands in their way (NYT). From that article about the Heritage Foundation's plans:
This includes leading Project 2025, a transition blueprint that outlines a plan to consolidate power in the executive branch, dismantle federal agencies and recruit and vet government employees to free the next Republican president from a system that Roberts views as stacked against conservative power.
And so I am personally begging you to ignore the people who call us "bernie bros" (can we just ban that slur on MetaFilter?) and the people who want to re-litigate 2016 and the people who want to fight because you're not excited about Joe Biden. Please please please vote against fascism.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 1:52 PM on January 31 [20 favorites]
Agreed, but the choice is going to be between Biden and Trump unless one of them slips on a banana peel and dies before November. I don't like that, but I can't change it, and neither can you.
As an ardent leftist, I will get on my knees and beg other ardent leftists to vote against Trump. Whether Biden deserves our votes is irrelevant: a second Trump term will be the death blow for democracy in America.
Trump's win in 2016 was the dog catching the the car. He was unprepared; the Republicans were unprepared. They were incompetent in their fascism. Now they've had time to think about it, and from day 1, they will set about ripping out every obstacle in government that still stands in their way (NYT). From that article about the Heritage Foundation's plans:
This includes leading Project 2025, a transition blueprint that outlines a plan to consolidate power in the executive branch, dismantle federal agencies and recruit and vet government employees to free the next Republican president from a system that Roberts views as stacked against conservative power.
And so I am personally begging you to ignore the people who call us "bernie bros" (can we just ban that slur on MetaFilter?) and the people who want to re-litigate 2016 and the people who want to fight because you're not excited about Joe Biden. Please please please vote against fascism.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 1:52 PM on January 31 [20 favorites]
As an ardent leftist, I will get on my knees and beg other ardent leftists to vote against Trump. Whether Biden deserves our votes is irrelevant: a second Trump term will be the death blow for democracy in America.
If "Genocide Joe" is what "democracy in America" serves up as the lesser evil, its death blow seems well-deserved, even merciful
posted by nikodym at 1:59 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
If "Genocide Joe" is what "democracy in America" serves up as the lesser evil, its death blow seems well-deserved, even merciful
posted by nikodym at 1:59 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
Trump will enthusiastically support genocide. How is that better?
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 1:59 PM on January 31 [14 favorites]
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 1:59 PM on January 31 [14 favorites]
All right, how about this:
Liberals, stop telling leftists to pretend they're excited about Joe Biden because if they don't then they're causing fascism personally.
Leftists, stop telling liberals they're morally bankrupt and support genocide because some of them need to put a bunch of positivity ketchup on the lesser of two weevils in order to chew and swallow.
Everyone show the fuck up in November and ticky the box for Biden because that's the shit sandwich we've been served. Liberals, don't be smug about it, because your breath smells like shit now, too. Leftists, don't dramatize about it unless and until you can show up with an actionable plan that isn't refusing to vote for democrats in a presidential election because this will somehow fix the lack of leftist politicians.
Problem solved.
Christ, if people took the energy they spill into these pointless threads and focused it on any kind of local politics....
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 2:19 PM on January 31 [37 favorites]
Liberals, stop telling leftists to pretend they're excited about Joe Biden because if they don't then they're causing fascism personally.
Leftists, stop telling liberals they're morally bankrupt and support genocide because some of them need to put a bunch of positivity ketchup on the lesser of two weevils in order to chew and swallow.
Everyone show the fuck up in November and ticky the box for Biden because that's the shit sandwich we've been served. Liberals, don't be smug about it, because your breath smells like shit now, too. Leftists, don't dramatize about it unless and until you can show up with an actionable plan that isn't refusing to vote for democrats in a presidential election because this will somehow fix the lack of leftist politicians.
Problem solved.
Christ, if people took the energy they spill into these pointless threads and focused it on any kind of local politics....
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 2:19 PM on January 31 [37 favorites]
Speaking of local politics: Here in Washington, we're going to have the first close gubernatorial race in a while, with Jay Inslee's retirement leaving the position open. Bob Ferguson (D) has been a strong advocate for residents of WA as the attorney general, and I personally think he'll be an excellent governor. Dave Reichert (R) is going to campaign as the tough-on-crime moderate Republican, but any Republican in that seat opens the door for the national party agenda of attacking women's rights, immigrants, LGBT, and POC. Bob Ferguson could use your support in any capacity you have.
Everyone else: What are the local races where you are that are going to make a difference?
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 2:39 PM on January 31 [7 favorites]
Everyone else: What are the local races where you are that are going to make a difference?
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 2:39 PM on January 31 [7 favorites]
If it helps, I was a (very minor) part in pushing at my local Democratic party precinct to roll a Gaza ceasefire resolution upward, which so far has made it up to a 75-54 vote by the Washington State Democrats central committee. Will it amount to something? Unclear. But I figure it's a lever I can push on, so here's hoping it amounts to something.
posted by CrystalDave at 2:40 PM on January 31 [21 favorites]
posted by CrystalDave at 2:40 PM on January 31 [21 favorites]
strange happens, Trump is going to most likely be the REPUBLICAN nominee, and back in 2016 there are a number of people who declared they were going to simply not vote because Hilary was the nominee instead of Bernie Sanders - and we all know what happened THERE.
Speaking only for myself, I was horrified by the presidential candidate Hillary Clinton turned out to be, and I voted for her anyway. It was the only thing that seemed to make sense, especially given that the Supreme Court was obviously in the balance -- no one knew for sure yet that the very old RBG would die in the next four years, but a Supreme Court vacancy that should have been filled by Obama was open, mostly because the democrats let it happen, the way they generally do. I voted for Clinton against my own better judgment, and I voted for Biden against my own better judgment -- one lost, one won, and I can't honestly say I think we lost anything when Hillary Clinton lost, and it's very plain to me that we gained nothing when Biden won. Once Trump finished stacking the Supreme Court, in a very real way it wouldn't matter who won, perhaps not for many years to come.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:17 PM on January 31 [6 favorites]
Speaking only for myself, I was horrified by the presidential candidate Hillary Clinton turned out to be, and I voted for her anyway. It was the only thing that seemed to make sense, especially given that the Supreme Court was obviously in the balance -- no one knew for sure yet that the very old RBG would die in the next four years, but a Supreme Court vacancy that should have been filled by Obama was open, mostly because the democrats let it happen, the way they generally do. I voted for Clinton against my own better judgment, and I voted for Biden against my own better judgment -- one lost, one won, and I can't honestly say I think we lost anything when Hillary Clinton lost, and it's very plain to me that we gained nothing when Biden won. Once Trump finished stacking the Supreme Court, in a very real way it wouldn't matter who won, perhaps not for many years to come.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:17 PM on January 31 [6 favorites]
Everyone else: What are the local races where you are that are going to make a difference?
I'm in Nashville and publish a rundown of local races for my friends. Nothing hugely consequential this March race, but in August we'll have at least one foaming-at-the-mouth Republican running for school board.
posted by joannemerriam at 3:54 PM on January 31 [4 favorites]
I'm in Nashville and publish a rundown of local races for my friends. Nothing hugely consequential this March race, but in August we'll have at least one foaming-at-the-mouth Republican running for school board.
posted by joannemerriam at 3:54 PM on January 31 [4 favorites]
Trump will enthusiastically support genocide. How is that better?
Biden enthusiastically supports genocide. Whether or not Trump is better doesn't matter: there needs to be a price for this. The Democrats don't care about justice or human life. It's an open question whether they even care about re-election; the best we can hope for is that they might.
posted by nikodym at 4:04 PM on January 31 [4 favorites]
Biden enthusiastically supports genocide. Whether or not Trump is better doesn't matter: there needs to be a price for this. The Democrats don't care about justice or human life. It's an open question whether they even care about re-election; the best we can hope for is that they might.
posted by nikodym at 4:04 PM on January 31 [4 favorites]
I don't know if there is a such a thing as an anonymous protest vote because you can vote for Biden and tell people you voted for someone else. I'm not advocating doing that, just making a point about the self-deception of voting a message and not an effect. A president may only last a few years, but federal judges are appointed for life by the vote winner and they preserve our legal rights by their judicial philosophy, not something known to religious fundamentalism.
I glossed over this comment, but I just realized this was in response to something I said. Anonymity isn't a factor. If I vote for a leftist third party, anyone who isn't being willfully obtuse will realize that was a vote that Biden didn't get. I'm unlikely to write in "anyone to the right of Donald Trump." It would be plain that it was a vote the democrats had and lost.
For too long, the democrats have banked on the idea that they can take certain constituents for granted. That hasn't paid off for those constituents. So I'm not sure I'd like to keep playing that game. To be honest, I feel like I'm being dared not to.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:18 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
I glossed over this comment, but I just realized this was in response to something I said. Anonymity isn't a factor. If I vote for a leftist third party, anyone who isn't being willfully obtuse will realize that was a vote that Biden didn't get. I'm unlikely to write in "anyone to the right of Donald Trump." It would be plain that it was a vote the democrats had and lost.
For too long, the democrats have banked on the idea that they can take certain constituents for granted. That hasn't paid off for those constituents. So I'm not sure I'd like to keep playing that game. To be honest, I feel like I'm being dared not to.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:18 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
I guess after all, the real question wasn't, why do Americans keep voting for Trump. The real question is, who do the rest of us think we are, wanting things to not be terrible, and yet consistently voting for the least terrible candidate like a bunch of LIBERAL STOOGES, when instead we clearly should have punished the DNC twenty years ago, in some unspecified but no doubt super effective way, for producing candidates that were INSUFFICIENTLY LEFTY. But we didn't do that, and now none of our candidates are lefty enough, and that's on us, so fuck us, I guess. Time to teach the Democratas a lesson once and for all, and fuck anyone caught in the middle.
No, it's clear to me now that we deserve this scorn and abandonment by the leftier-than-thou crew, to be left to our own plodding liberal devices, punished by wandering in the right-wing wilderness until we've all been deemed sufficiently lefty, those of us who survive anyway. If anyone needs me I'll just be here in the outer darkness, wailing and gnashing my teeth and rending my Obama 2008 garments.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 4:38 PM on January 31 [8 favorites]
No, it's clear to me now that we deserve this scorn and abandonment by the leftier-than-thou crew, to be left to our own plodding liberal devices, punished by wandering in the right-wing wilderness until we've all been deemed sufficiently lefty, those of us who survive anyway. If anyone needs me I'll just be here in the outer darkness, wailing and gnashing my teeth and rending my Obama 2008 garments.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 4:38 PM on January 31 [8 favorites]
Artw: “Trump Allies Pledge ‘Holy War’ Against Taylor Swift”“Why Trumpers are losing it over Taylor Swift,” Noah Berlatsky, Public Notice, 31 January 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 4:57 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
To be honest, Obama kinda sucked, too.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:15 PM on January 31 [5 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:15 PM on January 31 [5 favorites]
when instead we clearly should have punished the DNC twenty years ago, in some unspecified but no doubt super effective way, for producing candidates that were INSUFFICIENTLY LEFTY
Probably the most dumbshit, evil federal action I have witnessesed, pre-Trump, was the dismantling of the welfare system. By a Democrat, who made it a big policy talking point. NAFTA going through at the same time only made things worse. Those two things together cut the wage floor out from under Americans, destroyed countless American lives, wrecked the Mexican grain market and arguably led to the current state of organized crime in Mexico.
That was Democratic politicians throwing red meat to the racist Democratic base while killing themselves everywhere that depended on factory labor. If you ask me, without the destruction of welfare and the explosion of "free" trade, there would have been no Trump, maybe not even a second Bush term. This country would be massively less fucked up without the knock-on effects of those two decisions. As we spiral ever deeper into hell, I more and more come to believe that the nineties were the last off ramp, and we sailed past it whooping and hollering about how we were going to end welfare as we knew it.
By "insufficiently lefty" I don't mean, "isn't freegan" or whatever, I mean "affirmatively makes policy decisions that ruin lives". Not unlike affirmatively committing genocide, although I admit that in 1992 I would have assumed that anyone who actually, literally saw the agonies and deaths of innocent civilians live on video every day would not race to arm their murderers with hellfire missiles. Why I believed this I don't know, some misunderstanding of "the truth will make you free" no doubt.
posted by Frowner at 5:18 PM on January 31 [23 favorites]
Probably the most dumbshit, evil federal action I have witnessesed, pre-Trump, was the dismantling of the welfare system. By a Democrat, who made it a big policy talking point. NAFTA going through at the same time only made things worse. Those two things together cut the wage floor out from under Americans, destroyed countless American lives, wrecked the Mexican grain market and arguably led to the current state of organized crime in Mexico.
That was Democratic politicians throwing red meat to the racist Democratic base while killing themselves everywhere that depended on factory labor. If you ask me, without the destruction of welfare and the explosion of "free" trade, there would have been no Trump, maybe not even a second Bush term. This country would be massively less fucked up without the knock-on effects of those two decisions. As we spiral ever deeper into hell, I more and more come to believe that the nineties were the last off ramp, and we sailed past it whooping and hollering about how we were going to end welfare as we knew it.
By "insufficiently lefty" I don't mean, "isn't freegan" or whatever, I mean "affirmatively makes policy decisions that ruin lives". Not unlike affirmatively committing genocide, although I admit that in 1992 I would have assumed that anyone who actually, literally saw the agonies and deaths of innocent civilians live on video every day would not race to arm their murderers with hellfire missiles. Why I believed this I don't know, some misunderstanding of "the truth will make you free" no doubt.
posted by Frowner at 5:18 PM on January 31 [23 favorites]
Yes. And the next democratic nominee after Biden will suck too. Hopefully less than genocide Joe but I'll take what I can get.
Sometimes I think the reason the Dean plan to just compete for every office everywhere all the time rather than focus so much of the democratic party's resources to secure the white house is because by now it would have pushed all of these old liberals out with younger, more progressive candidates by now.
Maybe Pelosi and Biden and the like would have moved to the GOP by now. And maybe the GOP would be less extreme. I'd still want to see that party die in the fire but it would be....less bad.
posted by VTX at 5:25 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
Sometimes I think the reason the Dean plan to just compete for every office everywhere all the time rather than focus so much of the democratic party's resources to secure the white house is because by now it would have pushed all of these old liberals out with younger, more progressive candidates by now.
Maybe Pelosi and Biden and the like would have moved to the GOP by now. And maybe the GOP would be less extreme. I'd still want to see that party die in the fire but it would be....less bad.
posted by VTX at 5:25 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
If it helps, I was a (very minor) part in pushing at my local Democratic party precinct to roll a Gaza ceasefire resolution upward, which so far has made it up to a 75-54 vote by the Washington State Democrats central committee. Will it amount to something? Unclear. But I figure it's a lever I can push on, so here's hoping it amounts to something.
I salute you.
posted by StarkRoads at 5:38 PM on January 31 [4 favorites]
I salute you.
posted by StarkRoads at 5:38 PM on January 31 [4 favorites]
Artw: “Trump Allies Pledge ‘Holy War’ Against Taylor Swift”“Florida Man Thinks He’s More Popular Than World's Most Famous Woman,” Lauren Tousignant, Jezebel 31 January 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 7:15 PM on January 31 [2 favorites]
Donald Trump’s data protection claim over allegations he took part in “perverted” sex acts and gave bribes to Russian officials has been dismissed by a high court judge in London. More to follow.
posted by biffa at 2:30 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
posted by biffa at 2:30 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
Just want to say the moderators here are amazing. There are so few online communities that can sustain this size of conversation, its quality, or duration over time.
If you can, help fund Metafilter here: https://login.metafilter.com/funding.mefi
posted by kmartino at 5:14 AM on February 1 [8 favorites]
If you can, help fund Metafilter here: https://login.metafilter.com/funding.mefi
posted by kmartino at 5:14 AM on February 1 [8 favorites]
The democrats really need to come to terms with the ways they’re failing working class people.
Turns out what a lot of working people really want (or think they want) isn’t traditional liberal-democrat-style redistribution or socialist revolution, but economic populism - protectionism, basically. Trump put it on the menu, or a least promised to, and a lot of unhappy people love him for trying.
Like some in this thread, I am surprised that this continues to surprise people.
....
posted by ducky l'orange at 5:50 PM on January 29 [9 favorites +] [⚑]
I'm honestly very skeptical that a far left president is as impossible as centrist democrats laughingly insist it is. Let me tell you what I mean.
When people voted for Obama in 2008, there was a general perception that he would be an incredibly liberal president. I remember being rather surprised to discover that his voting record...did not support this impression. Republicans believed it, naturally, but so did democrats. And I don't think that hurt him. Quite the contrary.
...
I think Trump won in 2016 for two reasons. One, the electoral college, which is bullshit. Two, because he represented the unleaded conservative that republican voters could get excited about, God help us all.
I think Biden won in 2020 because so many people hated Trump. But I think it's a mistake to presume the average democratic voter really wants a democrat so moderate he could just as easily pass for a mellow republican, any more than the average republican voter really wants a republican so moderate he could pass for a particularly authoritarian democrat.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:39 PM on January 30 [15 favorites −] Favorite added! [⚑]
Obviously I'm late to this thread—I kept chipping away at it in off moments at work yesterday and only managed to get to the end today—but I think these two comments may have crystallized something between TFA (why do people vote for __________) and why are we on the Left so aggravated by piss-poor Democratic candidates (who have willingly participated in the destruction of the welfare state/mass incarceration/financial deregulation/military adventurism/etc.).
What particularly galls me about the hate in the center for leftists and left positions is that, in action, they would so obviously be popular. Take universal state-funded healthcare. Yes, yes, you have to deal with people calling you communist or socialist in bad faith (Republicans who wouldn't support what you were doing even if it were their own plan, Obama), but can you imagine how popular that program would be once the average, harried American citizen walked into a hospital, got treated, and left without navigating an insurance exchange, form, or bill?
My general leftist position statement is that I want government to do big, direct, showy interventions into people's lives, and I think that's a winning strategy because if you hammer people over the head with help and tell them who's giving it to them, they will eventually realize who's buttering their bread. FDR and the decades-spanning New Deal coalition didn't hang together because of some ephemeral set of shared values (how hard some of the parts of that coalition have left it because of said values, e.g. West Virginia, shows that they in fact had sharply opposed values) but because government gave people things that improved their lives in tangible, immediate ways.
So, when I see Dems always tacking to the middle as if the middle were popular (oh, my yes, of course I'd rather have a tax credit than cash in hand), and when I see the same Dems punching left at people for supporting positions that would be extremely popular for the non-voting disaffected population of this country, what I see is a party that doesn't want to win if winning means losing financial sector donors and elite prestige. I see a party that wants, instead, to continue an endless waltz with the Republicans that keeps their sclerotic butts in their House and Senate seats and allows them to ignore the howling misery in this country crying out for someone to listen to it.
I'm trying to knit this all together, but I think what would in fact be a pretty strong candidate is what ducky l'orange was sort of pointing at way up top, or what kittens for breakfast was sort of gesturing towards lower down: a 'leftist Trump' in the sense that this person appeals to the highly motivated fringe with policies that would be broadly popular—if only once enacted—and who could, like Trump, and unlike Bernie, somehow successfully spit right in the eye of the party. And it may be that the right thing to do is to bring about the conditions in which such a candidate could emerge and survive the Democratic Party's concerted efforts to stamp this person out.
And I think to Frowner's point about "When does harm reduction stop?" the answer might be that it should've stopped in the 1980s with the Atari Democrats, in 1992 and 1996 with Clinton, in 2000 with Gore, in 2004 with Kerry, in 2008 with Obama (although as kittens noted we sort of got snowed there), definitely in 2012 with Obama, in 2016 with Clinton, and in 2020 with Joe. And as somebody posed it, if the choice is between hurting some people now and hurting many, many more people later, I think that's an actual moral choice to consider, because it's clear that harm reduction has led, inexorably, to greater harm.
posted by TheProfessor at 6:35 AM on February 1 [18 favorites]
Turns out what a lot of working people really want (or think they want) isn’t traditional liberal-democrat-style redistribution or socialist revolution, but economic populism - protectionism, basically. Trump put it on the menu, or a least promised to, and a lot of unhappy people love him for trying.
Like some in this thread, I am surprised that this continues to surprise people.
....
posted by ducky l'orange at 5:50 PM on January 29 [9 favorites +] [⚑]
I'm honestly very skeptical that a far left president is as impossible as centrist democrats laughingly insist it is. Let me tell you what I mean.
When people voted for Obama in 2008, there was a general perception that he would be an incredibly liberal president. I remember being rather surprised to discover that his voting record...did not support this impression. Republicans believed it, naturally, but so did democrats. And I don't think that hurt him. Quite the contrary.
...
I think Trump won in 2016 for two reasons. One, the electoral college, which is bullshit. Two, because he represented the unleaded conservative that republican voters could get excited about, God help us all.
I think Biden won in 2020 because so many people hated Trump. But I think it's a mistake to presume the average democratic voter really wants a democrat so moderate he could just as easily pass for a mellow republican, any more than the average republican voter really wants a republican so moderate he could pass for a particularly authoritarian democrat.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:39 PM on January 30 [15 favorites −] Favorite added! [⚑]
Obviously I'm late to this thread—I kept chipping away at it in off moments at work yesterday and only managed to get to the end today—but I think these two comments may have crystallized something between TFA (why do people vote for __________) and why are we on the Left so aggravated by piss-poor Democratic candidates (who have willingly participated in the destruction of the welfare state/mass incarceration/financial deregulation/military adventurism/etc.).
What particularly galls me about the hate in the center for leftists and left positions is that, in action, they would so obviously be popular. Take universal state-funded healthcare. Yes, yes, you have to deal with people calling you communist or socialist in bad faith (Republicans who wouldn't support what you were doing even if it were their own plan, Obama), but can you imagine how popular that program would be once the average, harried American citizen walked into a hospital, got treated, and left without navigating an insurance exchange, form, or bill?
My general leftist position statement is that I want government to do big, direct, showy interventions into people's lives, and I think that's a winning strategy because if you hammer people over the head with help and tell them who's giving it to them, they will eventually realize who's buttering their bread. FDR and the decades-spanning New Deal coalition didn't hang together because of some ephemeral set of shared values (how hard some of the parts of that coalition have left it because of said values, e.g. West Virginia, shows that they in fact had sharply opposed values) but because government gave people things that improved their lives in tangible, immediate ways.
So, when I see Dems always tacking to the middle as if the middle were popular (oh, my yes, of course I'd rather have a tax credit than cash in hand), and when I see the same Dems punching left at people for supporting positions that would be extremely popular for the non-voting disaffected population of this country, what I see is a party that doesn't want to win if winning means losing financial sector donors and elite prestige. I see a party that wants, instead, to continue an endless waltz with the Republicans that keeps their sclerotic butts in their House and Senate seats and allows them to ignore the howling misery in this country crying out for someone to listen to it.
I'm trying to knit this all together, but I think what would in fact be a pretty strong candidate is what ducky l'orange was sort of pointing at way up top, or what kittens for breakfast was sort of gesturing towards lower down: a 'leftist Trump' in the sense that this person appeals to the highly motivated fringe with policies that would be broadly popular—if only once enacted—and who could, like Trump, and unlike Bernie, somehow successfully spit right in the eye of the party. And it may be that the right thing to do is to bring about the conditions in which such a candidate could emerge and survive the Democratic Party's concerted efforts to stamp this person out.
And I think to Frowner's point about "When does harm reduction stop?" the answer might be that it should've stopped in the 1980s with the Atari Democrats, in 1992 and 1996 with Clinton, in 2000 with Gore, in 2004 with Kerry, in 2008 with Obama (although as kittens noted we sort of got snowed there), definitely in 2012 with Obama, in 2016 with Clinton, and in 2020 with Joe. And as somebody posed it, if the choice is between hurting some people now and hurting many, many more people later, I think that's an actual moral choice to consider, because it's clear that harm reduction has led, inexorably, to greater harm.
posted by TheProfessor at 6:35 AM on February 1 [18 favorites]
Biden enthusiastically supports genocide. Whether or not Trump is better doesn't matter: there needs to be a price for this.
There certainly does, but there will not be. There never is a price for war criminality on the part of US presidents. Name one single one that didn't get re-elected because he joined or started a pointless, illegal war and bombed a whole bunch of people.
Should enough voters abstain from voting for not-Trump that Trump gets elected, the democratic party elite are not going to look at that and say, "Gee, Biden lost because he kept pouring money and arms into the Gaza genocide and the voting public was outraged and sickened, let us resolve not to run quiet fascists for president anymore." And they won't say that because the fact that Biden propped up a genocide will not be the reason Trump got elected. Insufficient numbers of Americans are paying attention. Insufficient numbers of Americans care about people who are not themselves to make Biden's funding of the genocide a factor in this election.
posted by Don Pepino at 6:56 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
There certainly does, but there will not be. There never is a price for war criminality on the part of US presidents. Name one single one that didn't get re-elected because he joined or started a pointless, illegal war and bombed a whole bunch of people.
Should enough voters abstain from voting for not-Trump that Trump gets elected, the democratic party elite are not going to look at that and say, "Gee, Biden lost because he kept pouring money and arms into the Gaza genocide and the voting public was outraged and sickened, let us resolve not to run quiet fascists for president anymore." And they won't say that because the fact that Biden propped up a genocide will not be the reason Trump got elected. Insufficient numbers of Americans are paying attention. Insufficient numbers of Americans care about people who are not themselves to make Biden's funding of the genocide a factor in this election.
posted by Don Pepino at 6:56 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
To glom onto TheProfessor's comment. Another way that leftists would help if only the liberals would take advantage of it is something like the same dynamic between moderate civil rights leaders like MLK vs. more extreme ones like Malcom X.
I really want a strong leftist presence in the democratic party almost as a distinct sub-party within the whole. Because then the more moderate part of the party can say, "Look, you had better work with us on these liberal things with us. Otherwise you'll have to deal with the leftists and they're already pulling us farther left than we'd like to be."
In my case that would be how I'd sneak socialism in capitalist clothing. Capitalism must be heavily regulated to function for the public good. To me that means some products/services/sectors that just don't line up with economic market theory, like health care, should just be socialized and taken out of the capitalism equation. Socialism where it works well, capitalism where that works out.
It'd be our secret leftist-liberal conspiracy.
posted by VTX at 7:05 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
I really want a strong leftist presence in the democratic party almost as a distinct sub-party within the whole. Because then the more moderate part of the party can say, "Look, you had better work with us on these liberal things with us. Otherwise you'll have to deal with the leftists and they're already pulling us farther left than we'd like to be."
In my case that would be how I'd sneak socialism in capitalist clothing. Capitalism must be heavily regulated to function for the public good. To me that means some products/services/sectors that just don't line up with economic market theory, like health care, should just be socialized and taken out of the capitalism equation. Socialism where it works well, capitalism where that works out.
It'd be our secret leftist-liberal conspiracy.
posted by VTX at 7:05 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
What particularly galls me about the hate in the center for leftists and left positions is that, in action, they would so obviously be popular. Take universal state-funded healthcare.
I hate to break it to you, but most people in the US like their health care just fine. That's the problem. If they didn't it, would be easy to change it. The anecdotes you hear about medical bankruptcy are true, but the actual numbers are pretty low, and they effect a small number of poor people who are financially precarious for other reasons. Personal bankruptcy numbers are actually relatively low right now too.
So would universal health care be popular? Maybe. Could it be funded at the same rate most people pay (again, who like their health care at the rates they are currently paying)? Could it be done without massive job loss or retraining?
These are the actual hard questions you have to answer first.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:29 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
I hate to break it to you, but most people in the US like their health care just fine. That's the problem. If they didn't it, would be easy to change it. The anecdotes you hear about medical bankruptcy are true, but the actual numbers are pretty low, and they effect a small number of poor people who are financially precarious for other reasons. Personal bankruptcy numbers are actually relatively low right now too.
So would universal health care be popular? Maybe. Could it be funded at the same rate most people pay (again, who like their health care at the rates they are currently paying)? Could it be done without massive job loss or retraining?
These are the actual hard questions you have to answer first.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:29 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Should the US have universal health care, even if rates where slightly higher than most people are currently paying? Yes, but that's an equality question, not a quality of healthcare question. Or a 'can the majority of people afford their care?' question.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:31 AM on February 1
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:31 AM on February 1
Could it be funded at the same rate most people pay (again, who like their health care at the rates they are currently paying)?
Abundantly yes. Every country that has universal health care pays a lot less per capita than we do.
Could it be done without massive job loss or retraining?
For those in the health insurance sector? No, many of them would lose their jobs. There's also a lot of folks at hospitals whose job is to fill out paperwork, and we'd have fewer (but not none) of those people. But for the economy as a whole I don't see how that would be a meaningful number of people.
posted by joannemerriam at 7:32 AM on February 1 [6 favorites]
Abundantly yes. Every country that has universal health care pays a lot less per capita than we do.
Could it be done without massive job loss or retraining?
For those in the health insurance sector? No, many of them would lose their jobs. There's also a lot of folks at hospitals whose job is to fill out paperwork, and we'd have fewer (but not none) of those people. But for the economy as a whole I don't see how that would be a meaningful number of people.
posted by joannemerriam at 7:32 AM on February 1 [6 favorites]
Universal health care doesn't need to mean that all costs are borne by the govt or that 'private' medical care doesn't need to exist. Some of the best health care systems in the world that provide universal coverage have a mix of gov, patients, and private insurance as payors, private and public facilities, and profit / not for profit models.
posted by sid at 8:07 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
posted by sid at 8:07 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
I would suggest that I find it remarkable that so many people seem to take, as an article of faith, that the American People don't want free healthcare, or better wages, or lower rents. I mean it isn't as if any Democrat in living memory has actually RUN on any of those things.
Obama fought tenaciously against a public option for his plan to get "health insurance" that is worthless because going to a doctor is still prohibitively expensive.
When Democrats actively work to prevent free universal healthcare why do people keep saying that it's an unquestionable fact that Americans hate the idea?
Frowner Is there a point at which voting as harm reduction stops?
Yes. It's the point where a person switches from being an activist to being a revolutionary. Or just gives up. One of the two.
and, on that note, it is worth asking why the Democrats are so utterly, completely, unwaveringly, devoted to evil both externally and internally? What, exactly, is the objective the Democrats seem to think they're pursuing by backing every genocide they can find, starting and maintaining endless pointless wars, murdering random people in the Middle East, and on the homefront backing billionaires at the expense of everyone else?
We take it as a given that OF COURSE Joe Biden is going to back genocide. But I think it's worth asking why the Democrats are so devoted to committing war crimes that even Jimmy Carter was complicit in a US backed genocide?
posted by sotonohito at 8:15 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
Obama fought tenaciously against a public option for his plan to get "health insurance" that is worthless because going to a doctor is still prohibitively expensive.
When Democrats actively work to prevent free universal healthcare why do people keep saying that it's an unquestionable fact that Americans hate the idea?
Frowner Is there a point at which voting as harm reduction stops?
Yes. It's the point where a person switches from being an activist to being a revolutionary. Or just gives up. One of the two.
and, on that note, it is worth asking why the Democrats are so utterly, completely, unwaveringly, devoted to evil both externally and internally? What, exactly, is the objective the Democrats seem to think they're pursuing by backing every genocide they can find, starting and maintaining endless pointless wars, murdering random people in the Middle East, and on the homefront backing billionaires at the expense of everyone else?
We take it as a given that OF COURSE Joe Biden is going to back genocide. But I think it's worth asking why the Democrats are so devoted to committing war crimes that even Jimmy Carter was complicit in a US backed genocide?
posted by sotonohito at 8:15 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
a 'leftist Trump' ... somehow successfully spit right in the eye of the party
a party that wants, instead, to continue an endless waltz with the Republicans that keeps their sclerotic butts in their House and Senate seats
The problem with a leftist populist is getting the Democrats to enact leftist legislation and dismantle right-wing legislation. Executive policies are easily overturned. Trump's success was in doing things his party already wanted to do. And obviously the whole party had already been coopted by Russian money to a far greater extent than anyone realized until it was too late.
A popular leftist leader without an enthusiastic party behind them is just a recipe for more frustration.
posted by rikschell at 8:21 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
a party that wants, instead, to continue an endless waltz with the Republicans that keeps their sclerotic butts in their House and Senate seats
The problem with a leftist populist is getting the Democrats to enact leftist legislation and dismantle right-wing legislation. Executive policies are easily overturned. Trump's success was in doing things his party already wanted to do. And obviously the whole party had already been coopted by Russian money to a far greater extent than anyone realized until it was too late.
A popular leftist leader without an enthusiastic party behind them is just a recipe for more frustration.
posted by rikschell at 8:21 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Biden literally stood up and lied about seeing beheaded babies with his own eyes. He called the civilian death toll "fake news".
These are rather strong claims, and I find it a bit concerning that you don't offer any proof of either.
He is, personally, a genocidaire. He needs to lose.
The cost of him losing is Trump becoming president. Are you comfortable with that cost?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:37 AM on February 1 [8 favorites]
These are rather strong claims, and I find it a bit concerning that you don't offer any proof of either.
He is, personally, a genocidaire. He needs to lose.
The cost of him losing is Trump becoming president. Are you comfortable with that cost?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:37 AM on February 1 [8 favorites]
Those are both pretty much accurate statements; he definitely didn't see photos he claimed to have seen, and said he had no reason to believe Ministry of Health numbers, despite them being the most accurate ones available.
This is the kind of thing it's tiring to see from ostensibly-on-our-side politicians. Is it any wonder people feel ground down and as if they're not really making much progress dragging the Democrats to the left?
posted by sagc at 8:45 AM on February 1 [8 favorites]
This is the kind of thing it's tiring to see from ostensibly-on-our-side politicians. Is it any wonder people feel ground down and as if they're not really making much progress dragging the Democrats to the left?
posted by sagc at 8:45 AM on February 1 [8 favorites]
I see posts on the front page about laws targeting women and transgender folks, and I despair that we seem to be circling the drain towards a Fascist regime that will ramp up punishing and murdering people of these communities, because we continue to waste valuable time arguing with people who cannot be rationally convinced out of their delusions. I think I will be pushing for voter turnout, in whatever small way that I can. I hope that humanity survives this year without Trump ascending to the dictatorial role he aspires to.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:58 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:58 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
Yes, clearly the solution to addressing the problems we have right now is to elect Joe Biden. I'm sure that once he takes office, everything will be much better.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:14 AM on February 1 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:14 AM on February 1 [3 favorites]
Pretty sure we are edging closer to him backing KOSA and going full anti-trans agenda.
posted by Artw at 9:16 AM on February 1 [6 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:16 AM on February 1 [6 favorites]
In all this talk here of Biden and genocide, there seems to be little recognition that the US would be firmly in Israel's corner no matter which US party was in power. The majority of western democracies are also backing Israel.
The US as Israel's biggest, strongest backer, has the most levers to pull to influence Israel's actions. But uncritical support for Israel within the US is so strong (lobbies, donors, etc) that they can do real harm to politicians not singing from the pro-Israel hymnbook. And there are longstanding strategic reasons why the US and other countries want a strong and friendly Israel.
For the last 18 plus years, Israel's governments, despite some weak lip service, have clearly signaled their belief that there will never be a negotiated 2-state solution, and they have been openly working to weaken the Palestinian foothold, to keep nudging and intimidating them to leave, to create the "facts on the ground" like fences and settlements that further diminish the possibility of a 2-state solution. This isn't a surprise, right?
What I'm driving towards is that the choice of president won't materially alter US backing for Israel. You MIGHT be able to bring enough pressure on Biden that he finally limits military aid. You'll likely never see the same from Trump, unless his advisors slip it past him. So how one votes in November will, sadly, not have that much influence on Israel's conduct of the war.
There are other big issues where the choice of president has much greater implications, that shouldn't be forgotten.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:22 AM on February 1 [10 favorites]
The US as Israel's biggest, strongest backer, has the most levers to pull to influence Israel's actions. But uncritical support for Israel within the US is so strong (lobbies, donors, etc) that they can do real harm to politicians not singing from the pro-Israel hymnbook. And there are longstanding strategic reasons why the US and other countries want a strong and friendly Israel.
For the last 18 plus years, Israel's governments, despite some weak lip service, have clearly signaled their belief that there will never be a negotiated 2-state solution, and they have been openly working to weaken the Palestinian foothold, to keep nudging and intimidating them to leave, to create the "facts on the ground" like fences and settlements that further diminish the possibility of a 2-state solution. This isn't a surprise, right?
What I'm driving towards is that the choice of president won't materially alter US backing for Israel. You MIGHT be able to bring enough pressure on Biden that he finally limits military aid. You'll likely never see the same from Trump, unless his advisors slip it past him. So how one votes in November will, sadly, not have that much influence on Israel's conduct of the war.
There are other big issues where the choice of president has much greater implications, that shouldn't be forgotten.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:22 AM on February 1 [10 favorites]
If there is just no option available where the US doesn't commit atrocities or abet genocide, that seems like an argument for tearing the system down, not putting our efforts into trying to get a slightly less enthusiastic murderer in power.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 9:25 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
posted by The Manwich Horror at 9:25 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
Yes, it is. If you can't get that done by November, then what's Plan B?
posted by Artful Codger at 9:35 AM on February 1 [7 favorites]
posted by Artful Codger at 9:35 AM on February 1 [7 favorites]
To all those saying that Biden needs to be sent a message re: his complicity towards what's happening in Israel and Palestine through an election loss, I can see that you feel very strongly about this issue.
I would gently suggest, if you're not Palestinian yourself, that you check in with any Palestinian contacts you have about who they would prefer in power in the USA, Trump or Biden, with regards to their homeland, before you make the choice on who you're voting for in November.
posted by sid at 9:37 AM on February 1 [14 favorites]
I would gently suggest, if you're not Palestinian yourself, that you check in with any Palestinian contacts you have about who they would prefer in power in the USA, Trump or Biden, with regards to their homeland, before you make the choice on who you're voting for in November.
posted by sid at 9:37 AM on February 1 [14 favorites]
But I think it's worth asking why the Democrats are so devoted to committing war crimes that even Jimmy Carter was complicit in a US backed genocide?
Obviously, Democrats are not devoted to committing war crimes, that is just silly. But I think there is an explanation for why both Democrats and Republicans get caught up in international strifes, even as they try to avoid it.
Presidents run on domestic politics. They might have debate questions about peace in the Middle East and fighting terrorism, but the tiny minority who base their vote on that cannot move results. See McCain vs. Obama. Both were moderates, both were fiscally conservative, but Obama promised the world because he had no idea he couldn't deliver. he even got the Nobel Peace Prize for that beautiful innocence.
So most presidents come in with very little knowledge about defense or foreign affairs in general, and then they discover that this the one thing where presidents have a lot of power. But they don't know a lot about it. So they have to listen to their advisors, who are all really smart experts, but also siloed, in the sense that they are hammers looking for nails.
Generals don't (normally) want wars, but war is the tool they know.
Diplomats don't want wars, but they do love conventions and known entities.
So most presidents end up working within the status quo.
(Also what Artful Codger said)
The worst thing is that the idiot isolationist presidents who ignore the generals and diplomats and get their sons-in-law or whomever to run the foreign policy get us into even worse problems. As stated above, I am convinced that the Kushner deal is the direct cause of what we are seeing now in Israel/Palestine. If Trump had been reelected, he would be dealign with it now, and don't ever imagine he would be doing anything useful.
George W Bush was isolationist and ignorant, and got us into both Afganistan and Iraq because he listened to insane advisors.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that it isn't a second Trump term.
posted by mumimor at 9:44 AM on February 1 [7 favorites]
Obviously, Democrats are not devoted to committing war crimes, that is just silly. But I think there is an explanation for why both Democrats and Republicans get caught up in international strifes, even as they try to avoid it.
Presidents run on domestic politics. They might have debate questions about peace in the Middle East and fighting terrorism, but the tiny minority who base their vote on that cannot move results. See McCain vs. Obama. Both were moderates, both were fiscally conservative, but Obama promised the world because he had no idea he couldn't deliver. he even got the Nobel Peace Prize for that beautiful innocence.
So most presidents come in with very little knowledge about defense or foreign affairs in general, and then they discover that this the one thing where presidents have a lot of power. But they don't know a lot about it. So they have to listen to their advisors, who are all really smart experts, but also siloed, in the sense that they are hammers looking for nails.
Generals don't (normally) want wars, but war is the tool they know.
Diplomats don't want wars, but they do love conventions and known entities.
So most presidents end up working within the status quo.
(Also what Artful Codger said)
The worst thing is that the idiot isolationist presidents who ignore the generals and diplomats and get their sons-in-law or whomever to run the foreign policy get us into even worse problems. As stated above, I am convinced that the Kushner deal is the direct cause of what we are seeing now in Israel/Palestine. If Trump had been reelected, he would be dealign with it now, and don't ever imagine he would be doing anything useful.
George W Bush was isolationist and ignorant, and got us into both Afganistan and Iraq because he listened to insane advisors.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that it isn't a second Trump term.
posted by mumimor at 9:44 AM on February 1 [7 favorites]
I would strongly suggest you worry about driving votes in some other way as this line of argument is hugely counterproductive and basically driving votes the other way than you want.
posted by Artw at 9:45 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:45 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
In the privacy of the polling booth you should of course vote for the least-worst candidate that has a chance of winning. However, this doesn't mean you have to publicly disclose this intention ahead of time! Just as politicians have public and private positions on issues, the best strategy as an individual voter might be to privately commit to harm-minimization tactical voting, but publicly act as if you're a single-issue swing voter.
posted by Pyry at 9:48 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
posted by Pyry at 9:48 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
Yes, it is. If you can't get that done by November, then what's Plan B?
I'm going to vote for Biden. But a lot of people are acting as if voting for Biden is a solution rather than a bandaid on a gutshot. If utilitarian calculus says we have to pick a war criminal to support, doesn't it also demand that people act to undermine this system? Because I see a lot more revolutionaries voting than voters preparing for revolution.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 9:53 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
I'm going to vote for Biden. But a lot of people are acting as if voting for Biden is a solution rather than a bandaid on a gutshot. If utilitarian calculus says we have to pick a war criminal to support, doesn't it also demand that people act to undermine this system? Because I see a lot more revolutionaries voting than voters preparing for revolution.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 9:53 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
But a lot of people are acting as if voting for Biden is a solution
No, they're not.
posted by neroli at 10:08 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
No, they're not.
posted by neroli at 10:08 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
mumimor While I'm not trying to argue that Presidents are all somehow members of the Evil League of Evil or anything, I don't buy the idea that they're babes in the woods mislead by generals who simultaneously don't want and advocate for war.
I'm well aware of the Bloody Shirt idea, but while that may explain the desire of Presidents to always be in some sort of overt war so they can have sexy footage of 'Murcan weapons blowing brown foreigners to pieces it doesn't explain all the secretive support for genocide.
It doesn't take a genius, or a military stragegist, to realize that drone murdering randome people across the Middle East isn't exactly a strategy, is not productive, and is an enormous waste.
I'm not arguing for isolationism per se, but I'm damn sure arguing for an END to all US military actions until and unless we can sort out our shit and find actual goals that are achievable.
Seriously, I'm not being hyperbolic here, has ANY us military action in the Middle East in the past 50 years actually made things better?
Has any US military action since WWII actually improved things?
And on the topic of genocide, that's not even generals and military action. That's just Presidents working with foreign governments to provide them with the tools to commit genocide.
Reagan didn't send soldiers to Guatamala. He just sent weapons, training, computers, and CIA help. It was the first computer assisted genocide in history, as far as we know anyway, with data processing helping the Guatamalian dictatorship identify individual people to murder.
Jimmy Carter didn't send a single US soldier to Cambodia, he just helped Pol Pot round up and murder people with secret shipments of money, weapons, and of course US experts in torture and genocide from the CIA.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that SOMETHING is at play here if every single President, regardless of Party, has found at least one genocide to enthusiastically back and support. You'd think maybe one of them, like Jimmy Crater who seems like a decent human being, would say "naah, genocide seems bad" and NOT send in the CIA and huge shipments of weapons.
posted by sotonohito at 10:33 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
I'm well aware of the Bloody Shirt idea, but while that may explain the desire of Presidents to always be in some sort of overt war so they can have sexy footage of 'Murcan weapons blowing brown foreigners to pieces it doesn't explain all the secretive support for genocide.
It doesn't take a genius, or a military stragegist, to realize that drone murdering randome people across the Middle East isn't exactly a strategy, is not productive, and is an enormous waste.
I'm not arguing for isolationism per se, but I'm damn sure arguing for an END to all US military actions until and unless we can sort out our shit and find actual goals that are achievable.
Seriously, I'm not being hyperbolic here, has ANY us military action in the Middle East in the past 50 years actually made things better?
Has any US military action since WWII actually improved things?
And on the topic of genocide, that's not even generals and military action. That's just Presidents working with foreign governments to provide them with the tools to commit genocide.
Reagan didn't send soldiers to Guatamala. He just sent weapons, training, computers, and CIA help. It was the first computer assisted genocide in history, as far as we know anyway, with data processing helping the Guatamalian dictatorship identify individual people to murder.
Jimmy Carter didn't send a single US soldier to Cambodia, he just helped Pol Pot round up and murder people with secret shipments of money, weapons, and of course US experts in torture and genocide from the CIA.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that SOMETHING is at play here if every single President, regardless of Party, has found at least one genocide to enthusiastically back and support. You'd think maybe one of them, like Jimmy Crater who seems like a decent human being, would say "naah, genocide seems bad" and NOT send in the CIA and huge shipments of weapons.
posted by sotonohito at 10:33 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that SOMETHING is at play here if every single President, regardless of Party, has found at least one genocide to enthusiastically back and support. You'd think maybe one of them, like Jimmy Crater who seems like a decent human being, would say "naah, genocide seems bad" and NOT send in the CIA and huge shipments of weapons.
I mean, isn't that the basis of a lot of the 'empire'-based critiques of US foreign policy? Much like billionaires as a category, you can't get up there while staying a good person & your power is derived from a *lot* of suffering. You're constrained in ways that aren't always obvious; but any action (or inaction) you take has repercussions & collateral-at-best damage. And ultimately, continuity of organizational & social infrastructure means that the paths that are seen as most viable are well-worn & make it so even *if* someone managed to reach the levers of Executive power while still holding an intent to restructure it along better lines there'd be a vast amount of churn & turmoil trying to get everything else aligned when you & everybody around you got where you did by benefiting from the structure being what it currently is.
And that's without getting into Congressional alignment/disalignment, or the courts.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:48 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
I mean, isn't that the basis of a lot of the 'empire'-based critiques of US foreign policy? Much like billionaires as a category, you can't get up there while staying a good person & your power is derived from a *lot* of suffering. You're constrained in ways that aren't always obvious; but any action (or inaction) you take has repercussions & collateral-at-best damage. And ultimately, continuity of organizational & social infrastructure means that the paths that are seen as most viable are well-worn & make it so even *if* someone managed to reach the levers of Executive power while still holding an intent to restructure it along better lines there'd be a vast amount of churn & turmoil trying to get everything else aligned when you & everybody around you got where you did by benefiting from the structure being what it currently is.
And that's without getting into Congressional alignment/disalignment, or the courts.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:48 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Trump spent more than he took in during 2023 - His total legal bill is staggering. And it left one of his primary committees with little cash on hand
Unclear how much this is a hindrance, how many fascist billionaires are waiting in the wings to offer support, how much free media he’s going to get and how much low reported money means other money has just gone into pockets. Can be taken as read that a lot of what would for other people be called white collar crime has gone on.
posted by Artw at 11:00 AM on February 1
Unclear how much this is a hindrance, how many fascist billionaires are waiting in the wings to offer support, how much free media he’s going to get and how much low reported money means other money has just gone into pockets. Can be taken as read that a lot of what would for other people be called white collar crime has gone on.
posted by Artw at 11:00 AM on February 1
> like Jimmy Crater who seems like a decent human being
you're thinking of jimmy carter. jimmy crater is the atomic-powered robot boy who fights kaiju on the moon, and although he is a totally decent little dude he'd feel pretty insulted if you called him a human being.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 11:04 AM on February 1 [7 favorites]
you're thinking of jimmy carter. jimmy crater is the atomic-powered robot boy who fights kaiju on the moon, and although he is a totally decent little dude he'd feel pretty insulted if you called him a human being.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 11:04 AM on February 1 [7 favorites]
Those are both pretty much accurate statements; he definitely didn't see photos he claimed to have seen, and said he had no reason to believe Ministry of Health numbers, despite them being the most accurate ones available.
Perhaps I was too gentle in my initial comment. I'll be a bit more blunt -
Do the people making these claims about Biden have links to sources that back them up?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:23 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Perhaps I was too gentle in my initial comment. I'll be a bit more blunt -
Do the people making these claims about Biden have links to sources that back them up?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:23 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
People making the claim should do the googling.
posted by joannemerriam at 11:37 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
posted by joannemerriam at 11:37 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
Genocidist realism: "the widespread sense that not only is capitalism genocide the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it."
posted by Richard Saunders at 11:38 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
posted by Richard Saunders at 11:38 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
(But thank you for providing the links.)
posted by joannemerriam at 11:38 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
posted by joannemerriam at 11:38 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
Those are both pretty much accurate statements; he definitely didn't see photos he claimed to have seen, and said he had no reason to believe Ministry of Health numbers, despite them being the most accurate ones available.
Both of these points are from early days. As the provided links show, the baby photo claim is like 5 days after Oct 7, and the Gaza toll skepticism is less than 3 weeks after the terrorist attack.
I'd be willing to bet that babies were likely decapitated, and that Biden has since seen credible proof of that and worse, and the US has since expressed more confidence in the Hamas health authority's numbers.
These really seem like early-days fog of war stuff, and not current thinking. They don't seem to me like smoking-gun evidence of a fondness for genocide.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:44 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
Both of these points are from early days. As the provided links show, the baby photo claim is like 5 days after Oct 7, and the Gaza toll skepticism is less than 3 weeks after the terrorist attack.
I'd be willing to bet that babies were likely decapitated, and that Biden has since seen credible proof of that and worse, and the US has since expressed more confidence in the Hamas health authority's numbers.
These really seem like early-days fog of war stuff, and not current thinking. They don't seem to me like smoking-gun evidence of a fondness for genocide.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:44 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
it is worth asking why the Democrats are so utterly, completely, unwaveringly, devoted to evil both externally and internally? [...]
We take it as a given that OF COURSE Joe Biden is going to back genocide. But I think it's worth asking why the Democrats are so devoted to committing war crimes that even Jimmy Carter was complicit in a US backed genocide?
Gotta be honest, I'm embarrassed that I spent as long as I did in this thread trying to make a case for the minimization of harm to vulnerable people and a clear-eyed appraisal of our options in November. Because this? This is not a rational position. This is pure delusion. Lefties here have built up this monstrous boogeyman and they'd rather rail against that and condemn anyone they see as adjacent than even consider what practical solutions to any of our problems might look like. This kind of thinking is so thoroughly untethered from the reality on the ground that it's in danger of floating off into space entirely. And who knows, maybe lefties will find the cartoonishly evil villains you're so desperate to fight out there somewhere. In the meantime I guess the rest of us will focus on the threats in front of us.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 11:58 AM on February 1 [8 favorites]
We take it as a given that OF COURSE Joe Biden is going to back genocide. But I think it's worth asking why the Democrats are so devoted to committing war crimes that even Jimmy Carter was complicit in a US backed genocide?
Gotta be honest, I'm embarrassed that I spent as long as I did in this thread trying to make a case for the minimization of harm to vulnerable people and a clear-eyed appraisal of our options in November. Because this? This is not a rational position. This is pure delusion. Lefties here have built up this monstrous boogeyman and they'd rather rail against that and condemn anyone they see as adjacent than even consider what practical solutions to any of our problems might look like. This kind of thinking is so thoroughly untethered from the reality on the ground that it's in danger of floating off into space entirely. And who knows, maybe lefties will find the cartoonishly evil villains you're so desperate to fight out there somewhere. In the meantime I guess the rest of us will focus on the threats in front of us.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 11:58 AM on February 1 [8 favorites]
Two unicycles and some duct tape I'd like to clarify, are you arguing that all of those Presidents, including Carter, did NOT support the genocides they are documented by historians, not delusional leftists, to have supported?
If, in fact, you agree those genocides occurred and did so with the aid of US Presidents, would you not agree that it's reasonable to ask WHY every single US President since Kennedy has decided to participat in a genocide?
As a delusional lefty, I suggest that the practical solution is for US Presidents to simply... not support genocide.
That can't be particularly difficult since it's LITERALLY doing nothing. I don't understand the insistence that simply not committing genocide is some monumental, herculean, effort that I have to be utterly delusional to suggest.
posted by sotonohito at 12:08 PM on February 1 [4 favorites]
If, in fact, you agree those genocides occurred and did so with the aid of US Presidents, would you not agree that it's reasonable to ask WHY every single US President since Kennedy has decided to participat in a genocide?
As a delusional lefty, I suggest that the practical solution is for US Presidents to simply... not support genocide.
That can't be particularly difficult since it's LITERALLY doing nothing. I don't understand the insistence that simply not committing genocide is some monumental, herculean, effort that I have to be utterly delusional to suggest.
posted by sotonohito at 12:08 PM on February 1 [4 favorites]
sotonohito my comment was maybe unclear on this point but no, I'm specifically not arguing that point with you or any other lefties in the thread. I'm done arguing with people who aren't willing to deal with the reality on the ground and the practical things we can do to address it.
This thread is ostensibly about understanding Trump voters with an eye toward avoiding a second Trump term. Everything else here, up to and including the lefty's greatest hits of most willfully genocidal Democrats ever, is a derail, one that I apologize for contributing to.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 12:19 PM on February 1 [11 favorites]
This thread is ostensibly about understanding Trump voters with an eye toward avoiding a second Trump term. Everything else here, up to and including the lefty's greatest hits of most willfully genocidal Democrats ever, is a derail, one that I apologize for contributing to.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 12:19 PM on February 1 [11 favorites]
Given that virtually everyone here agrees that voting Trump out is important, and the delusional lefties have all said on multiple occasions that they will be voting for Biden, I'm curious as to why you think discussing the reality on the ground, that Biden is supporting a genocide and it is costing him key votes in swing states, is somehow bad.
Let's look at the facts:
Fact: Joe Biden is aiding and assisting in Israel's genocide in Gaza
Fact: Michigan is a swing state with a large Palestinian population as well as a large number of Muslims many from Middle Eastern nations.
Fact: The Palestinian and Muslim population in Michigan was insturmental in getting that state's Electoral College votes for Biden in the 2020 election.
Fact: Many of the Palestinian and Muslim groups that actively campaigned for Biden in 2020 are now either waffling or actively saying they will oppose him in 2024.
Opinion: it might be a really damn good idea to discuss this and consider ways Biden might be able to do something about it to win in November.
I mean, we see President Biden shooting himself in the foot with his unwavering support of the ongoing Gaza genocide, I think it'd be pretty silly to think that's not relevant to a discussion about the election?
As for the article at the top, and I'm not trying to shit on OP here, but it's basically a placeholder for a political discussion. There's no new information there. Republicans are pro-hierarchy types with a love of bullying. Duh. We've known that since forever. We don't need any more in depth character portraits of the inner lives of Trump voters at the small town diner, there have been enough of those to keep us stocked well into 2124.
posted by sotonohito at 12:30 PM on February 1 [13 favorites]
Let's look at the facts:
Fact: Joe Biden is aiding and assisting in Israel's genocide in Gaza
Fact: Michigan is a swing state with a large Palestinian population as well as a large number of Muslims many from Middle Eastern nations.
Fact: The Palestinian and Muslim population in Michigan was insturmental in getting that state's Electoral College votes for Biden in the 2020 election.
Fact: Many of the Palestinian and Muslim groups that actively campaigned for Biden in 2020 are now either waffling or actively saying they will oppose him in 2024.
Opinion: it might be a really damn good idea to discuss this and consider ways Biden might be able to do something about it to win in November.
I mean, we see President Biden shooting himself in the foot with his unwavering support of the ongoing Gaza genocide, I think it'd be pretty silly to think that's not relevant to a discussion about the election?
As for the article at the top, and I'm not trying to shit on OP here, but it's basically a placeholder for a political discussion. There's no new information there. Republicans are pro-hierarchy types with a love of bullying. Duh. We've known that since forever. We don't need any more in depth character portraits of the inner lives of Trump voters at the small town diner, there have been enough of those to keep us stocked well into 2124.
posted by sotonohito at 12:30 PM on February 1 [13 favorites]
51% is not anything special other than barely winning.
Barely winning is better than barely losing.
(See also: Close enough for hand grenades and nuclear detonations.}
I got a spirit-lofting chuckle from the Post's premise that to defeat Trump, we need to understand why people vote for him. This is a job for Bigcorp's researchers to tackle right after figuring out why people prefer Pepsi over Coca-Cola. (hint: how much money do they cut out for their advertising budgets?) As was noted in sublime variations upthread, don't look for electoral or reform; that won't happen, even in our children's lifetime. The rot is in the socio-political infrastructure, fed by a shaky faith that unlimited growth is necessary for a healthy economy. Did you know that Phoenix, AZ, has suspended new construction permits for single-family housing until they can figure out where to get the water? Me-oh-my. Where are all the snowbirds going to retire now? This is about the next time you see an "It's The Economy, Stupid" sign. Or a "Vote for me, I'm a Liberal" poster.
We should not elect Trump, even if the electoral college was not a cancer on our system. Progress is an agreement--a squeaky majority of 51% is all we need at the national level, but it requires a super-majority in the Senate, so....
My instrinsistors wrestle with my extrinsistors all the time. Please make them stop.
posted by mule98J at 12:38 PM on February 1
Barely winning is better than barely losing.
(See also: Close enough for hand grenades and nuclear detonations.}
I got a spirit-lofting chuckle from the Post's premise that to defeat Trump, we need to understand why people vote for him. This is a job for Bigcorp's researchers to tackle right after figuring out why people prefer Pepsi over Coca-Cola. (hint: how much money do they cut out for their advertising budgets?) As was noted in sublime variations upthread, don't look for electoral or reform; that won't happen, even in our children's lifetime. The rot is in the socio-political infrastructure, fed by a shaky faith that unlimited growth is necessary for a healthy economy. Did you know that Phoenix, AZ, has suspended new construction permits for single-family housing until they can figure out where to get the water? Me-oh-my. Where are all the snowbirds going to retire now? This is about the next time you see an "It's The Economy, Stupid" sign. Or a "Vote for me, I'm a Liberal" poster.
We should not elect Trump, even if the electoral college was not a cancer on our system. Progress is an agreement--a squeaky majority of 51% is all we need at the national level, but it requires a super-majority in the Senate, so....
My instrinsistors wrestle with my extrinsistors all the time. Please make them stop.
posted by mule98J at 12:38 PM on February 1
Mod note: Two comments deleted. Please avoid turning this conversation into a fight with other members. Also, please avoid accusing people you disagree with of gaslighting.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:38 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]
posted by loup (staff) at 12:38 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Opinion: it might be a really damn good idea to discuss this and consider ways Biden might be able to do something about it to win in November.
Unfortunately, I think that *is* the discussion we're having. The answer being suggested is "Its not for Biden to do anything about it, it's for us to shut up about it and stop acknowledging it as an issue, because it does hurt him but there's no chance of change"
posted by Audreynachrome at 12:50 PM on February 1 [7 favorites]
Unfortunately, I think that *is* the discussion we're having. The answer being suggested is "Its not for Biden to do anything about it, it's for us to shut up about it and stop acknowledging it as an issue, because it does hurt him but there's no chance of change"
posted by Audreynachrome at 12:50 PM on February 1 [7 favorites]
I mean, we see President Biden shooting himself in the foot with his unwavering support of the ongoing Gaza genocide, I think it'd be pretty silly to think that's not relevant to a discussion about the election?
From just a purely pragmatic election point of view, the choice is: which foot to shoot.
There is unimpeachably moral outrage at the death and destruction wreaked by Israel on Gaza and the stepped-up oppression in the West Bank. But if you seriously move against that, then you risk losing the support of the substantial US pro-Israel groups and interests. As well as most anyone else who has unimpeachably moral outrage at the deaths and horrors of the Hamas terror attack.
We would hope that the most moral positions would prevail. But if at the end of the day, TFG wins, then that battle is almost certainly lost anyways. I dunno. Maybe it IS time for politicians to be firmly on the side of principle, even if it means certain electoral loss.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:53 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]
From just a purely pragmatic election point of view, the choice is: which foot to shoot.
There is unimpeachably moral outrage at the death and destruction wreaked by Israel on Gaza and the stepped-up oppression in the West Bank. But if you seriously move against that, then you risk losing the support of the substantial US pro-Israel groups and interests. As well as most anyone else who has unimpeachably moral outrage at the deaths and horrors of the Hamas terror attack.
We would hope that the most moral positions would prevail. But if at the end of the day, TFG wins, then that battle is almost certainly lost anyways. I dunno. Maybe it IS time for politicians to be firmly on the side of principle, even if it means certain electoral loss.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:53 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]
There is unimpeachably moral outrage at the death and destruction wreaked on Gaza and the stepped-up oppression in the West Bank. But if you seriously move against that, then you've lost the support of the substantial pro-Israel groups and interests. As well as most anyone else who has unimpeachably moral outrage at the deaths and horrors of the Hamas terror attack.
I am sad that the discourse is so polarized and that there's little room for nuance and constructive discussion.
IMO the only viable solution at this point is a mediated two state arrangement and that conversation doesn't seem to be occurring in any meaningful fashion.
posted by sid at 12:58 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]
I am sad that the discourse is so polarized and that there's little room for nuance and constructive discussion.
IMO the only viable solution at this point is a mediated two state arrangement and that conversation doesn't seem to be occurring in any meaningful fashion.
posted by sid at 12:58 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]
That doesn’t mean having to actively assist with genocide.
Also if actively assisting with genocide was the only way to win the election given “reality” it seems odd that you are now worried about losing the election due to people objecting to it.
posted by Artw at 1:02 PM on February 1 [3 favorites]
Also if actively assisting with genocide was the only way to win the election given “reality” it seems odd that you are now worried about losing the election due to people objecting to it.
posted by Artw at 1:02 PM on February 1 [3 favorites]
In all this talk here of Biden and genocide, there seems to be little recognition that the US would be firmly in Israel's corner no matter which US party was in power. The majority of western democracies are also backing Israel.
The US as Israel's biggest, strongest backer, has the most levers to pull to influence Israel's actions. But uncritical support for Israel within the US is so strong (lobbies, donors, etc) that they can do real harm to politicians not singing from the pro-Israel hymnbook. And there are longstanding strategic reasons why the US and other countries want a strong and friendly Israel.
For the last 18 plus years, Israel's governments, despite some weak lip service, have clearly signaled their belief that there will never be a negotiated 2-state solution, and they have been openly working to weaken the Palestinian foothold, to keep nudging and intimidating them to leave, to create the "facts on the ground" like fences and settlements that further diminish the possibility of a 2-state solution. This isn't a surprise, right?
What I'm driving towards is that the choice of president won't materially alter US backing for Israel. You MIGHT be able to bring enough pressure on Biden that he finally limits military aid. You'll likely never see the same from Trump, unless his advisors slip it past him. So how one votes in November will, sadly, not have that much influence on Israel's conduct of the war.
There are other big issues where the choice of president has much greater implications, that shouldn't be forgotten.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:22 AM on February 1 [9 favorites +] [⚑]
...There is unimpeachably moral outrage at the death and destruction wreaked by Israel on Gaza and the stepped-up oppression in the West Bank. But if you seriously move against that, then you risk losing the support of the substantial US pro-Israel groups and interests. As well as most anyone else who has unimpeachably moral outrage at the deaths and horrors of the Hamas terror attack.
(Also Artful Codger in a more recent comment)
To all those saying that Biden needs to be sent a message re: his complicity towards what's happening in Israel and Palestine through an election loss, I can see that you feel very strongly about this issue.
I would gently suggest, if you're not Palestinian yourself, that you check in with any Palestinian contacts you have about who they would prefer in power in the USA, Trump or Biden, with regards to their homeland, before you make the choice on who you're voting for in November.
posted by sid at 11:37 AM on February 1 [10 favorites +] [⚑]
Here's another example of folks assuming that positions which the Democrats think are popular are actually popular with people who vote for Democrats. And I think that's totally backwards.
As sotonohito pointed out upthread, cf sid's comment that I cited, that Joe might well lose the election because he has lost Palestinian, Arab, and otherwise Muslim votes over Gaza. Now, it's indisputably true that if the Democratic Party became the party of 'not giving guns or releasing emergency ammunition to Israel when it's being actively used to murder civilians,' AIPAC et al would turn on the party. But, guys, AIPAC is already anti-Democratic Party. AIPAC already works tirelessly to unseat Dems and launches especially rabid attacks on the likes of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.
So, on the one hand, sure, you're right that if a Dem president just turned off the tap on weapons (which looks like it would draw things down very quickly), AIPAC would continue to undermine the Democratic Party.
But are you also trying to claim that, e.g., all the people in this thread begging people on the left to vote for Biden would, what, stay home if he stopped shipping missiles to the Holy Land?
Because that dog just don't hunt.
posted by TheProfessor at 1:04 PM on February 1 [7 favorites]
The US as Israel's biggest, strongest backer, has the most levers to pull to influence Israel's actions. But uncritical support for Israel within the US is so strong (lobbies, donors, etc) that they can do real harm to politicians not singing from the pro-Israel hymnbook. And there are longstanding strategic reasons why the US and other countries want a strong and friendly Israel.
For the last 18 plus years, Israel's governments, despite some weak lip service, have clearly signaled their belief that there will never be a negotiated 2-state solution, and they have been openly working to weaken the Palestinian foothold, to keep nudging and intimidating them to leave, to create the "facts on the ground" like fences and settlements that further diminish the possibility of a 2-state solution. This isn't a surprise, right?
What I'm driving towards is that the choice of president won't materially alter US backing for Israel. You MIGHT be able to bring enough pressure on Biden that he finally limits military aid. You'll likely never see the same from Trump, unless his advisors slip it past him. So how one votes in November will, sadly, not have that much influence on Israel's conduct of the war.
There are other big issues where the choice of president has much greater implications, that shouldn't be forgotten.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:22 AM on February 1 [9 favorites +] [⚑]
...There is unimpeachably moral outrage at the death and destruction wreaked by Israel on Gaza and the stepped-up oppression in the West Bank. But if you seriously move against that, then you risk losing the support of the substantial US pro-Israel groups and interests. As well as most anyone else who has unimpeachably moral outrage at the deaths and horrors of the Hamas terror attack.
(Also Artful Codger in a more recent comment)
To all those saying that Biden needs to be sent a message re: his complicity towards what's happening in Israel and Palestine through an election loss, I can see that you feel very strongly about this issue.
I would gently suggest, if you're not Palestinian yourself, that you check in with any Palestinian contacts you have about who they would prefer in power in the USA, Trump or Biden, with regards to their homeland, before you make the choice on who you're voting for in November.
posted by sid at 11:37 AM on February 1 [10 favorites +] [⚑]
Here's another example of folks assuming that positions which the Democrats think are popular are actually popular with people who vote for Democrats. And I think that's totally backwards.
As sotonohito pointed out upthread, cf sid's comment that I cited, that Joe might well lose the election because he has lost Palestinian, Arab, and otherwise Muslim votes over Gaza. Now, it's indisputably true that if the Democratic Party became the party of 'not giving guns or releasing emergency ammunition to Israel when it's being actively used to murder civilians,' AIPAC et al would turn on the party. But, guys, AIPAC is already anti-Democratic Party. AIPAC already works tirelessly to unseat Dems and launches especially rabid attacks on the likes of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.
So, on the one hand, sure, you're right that if a Dem president just turned off the tap on weapons (which looks like it would draw things down very quickly), AIPAC would continue to undermine the Democratic Party.
But are you also trying to claim that, e.g., all the people in this thread begging people on the left to vote for Biden would, what, stay home if he stopped shipping missiles to the Holy Land?
Because that dog just don't hunt.
posted by TheProfessor at 1:04 PM on February 1 [7 favorites]
Unfortunately, I think that *is* the discussion we're having. The answer being suggested is "Its not for Biden to do anything about it, it's for us to shut up about it and stop acknowledging it as an issue, because it does hurt him but there's no chance of change"
Maybe the discussion should be: how do we effect change through something other than voting?
posted by joannemerriam at 1:05 PM on February 1 [2 favorites]
Maybe the discussion should be: how do we effect change through something other than voting?
posted by joannemerriam at 1:05 PM on February 1 [2 favorites]
But are you also trying to claim that, e.g., all the people in this thread begging people on the left to vote for Biden would, what, stay home if he stopped shipping missiles to the Holy Land?
What? Of course not.
if actively assisting with genocide was the only way to win the election
Nobody wants that. I still hope that the US cuts that assistance. Maybe it's possible, without drawing accusations of abandoning Israel. It would take political skill, diplomacy and 3-D chess. Is it thinkable that Biden might get this done?
Longer term, which of the two candidates would be more likely to seek and execute that move?
posted by Artful Codger at 1:33 PM on February 1
What? Of course not.
if actively assisting with genocide was the only way to win the election
Nobody wants that. I still hope that the US cuts that assistance. Maybe it's possible, without drawing accusations of abandoning Israel. It would take political skill, diplomacy and 3-D chess. Is it thinkable that Biden might get this done?
Longer term, which of the two candidates would be more likely to seek and execute that move?
posted by Artful Codger at 1:33 PM on February 1
Without pressure? Neither.
posted by Artw at 1:37 PM on February 1 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 1:37 PM on February 1 [2 favorites]
Agreed.
posted by Artful Codger at 1:39 PM on February 1
posted by Artful Codger at 1:39 PM on February 1
joannemerriam We know the anwer to that one, but it's not a good answer.
Or, rather, answers:
Answer 1 - the quick way: Mass protest as we saw in Egypt during the Arab Spring. Millions strong, shutting down the economy entirely, and NOT STOPPING. Which isn't going to happen because, ultimately, most Americans don't care enough about genocide to do it.
Answer 2 - the slow way: Organize the fuck out of things. Organize with the DSA. Organize to infiltrate the Democratic Party at a local level and get genuine progressives in positions of power both in the party and via local elections for offices. Wait many years and maybe you can start a few tiny baby steps in the right direction, wait decades. Maybe you'll eventually be able to have the power to change things.
Option 1 isn't happening. Option 2 is not quick enough to make a change to the current genocides but should be pursued for the long game.
Obviously, God help us, voting stright ticket Democratic is the only viable option in November. The Democratic Party is awful, but it's the lesser evil.
I will add that in a way my gloom about Presidential support of genocide is a reason to vote for Biden. Because it ain't like he's any worse than the others on that front. We all know Trump would be whooping it up and encouraging Netanyahu to kill more Palestinians. I doubt that will convince many Muslim Americans to vote for Biden, but it's true.
Part of the problem here is that people aren't rational, they're rationalizing and they act on emotion more often than not; me as much as anyone else. From a pure Vulcan Logic standpoint the rational course of action for a Palestinian American is to vote for Biden. But that's not how people think, so they won't.
So yeah. Unless we can figure out a way to whip up 2 or 3 percent of America for a weeks, maybe months, long protest that shuts down the economy and costs the real people some money, there is absolutely nothing at all we can do to stop the genocide and America's support of it.
Maybe, if we are very very good little boys and girls who organize like hell and work our asses off we might have a slim fraction of a chance of at least influencing the decision on the genocide that'll be happening 20 years from now. And we should, becuase there will be one. And America will be supporting it unless we get together and start taking over local parties and winning local elections.
In the immediate short term I know of nothing at all thata any of us can do to (God help us) help get Biden re-elected in November. It's the morally correct action, and like most morally correct actions it feels bad and makes us disgusted with ourselves. Good sucks. But either for or against Biden, I can't influence the outcome of the election. I recognize my own powerlessness.
posted by sotonohito at 1:49 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Or, rather, answers:
Answer 1 - the quick way: Mass protest as we saw in Egypt during the Arab Spring. Millions strong, shutting down the economy entirely, and NOT STOPPING. Which isn't going to happen because, ultimately, most Americans don't care enough about genocide to do it.
Answer 2 - the slow way: Organize the fuck out of things. Organize with the DSA. Organize to infiltrate the Democratic Party at a local level and get genuine progressives in positions of power both in the party and via local elections for offices. Wait many years and maybe you can start a few tiny baby steps in the right direction, wait decades. Maybe you'll eventually be able to have the power to change things.
Option 1 isn't happening. Option 2 is not quick enough to make a change to the current genocides but should be pursued for the long game.
Obviously, God help us, voting stright ticket Democratic is the only viable option in November. The Democratic Party is awful, but it's the lesser evil.
I will add that in a way my gloom about Presidential support of genocide is a reason to vote for Biden. Because it ain't like he's any worse than the others on that front. We all know Trump would be whooping it up and encouraging Netanyahu to kill more Palestinians. I doubt that will convince many Muslim Americans to vote for Biden, but it's true.
Part of the problem here is that people aren't rational, they're rationalizing and they act on emotion more often than not; me as much as anyone else. From a pure Vulcan Logic standpoint the rational course of action for a Palestinian American is to vote for Biden. But that's not how people think, so they won't.
So yeah. Unless we can figure out a way to whip up 2 or 3 percent of America for a weeks, maybe months, long protest that shuts down the economy and costs the real people some money, there is absolutely nothing at all we can do to stop the genocide and America's support of it.
Maybe, if we are very very good little boys and girls who organize like hell and work our asses off we might have a slim fraction of a chance of at least influencing the decision on the genocide that'll be happening 20 years from now. And we should, becuase there will be one. And America will be supporting it unless we get together and start taking over local parties and winning local elections.
In the immediate short term I know of nothing at all thata any of us can do to (God help us) help get Biden re-elected in November. It's the morally correct action, and like most morally correct actions it feels bad and makes us disgusted with ourselves. Good sucks. But either for or against Biden, I can't influence the outcome of the election. I recognize my own powerlessness.
posted by sotonohito at 1:49 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Maybe I've just never been in love with a politician, but I don't have any problem voting for Joe Biden in a Biden vs Trump matchup, and I can't think of anything Biden might plausibly do that could possibly change my mind.
Maybe in that respect I'm similar to a Trump voter, since I'm willing to overlook the glaring imperfections in favor of moving things in the direction I think is better.
Hard to take seriously the calls to tear down the system. Noise not worth paying attention to after hearing it for so many election cycles. The edgy ones will vote or not vote, but the difference either way is too minor to stress over.
posted by otsebyatina at 2:47 PM on February 1
Maybe in that respect I'm similar to a Trump voter, since I'm willing to overlook the glaring imperfections in favor of moving things in the direction I think is better.
Hard to take seriously the calls to tear down the system. Noise not worth paying attention to after hearing it for so many election cycles. The edgy ones will vote or not vote, but the difference either way is too minor to stress over.
posted by otsebyatina at 2:47 PM on February 1
To be fair, the system kind of GOT torn down when Trump won the first time. So I guess that's why the idea that real change is impossible sounds like a lie to me. Now, if you say positive change is impossible, that sounds very cynical, but at least it's arguable.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:06 PM on February 1 [5 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:06 PM on February 1 [5 favorites]
Since a vote for “not Biden” (or such non-vote) is most likely a vote for the Putin stooge Trump, doesn’t that make an anti-Palestinian-genocide vote into a pro-Ukrainian genocide vote?
There’s a lot more horrible shit going on and it all bears consideration.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 4:09 PM on February 1 [10 favorites]
There’s a lot more horrible shit going on and it all bears consideration.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 4:09 PM on February 1 [10 favorites]
There's no such thing as an anti-Palestinian genocide vote. That's going to happen regardless of who you vote for. The only question is what you get with the Palestinian genocide.
We're getting a genocide. What we want doesn't matter. Who we vote for won't change that.
posted by sotonohito at 5:20 PM on February 1 [8 favorites]
We're getting a genocide. What we want doesn't matter. Who we vote for won't change that.
posted by sotonohito at 5:20 PM on February 1 [8 favorites]
Or such non-vote.
I guess it’s a choice between empowering one genocide or two, then.
Way down for sure, but certainly on the list of terrible results of the Palestinian genocide and the US and allies’ material support for Israel, is the diversion of attention and resources from fighting Russia’s genocide in Ukraine.
Trump is Putin’s tool and he will make sure Russia completes their plan. Biden along with any possible US president is beholden to long-standing ties and allegiances throughout the western world that bind him to support Israel at every turn.
It is an impossible situation but it is not an impossible choice. Republicans will never rush to support the Palestinians. Democrats may be open to chastising Israel and curtailing US support.
Of the two possible US presidents in this situation, the choice is easy. Depending on your state of residence, a non-vote in the presidential race may be just fine. However, there are probably down-ballot positions and measures that deserve your attention.
In places where margins are slim, though, a non-vote could be the difference between one genocide or two.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 6:46 PM on February 1 [2 favorites]
I guess it’s a choice between empowering one genocide or two, then.
Way down for sure, but certainly on the list of terrible results of the Palestinian genocide and the US and allies’ material support for Israel, is the diversion of attention and resources from fighting Russia’s genocide in Ukraine.
Trump is Putin’s tool and he will make sure Russia completes their plan. Biden along with any possible US president is beholden to long-standing ties and allegiances throughout the western world that bind him to support Israel at every turn.
It is an impossible situation but it is not an impossible choice. Republicans will never rush to support the Palestinians. Democrats may be open to chastising Israel and curtailing US support.
Of the two possible US presidents in this situation, the choice is easy. Depending on your state of residence, a non-vote in the presidential race may be just fine. However, there are probably down-ballot positions and measures that deserve your attention.
In places where margins are slim, though, a non-vote could be the difference between one genocide or two.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 6:46 PM on February 1 [2 favorites]
I voted for Obama and H. R. Clinton. I was a text captain for Warren in 2020. When she dropped out, I held my nose and voted for Biden. I will be in the ballot box this year, but I will not be voting for Biden. Maybe I'll write in Rashida Tlaib for president as I vote downballot. Because there are only so many photos of women who look more like me than not covered in dirt and debris weeping over the bodies of their dead, bloodied children -- children who were murdered by my tax dollars and who most Democrats in power consider acceptable collateral damage at best and terrorists in training at worst -- that I can stomach before tapping out.
I despise Trump more than I can say, and I don't hold any illusions that he will be anything less than a disaster. But I also despise the Democratic party, and I've made my choice. I wonder if voters like me had refused to vote for racist neoliberal Democrats 30 years ago, what would've happened. Maybe we would have lost the (metaphorical) battle but maybe the (both metaphorical and literal) war wouldn't be looking quite as dire today. All I can hope is that the good outweighs the bad, and that the future will judge me kindly, which is exactly what I think Biden voters are hoping for, too. Because the truth is that we are desperate to feel like we can wrest back control of this country that rapidly careening into a ditch, but none of us can know what the consequences our actions today will be in another 30 years.
More practically: I am fortunate enough to live in a place that will go for Biden regardless of what I do or don't do. So in some sense this is not a difficult decision. But while I am not shouting my stance from the rooftops, I am not hiding it, either. And I think there are a lot of people like me, and the Dems have a bigger problem than they think.
posted by Ragini at 9:21 PM on February 1 [9 favorites]
I despise Trump more than I can say, and I don't hold any illusions that he will be anything less than a disaster. But I also despise the Democratic party, and I've made my choice. I wonder if voters like me had refused to vote for racist neoliberal Democrats 30 years ago, what would've happened. Maybe we would have lost the (metaphorical) battle but maybe the (both metaphorical and literal) war wouldn't be looking quite as dire today. All I can hope is that the good outweighs the bad, and that the future will judge me kindly, which is exactly what I think Biden voters are hoping for, too. Because the truth is that we are desperate to feel like we can wrest back control of this country that rapidly careening into a ditch, but none of us can know what the consequences our actions today will be in another 30 years.
More practically: I am fortunate enough to live in a place that will go for Biden regardless of what I do or don't do. So in some sense this is not a difficult decision. But while I am not shouting my stance from the rooftops, I am not hiding it, either. And I think there are a lot of people like me, and the Dems have a bigger problem than they think.
posted by Ragini at 9:21 PM on February 1 [9 favorites]
Yesterday I watched this speech by Biden at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston South Carolina. Now, his speech is halting at times -- not surprising for a man with a life long stutter -- but his thinking is sharp and he makes his case well, mentioning student loan forgiveness, lowering prescription drug costs and everything listed in the Biden-Harris record. Which you could stand to look over. But listen to him speak. Then compare and contrast that speech to douchenozzle TFG on the stump of late.
Also here is Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of Texas speaking at a meeting of the House Oversight Committee regarding their attempt to impeach President Biden and she is fierce. Here is some more of her, by the way, with an assist by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the last. Despise the Democratic party all you want, you who do. I still have hope.
See also 7 Reasons the U.S. Economy Is Among the Strongest in the G7
Biden beat Trump. Then, in terms of domestic legislation passed and executive orders signed, he turned out to be the Second Coming of FDR. Despite the Republican Party. This 'lesser of two evils' bullshit is just that: Bullshit. This really is going to be the most important election of our lives. The choice come November could not be clearer.
posted by y2karl at 11:32 PM on February 1 [9 favorites]
Also here is Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of Texas speaking at a meeting of the House Oversight Committee regarding their attempt to impeach President Biden and she is fierce. Here is some more of her, by the way, with an assist by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the last. Despise the Democratic party all you want, you who do. I still have hope.
See also 7 Reasons the U.S. Economy Is Among the Strongest in the G7
Biden beat Trump. Then, in terms of domestic legislation passed and executive orders signed, he turned out to be the Second Coming of FDR. Despite the Republican Party. This 'lesser of two evils' bullshit is just that: Bullshit. This really is going to be the most important election of our lives. The choice come November could not be clearer.
posted by y2karl at 11:32 PM on February 1 [9 favorites]
Western involvement in the Middle East has been a complete shitshow since WWI. And the worst thing is that the US and other Western powers have trapped themselves into bad alliances they/we can't get out of. How are "we" friends with the KSA? Why did anyone think Israel was a good idea?* What's the deal with Iran?
Obama actually tried to restart all of this, and look how that went. I'm not saying he was fooled by his advisors. I'm saying that the people who are needed to change US ME policies don't exist in sufficient numbers. The president can say: guys, now we will do things differently, and then all of the thousands of people who need to put this into practice do nothing, or do the wrong things, or just don't understand the task. It's not just saying the words: it's moving army bases, changing the relationship with the IDF (and Pakistan), educating people, convincing other allies to change directions, building new friendships. It's huge, and it would take more than one lifetime to achieve.
After 9/11 there was a unique moment where "we" could have done things differently. The hijackers were from the KSA and supported by Pakistan. Iran reached out and offered to help. Israeli/Palestinian peace talks had failed and Arik Sharon had been elected PM, but the situation was not terrible yet. But GW Bush was the president and you cannot convince me that he had the insight and knowledge needed to deal with this.
*For the record: as it is, I believe Israel has the right to exist as an open democratic society with equal rights for all citizens. And I know how people were thinking after the Holocaust. But Israel was just not a good answer to the problem of genocide.
posted by mumimor at 12:34 AM on February 2 [4 favorites]
Obama actually tried to restart all of this, and look how that went. I'm not saying he was fooled by his advisors. I'm saying that the people who are needed to change US ME policies don't exist in sufficient numbers. The president can say: guys, now we will do things differently, and then all of the thousands of people who need to put this into practice do nothing, or do the wrong things, or just don't understand the task. It's not just saying the words: it's moving army bases, changing the relationship with the IDF (and Pakistan), educating people, convincing other allies to change directions, building new friendships. It's huge, and it would take more than one lifetime to achieve.
After 9/11 there was a unique moment where "we" could have done things differently. The hijackers were from the KSA and supported by Pakistan. Iran reached out and offered to help. Israeli/Palestinian peace talks had failed and Arik Sharon had been elected PM, but the situation was not terrible yet. But GW Bush was the president and you cannot convince me that he had the insight and knowledge needed to deal with this.
*For the record: as it is, I believe Israel has the right to exist as an open democratic society with equal rights for all citizens. And I know how people were thinking after the Holocaust. But Israel was just not a good answer to the problem of genocide.
posted by mumimor at 12:34 AM on February 2 [4 favorites]
We worked and organized HARD to stop the Iraq war. We got millions out on the streets. It did fuck-all. Anybody who thinks politicians listen is deluding themselves. What we have isn't really a democracy, but it isn't yet a dictatorship. I don't understand the impulse of "the system we have is so broken we might as well TRY dictatorship" but there seems to be a strong undercurrent pulling that way. The politics of Trump are the politics of hopelessness, and the Right has done everything it can in that direction, from impeaching Clinton to vowing to block anything and everything Obama tried. Gridlock supports hopeless. One side can win simply by refusing to play ball.
posted by rikschell at 5:00 AM on February 2 [5 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 5:00 AM on February 2 [5 favorites]
y2karl, thanks for that link to Biden’s speech. It’s not normally the sort of thing I watch, as I am neither a huge Biden fan nor particularly into political speeches, but I gave it ten minutes (it’s morning after all, I need to get moving soon) and in that time I saw two interesting things. One, he named white supremacy explicitly. A sitting American president saying that out loud about an American event felt huge and comforting to me. I love it when a leader says true things plainly. Two, it was fascinating to watch what happened when someone in the back lost their temper (understandably, to me) about Gaza. It wasn’t obvious to me that those who were shouting were being ushered out or anything (some people did leave, but not the protesters, I think?), Biden didn’t appear to be reacting much from the podium, but after a time, others started yelling “four more years” to drown out the Gaza protests. Then Biden was able to gesture to quiet those people without seeming like he was silencing protest — and was able to express empathy for the protestors, saying, “I understand their passion.” I’ve been not just disgusted but also puzzled by the support we’re offering Israel and what the heck the strategy is — and assuming that since it doesn’t make sense to me, politically, that there’s probably a national security angle I don’t understand that constrains him — but this small bit of low-key social manipulation felt very well done.
posted by eirias at 5:50 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
posted by eirias at 5:50 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
Yeah, the idea that we have any power to make changes short of the soft revolution of truly massive and long protests is absurd. People voted for Obama in hope of change and they got more of the same.
Sarah Palin was 100% correct, that hopey changey thing worked out really shitty for us. It was Obama who taught me that I was insufficiently cynical in my evaluation of US politics and politicians.
They will help the rich, wage pointless war, support dictators, and expand the American surveillance and carceral state at every opportunity regardless of Party.
As for Gaza in specific, I've been suspecting for a while that while it didn't start out that way and no one has particularlly PLANNED it, the "international community" is supporting Israel's genocide there because they've decided they're sick of hearing about Israel/Palestine all the time and they're willing to allow a genocide if it means an end to the noise. The Palestinian question has been irksome to the world since 1948 and Israel is offering an answer.
No one will come right out and say "I'm fine with Israel killing/expelling everyone in Gaza because I'm tired of this bullshit", but I think that's what most of the world's leaders have decided. Netanyahu is their scapegoat, they can stand all helpless while that evil man does such an evil thing, the horror, and after he's finished they'll denounce him in public and invite him to thier cocktail parties afterwards.
Maybe I'm overcorrecting from insufficiently cynical to overly cynical, but it is obvious at this point that the "international community" is choosing to allow the genocide to take place, the only question is why. My answer seems to cover the facts without needing any vast conspiracies or evil agendas, just good old fashioned human selifshness and an indiffernce to othered people dying far away.
And, at the risk of being repetitive, that won't change regardless of who you vote for. Our choice is Palestinian genocide + increased domestic oppression for minorities, or Palestinian genocide and maybe slightly less domestic oppression for minorities. The genocide is not optional.
Obama actually tried to restart all of this
In what way did Obama try to change the US policy of supporting dictators and murdering random people for grins in the Middle East? IIRC he expanded the use of drones to murder random people and either started or vastly expanded the use of second strikes to kill first responders. Something, BTW, that the US has condemned as a vile tactic when terrorists plant secondary bombs for that purpose, but is apparently totally fine when America wants to murder some foreign firefighters, police, medics, and other emergency workers.
As far as I can tell going by what he did rather than the words he spoke Obama continued and expanded standing US policy WRT the Middle East.
What did I miss?
eirias Maybe it's becuase I'm quasi-Southern, but I took Biden's "I understand their passion" to be equivilent to "bless your heart" in that it sounds friendly but is, in fact, a way of saying "go fuck yourself" both politely and in a semi-deniable way. I don't want him to "understand my passion" I want him to stop using my tax dollars to murder babies in Gaza. Which, as noted above, will never happen.
posted by sotonohito at 6:01 AM on February 2 [7 favorites]
Sarah Palin was 100% correct, that hopey changey thing worked out really shitty for us. It was Obama who taught me that I was insufficiently cynical in my evaluation of US politics and politicians.
They will help the rich, wage pointless war, support dictators, and expand the American surveillance and carceral state at every opportunity regardless of Party.
As for Gaza in specific, I've been suspecting for a while that while it didn't start out that way and no one has particularlly PLANNED it, the "international community" is supporting Israel's genocide there because they've decided they're sick of hearing about Israel/Palestine all the time and they're willing to allow a genocide if it means an end to the noise. The Palestinian question has been irksome to the world since 1948 and Israel is offering an answer.
No one will come right out and say "I'm fine with Israel killing/expelling everyone in Gaza because I'm tired of this bullshit", but I think that's what most of the world's leaders have decided. Netanyahu is their scapegoat, they can stand all helpless while that evil man does such an evil thing, the horror, and after he's finished they'll denounce him in public and invite him to thier cocktail parties afterwards.
Maybe I'm overcorrecting from insufficiently cynical to overly cynical, but it is obvious at this point that the "international community" is choosing to allow the genocide to take place, the only question is why. My answer seems to cover the facts without needing any vast conspiracies or evil agendas, just good old fashioned human selifshness and an indiffernce to othered people dying far away.
And, at the risk of being repetitive, that won't change regardless of who you vote for. Our choice is Palestinian genocide + increased domestic oppression for minorities, or Palestinian genocide and maybe slightly less domestic oppression for minorities. The genocide is not optional.
Obama actually tried to restart all of this
In what way did Obama try to change the US policy of supporting dictators and murdering random people for grins in the Middle East? IIRC he expanded the use of drones to murder random people and either started or vastly expanded the use of second strikes to kill first responders. Something, BTW, that the US has condemned as a vile tactic when terrorists plant secondary bombs for that purpose, but is apparently totally fine when America wants to murder some foreign firefighters, police, medics, and other emergency workers.
As far as I can tell going by what he did rather than the words he spoke Obama continued and expanded standing US policy WRT the Middle East.
What did I miss?
eirias Maybe it's becuase I'm quasi-Southern, but I took Biden's "I understand their passion" to be equivilent to "bless your heart" in that it sounds friendly but is, in fact, a way of saying "go fuck yourself" both politely and in a semi-deniable way. I don't want him to "understand my passion" I want him to stop using my tax dollars to murder babies in Gaza. Which, as noted above, will never happen.
posted by sotonohito at 6:01 AM on February 2 [7 favorites]
I'm not arguing that there's ever been much of a choice, and I think anyone who thinks I've been arguing against voting for Biden really isn't understanding what I'm saying, but:
If, assuming Biden wins, and I/P is not resolved before then, in a year's time, I say that an awful lot of MeFites voted for genocide, campaigned for a party that supports genocide, were ardent supporters of a President who supported genocide, am I going to get pushback? Will people say I'm talking nonsense and just being a crazy lefty?
Because I think you can decide its the lesser evil all you want, but you have to own that you're still nonetheless supporting genocide. Justification doesn't remove that stain. You support genocide, you have to live with that label.
posted by Audreynachrome at 7:20 AM on February 2 [3 favorites]
If, assuming Biden wins, and I/P is not resolved before then, in a year's time, I say that an awful lot of MeFites voted for genocide, campaigned for a party that supports genocide, were ardent supporters of a President who supported genocide, am I going to get pushback? Will people say I'm talking nonsense and just being a crazy lefty?
Because I think you can decide its the lesser evil all you want, but you have to own that you're still nonetheless supporting genocide. Justification doesn't remove that stain. You support genocide, you have to live with that label.
posted by Audreynachrome at 7:20 AM on February 2 [3 favorites]
Biden had pretty much quietly ended drone killings from our end. Seems like with the Huthi business that's going to start up again, though.
It's also worth keeping in mind that Hamas expected and WANTED this response from Israel, so while plenty of people have sympathy for the Palestinian people, their leaders are just as garbage as everyone else and they were the ones who pulled the trigger on their own people.
posted by rikschell at 7:23 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
It's also worth keeping in mind that Hamas expected and WANTED this response from Israel, so while plenty of people have sympathy for the Palestinian people, their leaders are just as garbage as everyone else and they were the ones who pulled the trigger on their own people.
posted by rikschell at 7:23 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
you can decide its the lesser evil all you want, but you have to own that you're still nonetheless supporting genocide. Justification doesn't remove that stain. You support genocide, you have to live with that label.
Hah? Voting has nothing to do with it? Anyone paying taxes in countries that conduct genocides has been supporting genocides for as long as they've been paying taxes and will continue to support those countries' genocides for as long as they continue to pay taxes in those countries. Under capitalism, participating in the general nihilist rush to destruction by contributing to genocides and, eventually, human extinction is unavoidable. It's equal opportunity, egalitarian, and bipartisan.
posted by Don Pepino at 7:35 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
Hah? Voting has nothing to do with it? Anyone paying taxes in countries that conduct genocides has been supporting genocides for as long as they've been paying taxes and will continue to support those countries' genocides for as long as they continue to pay taxes in those countries. Under capitalism, participating in the general nihilist rush to destruction by contributing to genocides and, eventually, human extinction is unavoidable. It's equal opportunity, egalitarian, and bipartisan.
posted by Don Pepino at 7:35 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
Anyone paying taxes in countries that conduct genocides has been supporting genocides for as long as they've been paying taxes and will continue to support those countries' genocides for as long as they continue to pay taxes in those countries.
By that logic, everyone in the US is culpable for Donald Trump's handling of Covid, including the people who died as a result and those who campaigned against him, to the same extent Trump voters are culpable. You could argue that continued participation in the US as a country is a kind of endorsement of its evils, but to do so you'd have to adopt a kind of political nihilism that makes any criticism of any vote hypocritical. Which rather undermines the notion that there is any obligation to vote for Biden.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 8:03 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
By that logic, everyone in the US is culpable for Donald Trump's handling of Covid, including the people who died as a result and those who campaigned against him, to the same extent Trump voters are culpable. You could argue that continued participation in the US as a country is a kind of endorsement of its evils, but to do so you'd have to adopt a kind of political nihilism that makes any criticism of any vote hypocritical. Which rather undermines the notion that there is any obligation to vote for Biden.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 8:03 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
Paying taxes that you will face legal consequences for not paying is not the same as asking other people to please be quiet about genocide because it's not convenient.
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:30 AM on February 2 [3 favorites]
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:30 AM on February 2 [3 favorites]
Because I think you can decide its the lesser evil all you want, but you have to own that you're still nonetheless supporting genocide. Justification doesn't remove that stain. You support genocide, you have to live with that label.
But first you must own that you are supporting Trump, who is a Netanyahu partner in crime and friend of Putin, who currently wages genocide in several places. It is a very American tendency to believe that we can control events in the world, and stop or start wars at will, but that was a failed policy every time, lessons learned. Biden lost 11 points of public support, permanently, when he made the decision to pull the American rear guard remaining troops out of Afghanistan, and they still made it look like a Benghazi when he did, because the opposition will jump all over a single headline insincerely. But in fact the US president inherits the problem, with solutions requiring bipartisan support. Americans can still choose their presidents, thankfully, but that depends on the next election, because the US is experiencing a liberal scare, fear of the left. Disorientation is the goal of the opposition, a deliberate confusion of values and mistrust of anything stable and well-meaning. The next guy elected might just be the clown that spends so much time bloviating about right and wrong that most people will feel cozy even as it all falls apart, because a strong daddy figure will be in charge.
posted by Brian B. at 8:37 AM on February 2 [4 favorites]
But first you must own that you are supporting Trump, who is a Netanyahu partner in crime and friend of Putin, who currently wages genocide in several places. It is a very American tendency to believe that we can control events in the world, and stop or start wars at will, but that was a failed policy every time, lessons learned. Biden lost 11 points of public support, permanently, when he made the decision to pull the American rear guard remaining troops out of Afghanistan, and they still made it look like a Benghazi when he did, because the opposition will jump all over a single headline insincerely. But in fact the US president inherits the problem, with solutions requiring bipartisan support. Americans can still choose their presidents, thankfully, but that depends on the next election, because the US is experiencing a liberal scare, fear of the left. Disorientation is the goal of the opposition, a deliberate confusion of values and mistrust of anything stable and well-meaning. The next guy elected might just be the clown that spends so much time bloviating about right and wrong that most people will feel cozy even as it all falls apart, because a strong daddy figure will be in charge.
posted by Brian B. at 8:37 AM on February 2 [4 favorites]
But first you must own that you are supporting Trump, who is a Netanyahu partner in crime and friend of Putin, who currently wages genocide in several places.
Not actively supporting Biden is not the same as supporting Trump. Criticising Biden isn't supporting Trump. Refusing to be silent about the evils being committed in our name by this administration is not supporting Trump.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 8:40 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
Not actively supporting Biden is not the same as supporting Trump. Criticising Biden isn't supporting Trump. Refusing to be silent about the evils being committed in our name by this administration is not supporting Trump.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 8:40 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
Not actively supporting Biden is not the same as supporting Trump. Criticising Biden isn't supporting Trump. Refusing to be silent about the evils being committed in our name by this administration is not supporting Trump.
Exactly my point, the logic is the same. Voting for Biden is not supporting genocide.
posted by Brian B. at 8:45 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
Exactly my point, the logic is the same. Voting for Biden is not supporting genocide.
posted by Brian B. at 8:45 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
Voting for Biden is not supporting genocide.
Except it is. Refusing to support Biden doesn't make you a Trump supporter, but supporting Biden does make you a Biden supporter.
And I say this as someone who will vote for Biden. It absolutely is a vote to support a government complicit in genocide. Campaigning for him is to campaign for a president complicit in genocide. And trying to silence his critics, or praise his virtues is trying to whitewash the record of a supporter of genocide.
I will support him, but I am not going to pretend that this is somehow harmless or morally clean because I think it is likely the lesser of two evils. This is an ugly choice made in the face of a morally reprehensible system that offers us a choice between two men with blood on their hands. It isn't something that should be treated as normal or morally simple.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 8:53 AM on February 2 [7 favorites]
Except it is. Refusing to support Biden doesn't make you a Trump supporter, but supporting Biden does make you a Biden supporter.
And I say this as someone who will vote for Biden. It absolutely is a vote to support a government complicit in genocide. Campaigning for him is to campaign for a president complicit in genocide. And trying to silence his critics, or praise his virtues is trying to whitewash the record of a supporter of genocide.
I will support him, but I am not going to pretend that this is somehow harmless or morally clean because I think it is likely the lesser of two evils. This is an ugly choice made in the face of a morally reprehensible system that offers us a choice between two men with blood on their hands. It isn't something that should be treated as normal or morally simple.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 8:53 AM on February 2 [7 favorites]
So, as long as I have someone who threatens *more* genocide to compare to, it just stops being genocide?
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:53 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:53 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
Refusing to support Biden doesn't make you a Trump supporter, but supporting Biden does make you a Biden supporter.
A better framing of the two-sided stakes is that the next election is voting for or against Armageddon. Religious conservatives were never kidding about that and will widen the war like painting by numbers, and it's how Israel's occupation got their backing from day one over a hundred years ago. Biden is in a pickle, but only because he can't even call them out on it without the issue becoming a campaign against the biblical end of times, where he becomes Satan and loses support.
posted by Brian B. at 9:22 AM on February 2
A better framing of the two-sided stakes is that the next election is voting for or against Armageddon. Religious conservatives were never kidding about that and will widen the war like painting by numbers, and it's how Israel's occupation got their backing from day one over a hundred years ago. Biden is in a pickle, but only because he can't even call them out on it without the issue becoming a campaign against the biblical end of times, where he becomes Satan and loses support.
posted by Brian B. at 9:22 AM on February 2
Look, guys, it's obviously the good genocide, not the bad genocide. No one would ever support the bad genocide, we are all good people here.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:24 AM on February 2 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:24 AM on February 2 [1 favorite]
It seems to me like the word "support" is doing a lot of things in this conversation. If every possible action (including voting and not voting) counts as "supporting" one or more candidates then there is no longer a useful distinction between support and non-support, and it is probably worth reconsidering whether we are really using an appropriate conceptual framework.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:26 AM on February 2 [5 favorites]
posted by Not A Thing at 9:26 AM on February 2 [5 favorites]
Question: if in the next few weeks or months, Biden does put the screws to Israel and they move towards a ceasefire, would that change the equation at all?
posted by Artful Codger at 9:27 AM on February 2 [1 favorite]
posted by Artful Codger at 9:27 AM on February 2 [1 favorite]
voting isn't a way to express preferences/support, not voting isn't a way to express preferences/support, voting is an empty ritual, participation in the ritual is required, there is no way to influence the actions of the state via the ritual (except insofar as one's votes can lead to the dismantlement/overthrow of the state), and there exists no method of dismantling/overthrowing the state in a way that could lead to a democracy. not by voting, not by not voting, and not by force.
congratulations, folks, we are at aporia. everyone is right about the futility of everyone else's proposed plans. there exists no way out. none of us are responsible for the actions of the united states government and none of us have influence on those actions. this may seem like a bummer, but on the bright side that means the crimes of the united states government adhere entirely to that government and entirely not to us. no matter how we vote or don't vote.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:45 AM on February 2 [6 favorites]
congratulations, folks, we are at aporia. everyone is right about the futility of everyone else's proposed plans. there exists no way out. none of us are responsible for the actions of the united states government and none of us have influence on those actions. this may seem like a bummer, but on the bright side that means the crimes of the united states government adhere entirely to that government and entirely not to us. no matter how we vote or don't vote.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:45 AM on February 2 [6 favorites]
I'm a bit bewildered by the suggestion that Biden, individually, deserves flack for the US's continued support of Israel in the face of genocidal conduct. AFAICT, there has literally not been once, in the last fifty or so years, a single influential actor in US foreign policy who has put forward a policy of anything other than complete support of Israel. Now, I'm not saying this is a good thing (I'm pretty sure it isn't, really), or that it should be perpetuated (I'd like to see it not, myself), or that now isn't the time to do it (frankly, now is a great time to be pushing on it), but it is undeniably an institutional problem. Biden probably could and should do more to move the needle on it, but it's not as if our support of genocidaires in this instance is something Biden put together himself; he's just not fighting against it as hard as we would like.
Like, if denying support to Israel is a major issue for you, you have to go way outside the foreign policy mainstream to find that. You're not going to be able to give your vote to a candidate that does agree with you there. That's unmistakably a bad thing, but it means that change is going to be difficult until you normalize the alternatives and that is slow work.
posted by jackbishop at 9:50 AM on February 2 [5 favorites]
Like, if denying support to Israel is a major issue for you, you have to go way outside the foreign policy mainstream to find that. You're not going to be able to give your vote to a candidate that does agree with you there. That's unmistakably a bad thing, but it means that change is going to be difficult until you normalize the alternatives and that is slow work.
posted by jackbishop at 9:50 AM on February 2 [5 favorites]
on the bright side though there is a lot of incredible television out there these days. top notch. i never thought television could ever be so good.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:50 AM on February 2 [1 favorite]
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:50 AM on February 2 [1 favorite]
Why Wall Street Won’t Stop Trump
American business elites would prefer a strong economy without a resurgent labor movement, which is exactly what Trump is offering.
Also why a bunch of supposedly liberal institutions are okay with it, with the extra incentive of getting to do left-punching.
posted by Artw at 9:59 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
American business elites would prefer a strong economy without a resurgent labor movement, which is exactly what Trump is offering.
Also why a bunch of supposedly liberal institutions are okay with it, with the extra incentive of getting to do left-punching.
posted by Artw at 9:59 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
would you not agree that it's reasonable to ask WHY every single US President since Kennedy has decided to participat in a genocide?
I mean, I think you're understating things, I bet every single US president from the Sage of Mt. Vernon onwards has been complicit or actively participated in some sort of genocide.
Reflecting on this further, I think the same is true for MOST nations in history that had some level of relative power over another nation or internal minorities. Propensity towards genocide seems to be more a function of power than any specific ideology or party.
I think the question here is "Why do people genocide?". I think US is in a bit of a unique position in that it has immense power globally as well as a pretty significant faction internally that wants to completely stop all genocide, so it's sad that it has continued to genocide, but I don't think there's anything special about the US in that regard.
(Not that this should be accepted or is a good thing, it horrifies me, more recognizing current and historical realities)
posted by sid at 10:00 AM on February 2
I mean, I think you're understating things, I bet every single US president from the Sage of Mt. Vernon onwards has been complicit or actively participated in some sort of genocide.
Reflecting on this further, I think the same is true for MOST nations in history that had some level of relative power over another nation or internal minorities. Propensity towards genocide seems to be more a function of power than any specific ideology or party.
I think the question here is "Why do people genocide?". I think US is in a bit of a unique position in that it has immense power globally as well as a pretty significant faction internally that wants to completely stop all genocide, so it's sad that it has continued to genocide, but I don't think there's anything special about the US in that regard.
(Not that this should be accepted or is a good thing, it horrifies me, more recognizing current and historical realities)
posted by sid at 10:00 AM on February 2
Biden is somewhat unique in that he was asked for the okay to do a very explicit genocide and public said yes and doubled down on it. It is an order of magnitude harder to ignore than previous policy failures.
Which again, is a huge problem outside of voting - time spent protesting a guys shitty actions is time not spent campaigning for him. If all the people who could potentially be campaigning for him are caught up protesting Gaza then he has no ground game.
posted by Artw at 10:10 AM on February 2 [6 favorites]
Which again, is a huge problem outside of voting - time spent protesting a guys shitty actions is time not spent campaigning for him. If all the people who could potentially be campaigning for him are caught up protesting Gaza then he has no ground game.
posted by Artw at 10:10 AM on February 2 [6 favorites]
Biden is somewhat unique in that he was asked for the okay to do a very explicit genocide
Um no, I don't think Israel explicitly asked for the US' blessing to bomb the living sh1t out of Gaza and thereby evict Gazans. The democratic west were pretty much shoulder-to-shoulder in declaring that "Israel has a right to defend itself". I read a few articles by military tacticians soldier-splaining how urban warfare is just like this - high collateral damage, so sorry. (of course ignoring the perpetual tremendous military asymmetry)
We all know that Israel isn't keen on the 2-state solution. We know that Israel does defense things their way, and they don't own too many pairs of kid gloves. Their response to "their 9/11" was always going to be BIG. (And Hamas knew this full well. It was THEIR intention and their choice to trigger it). The west's official response on terrorism (meaning against them) is "stamp that shit out, and then some" (see 9/11), and the attacked country almost always gets a lot of leeway in responding, including a big helping of revenge.
The response to Oct 7 seems preordained. From the outset, this is what I feared but also expected, and I don't think it's realistic to pretend that a different response was likely.
It's not Biden's pet project to eliminate Palestine. I DO hope that, somehow, a ceasefire is achieved soon.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:02 AM on February 2 [4 favorites]
Um no, I don't think Israel explicitly asked for the US' blessing to bomb the living sh1t out of Gaza and thereby evict Gazans. The democratic west were pretty much shoulder-to-shoulder in declaring that "Israel has a right to defend itself". I read a few articles by military tacticians soldier-splaining how urban warfare is just like this - high collateral damage, so sorry. (of course ignoring the perpetual tremendous military asymmetry)
We all know that Israel isn't keen on the 2-state solution. We know that Israel does defense things their way, and they don't own too many pairs of kid gloves. Their response to "their 9/11" was always going to be BIG. (And Hamas knew this full well. It was THEIR intention and their choice to trigger it). The west's official response on terrorism (meaning against them) is "stamp that shit out, and then some" (see 9/11), and the attacked country almost always gets a lot of leeway in responding, including a big helping of revenge.
The response to Oct 7 seems preordained. From the outset, this is what I feared but also expected, and I don't think it's realistic to pretend that a different response was likely.
It's not Biden's pet project to eliminate Palestine. I DO hope that, somehow, a ceasefire is achieved soon.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:02 AM on February 2 [4 favorites]
If I knew what to expect Biden should have known what to expect.
Endorsing this wasn’t even a fuck up on his part, it was a choice.
posted by Artw at 11:21 AM on February 2 [3 favorites]
Endorsing this wasn’t even a fuck up on his part, it was a choice.
posted by Artw at 11:21 AM on February 2 [3 favorites]
Post title: To beat Trump, we need to know why Americans keep voting for him
I don't think people posting about Biden's complicity in genocide are also saying "this is why I'm voting Trump"
So what are we talking about anymore? time to give this a rest? it's not for me to say, obviously, I'm just wondering if an entire new thread should have been launched some time ago. People go on derails all the time, I'm guilty of it, but this thread has been fixated on a couple of key points that have nothing to do with the initial posting
posted by elkevelvet at 11:28 AM on February 2 [4 favorites]
I don't think people posting about Biden's complicity in genocide are also saying "this is why I'm voting Trump"
So what are we talking about anymore? time to give this a rest? it's not for me to say, obviously, I'm just wondering if an entire new thread should have been launched some time ago. People go on derails all the time, I'm guilty of it, but this thread has been fixated on a couple of key points that have nothing to do with the initial posting
posted by elkevelvet at 11:28 AM on February 2 [4 favorites]
Good point, elevelvet. In counterpoint, IMO this thread has gotten more interesting after the derails, I find we get stuck between two opposing camps in these threads, "there's something interesting here that's worth talking about", vs "no they're all just racists why discuss this?" and then the discussion pretty much dies.
posted by sid at 11:35 AM on February 2
posted by sid at 11:35 AM on February 2
Endorsing this wasn’t even a fuck up on his part, it was a choice.
Suggest a viable alternative that could have been chosen.
I'll go first: The US, or a UN-sanctioned coalition, go into Gaza, rout out Hamas, and assume peacekeeping in a demilitarized Gaza. So then it's our hands that are bloody, our youth in the body-bags, and we are now Israel's enforcers. Has Israel ever gone for this before? Would Americans say OK? Would Israel feel sufficiently protected, does it further their aims in the conflict, and is there enough revenge in it for them?
posted by Artful Codger at 11:45 AM on February 2
Suggest a viable alternative that could have been chosen.
I'll go first: The US, or a UN-sanctioned coalition, go into Gaza, rout out Hamas, and assume peacekeeping in a demilitarized Gaza. So then it's our hands that are bloody, our youth in the body-bags, and we are now Israel's enforcers. Has Israel ever gone for this before? Would Americans say OK? Would Israel feel sufficiently protected, does it further their aims in the conflict, and is there enough revenge in it for them?
posted by Artful Codger at 11:45 AM on February 2
I’m not going to debate this with you because you don’t seem to have been inhabiting the same reality I did while this was going on and saying what I think about that is apparently too spicy for Metafilter.
posted by Artw at 12:02 PM on February 2 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:02 PM on February 2 [4 favorites]
Meanwhile, just days after Belgium announced it would continue to fund UNRWA, Israel bombed the Gaza offices of Enabel, a Belgian NGO providing aid to Palestine. Fortunately they had already been evacuated, so nobody was killed. But this was a completely civilian building, not occupied by any other tenants, and it's pretty clear it's retaliatory.
Belgium has summoned the Israeli ambassador to deliver a formal message, which in the world of diplomacy is actually a bigger deal than it sounds like. Diplomacy is like 99% theatre, but this is an important piece of theatre.
recently posted by adrienneleigh to the current Gaza thread, seeing as this thread has become a proxy discussion on US foreign policy with regards to the conflict
@Artful Codger, what you posted is not serious. It's just wankery, clearly there are more viable options than immediately sticking a third party peacekeeping force into the conflict. Are you suggesting the US (Biden) cannot severely throttle or pause all monetary and material (armament, munitions) support to Israel? This would be unprecedented, there would be political cost, but is that not a possible option? Because the actions of the US that have led to people quitting Foreign Affairs are also a choice
posted by elkevelvet at 12:11 PM on February 2 [3 favorites]
Belgium has summoned the Israeli ambassador to deliver a formal message, which in the world of diplomacy is actually a bigger deal than it sounds like. Diplomacy is like 99% theatre, but this is an important piece of theatre.
recently posted by adrienneleigh to the current Gaza thread, seeing as this thread has become a proxy discussion on US foreign policy with regards to the conflict
@Artful Codger, what you posted is not serious. It's just wankery, clearly there are more viable options than immediately sticking a third party peacekeeping force into the conflict. Are you suggesting the US (Biden) cannot severely throttle or pause all monetary and material (armament, munitions) support to Israel? This would be unprecedented, there would be political cost, but is that not a possible option? Because the actions of the US that have led to people quitting Foreign Affairs are also a choice
posted by elkevelvet at 12:11 PM on February 2 [3 favorites]
@Artful Codger, what you posted is not serious. It's just wankery, clearly there are more viable options than immediately sticking a third party peacekeeping force into the conflict. Are you suggesting the US (Biden) cannot severely throttle or pause all monetary and material (armament, munitions) support to Israel? This would be unprecedented, there would be political cost, but is that not a possible option?
It's of course an option, but as you note, one without precedent and an almost fatal political move. Name one other world leader who's fallen on their own sword like that. And AGAIN, What would you expect or allow Israel to do in this circumstance? I'm pretty sure Israel would not have materially altered their conduct of the war in the face of US sanctions, even if it meant depleting their treasury to carry on as long as possible.
This isn't a productive derail, so I'm content to stop here.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:27 PM on February 2
It's of course an option, but as you note, one without precedent and an almost fatal political move. Name one other world leader who's fallen on their own sword like that. And AGAIN, What would you expect or allow Israel to do in this circumstance? I'm pretty sure Israel would not have materially altered their conduct of the war in the face of US sanctions, even if it meant depleting their treasury to carry on as long as possible.
This isn't a productive derail, so I'm content to stop here.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:27 PM on February 2
Most Republicans aren’t aware of Trump’s various legal issues
posted by Artw at 1:20 PM on February 2 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 1:20 PM on February 2 [3 favorites]
Siddhartha was wrong, there aren't four truths, there's just two:
1 - Almost one cares enough about the pain, death, and suffering of people they aren't associated with to take costly action.
2 - WIthout exception everyone with power will sacrifice any number of us little people without hesitation or remorse.
If I cared, I'd do something. I'm not doing something. Therefore I don't care.
I apparently care enough about the people I am associated with who would suffer more under Trump to take the most minimal possible action and vote for Biden. Such heroism.
So yeah, fuck it. Biden's just like me. He doesn't care enough to pay the price of doing something becuase, like me, he isn't associated in any way with the victims. I've got nothing to feel superior about.
posted by sotonohito at 1:30 PM on February 2 [3 favorites]
1 - Almost one cares enough about the pain, death, and suffering of people they aren't associated with to take costly action.
2 - WIthout exception everyone with power will sacrifice any number of us little people without hesitation or remorse.
If I cared, I'd do something. I'm not doing something. Therefore I don't care.
I apparently care enough about the people I am associated with who would suffer more under Trump to take the most minimal possible action and vote for Biden. Such heroism.
So yeah, fuck it. Biden's just like me. He doesn't care enough to pay the price of doing something becuase, like me, he isn't associated in any way with the victims. I've got nothing to feel superior about.
posted by sotonohito at 1:30 PM on February 2 [3 favorites]
State Department reviewing options for possible recognition of Palestinian state
While U.S. officials say there has been no policy change, the fact the State Department is even considering such options signals a shift in thinking within the Biden administration on possible Palestinian statehood recognition, which is highly sensitive both internationally and domestically.posted by kirkaracha at 2:10 PM on February 2 [6 favorites]
Trump’s success in last week’s Iowa caucuses wasn’t a “stunning show of strength”. It was a display of remarkable weakness. He got just 56,260 votes. There are 2,083,979 registered voters in Iowa. Fewer than 3% of Iowans voted for him. [...] It’s also easy to forget that Trump began his third bid for the White House just days after Republicans took a beating in the midterms. That was the third straight national election in which Trump was a drag on his party. Across the country, his hand-picked candidates, who embraced his big lie that the 2020 election was stolen, lost critical races. (Robert Reich's Guardian column, Jan. 23, 2023 )
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:04 PM on February 2 [4 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:04 PM on February 2 [4 favorites]
Here, we address this gap using generalized structural equation modeling (GSEM) and 2021 US survey data to make direct comparisons between the social bases of rejecting the reality of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) and rejecting COVID-19 vaccination. Trumpism, operationalized from approval of ex-president Trump, is viewed as an intervening variable that influences both types of science rejection. Trumpism itself is predicted by age, race, evangelical religion, ideology, and receptivity to seemingly non-political conspiracy beliefs... (Trumpism, climate and COVID: Social bases of the new science rejection)
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:13 PM on February 2 [3 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:13 PM on February 2 [3 favorites]
The CEOs Are Warming to Trump
Remember when corporate America joined the fight to protect American democracy? J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon doesn’t, apparently
posted by Artw at 7:19 AM on February 3 [5 favorites]
Remember when corporate America joined the fight to protect American democracy? J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon doesn’t, apparently
posted by Artw at 7:19 AM on February 3 [5 favorites]
Re: Iris Gambol's posts, I personally don't know what to make of Trump's primary results so far. Certainly if Sanders had gotten 45% of the vote against Clinton or Biden, the way Haley did against Trump, very few people would have been talking about the Anointed One's overwhelming victory; the Anointed One's campaign would have been shitting bricks. In this case, though, Trump's nomination is a foregone conclusion (then again, so was Hillary Clinton's election), and I have to wonder how many people who plan to vote for him in the general just didn't see the point in showing up to vote in the primary -- honestly, I wonder how many of them didn't even realize there was a primary.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:21 AM on February 3 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:21 AM on February 3 [3 favorites]
Iris Gambol I'm dubious on that claim because very few people vote in primaries and oddly tend to vote LESS OFTEN in primaries where Presidential candidates are running. Barely 9.82% of registered voters in Iowa bothered voting in any primary election in 2016. To be fair that jumped significantly, to 25-ish percent in 2020 but historically we see really damn low voter turnout in Presidential election years in Iowa.
For a state that clings to it's second in the nation status the people of Iowa don't seem to actually do much with it.
This year was a bit higher than average, but still matched the pattern of being a low turnout, only 14.4% of registered Republicans bothered going to the caucus. So yeah, he got a low number of total votes [1] but that's pretty unlikely to have much to do with the results in November.
Note that in 2016 only 9.82% of registered voters in Iowa bothered going to the caucus, but in November Trump got 800,983 total votes and took the state.
I'm not even slightly reassured by the fact that Trump got a low number of votes in the primary. He won, that's what matters. And in the latest poll on the general election Iowans say Trump 51%, Biden 39% indicating that at least as of now and keeping in mind that it's a poll on a general election months away, Trump has the lead.
[1] Well, pseudo-votes since it's a that shittiest of election methods, the caucus, which is all but designed to keep out handicapped voters, voters with responsibility to care for children or others, working voters, etc.
posted by sotonohito at 8:35 AM on February 3 [1 favorite]
For a state that clings to it's second in the nation status the people of Iowa don't seem to actually do much with it.
This year was a bit higher than average, but still matched the pattern of being a low turnout, only 14.4% of registered Republicans bothered going to the caucus. So yeah, he got a low number of total votes [1] but that's pretty unlikely to have much to do with the results in November.
Note that in 2016 only 9.82% of registered voters in Iowa bothered going to the caucus, but in November Trump got 800,983 total votes and took the state.
I'm not even slightly reassured by the fact that Trump got a low number of votes in the primary. He won, that's what matters. And in the latest poll on the general election Iowans say Trump 51%, Biden 39% indicating that at least as of now and keeping in mind that it's a poll on a general election months away, Trump has the lead.
[1] Well, pseudo-votes since it's a that shittiest of election methods, the caucus, which is all but designed to keep out handicapped voters, voters with responsibility to care for children or others, working voters, etc.
posted by sotonohito at 8:35 AM on February 3 [1 favorite]
Even if Trump somehow lost the Republican primary he’d still be the candidate. that’s how little the Republican primaries matter. They’d just ignore the result, or the pretend candidate would politely stand asside after being thoroughly denounced, or if it stood somehow Trump would just run as a write in and the alleged Republican candidate would be ignored (+ be denounced, threatened with murder, etc)
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on February 3 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on February 3 [2 favorites]
30 Things Joe Biden Did as President You Might Have Missed
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:12 AM on February 4 [6 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:12 AM on February 4 [6 favorites]
Enormous sigh the size of the universe…
Senators release border-Ukraine deal that would allow the president to pause U.S. asylum law and quickly deport migrants
posted by Artw at 8:22 AM on February 5 [4 favorites]
Senators release border-Ukraine deal that would allow the president to pause U.S. asylum law and quickly deport migrants
posted by Artw at 8:22 AM on February 5 [4 favorites]
Opinion: Many Muslim voters no longer see Trump as worse than Biden
posted by Artw at 11:08 AM on February 5 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:08 AM on February 5 [3 favorites]
What Dems should do: engage in deep reflection on how fucking awful they look
What Dems will do: "You know what? We gotta get more racist!"
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 12:24 PM on February 5 [9 favorites]
What Dems will do: "You know what? We gotta get more racist!"
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 12:24 PM on February 5 [9 favorites]
Artw: “The CEOs Are Warming to Trump”“Trump poll lead sharpens European minds,” Nicholas Vinocur, Politico Brussels Playbook, 05 February 2024
“Trump-Proofing Europe,” Arancha González Laya, Camille Grand, Katarzyna Pisarska, Nathalie Tocci, and Guntram Wolff, Foreign Affairs, 02 February 2024
via Semafor Flagship, 05 February 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 12:28 PM on February 5 [1 favorite]
"You know what? We gotta get more racist!"
Perfectly rational centrist voice: “THIS TIME it will work!”
posted by Artw at 12:34 PM on February 5 [5 favorites]
Perfectly rational centrist voice: “THIS TIME it will work!”
posted by Artw at 12:34 PM on February 5 [5 favorites]
“2024, Taylor’s version,” Melissa Ryan, Ctrl Alt Right Delete, 04 February 2024
Taylor Swift and Elmo dominated the online conversation this week. And MAGA’s reaction was about as normal as you’d expect.posted by ob1quixote at 3:39 PM on February 5
Goofy 'God's Army' convoy on Texas border shows Trump's MAGA movement is just one long con
posted by Artw at 4:48 PM on February 5 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 4:48 PM on February 5 [1 favorite]
Meet the 91-year-old Republican suing to kick Donald Trump off the ballot (Washington Post, Feb. 5, 2024; gift link) Norma Anderson, 91, is the unlikely face of a challenge to Trump’s campaign that will be heard by the Supreme Court on Thursday. She was a force in Colorado politics for decades, serving as the first female majority leader in both chambers of the legislature. She is a Republican but has long been skeptical of Trump and believes he is an insurrectionist who crossed a verboten line on Jan. 6, 2021, that should bar him from holding office again. The justices — three of whom were nominated by Trump — are expected to quickly decide the historic Trump v. Anderson case, with their ruling likely to apply across all 50 states. Although considered a legal long shot, a decision in Anderson’s favor would jolt American politics by preventing the GOP front-runner from continuing his campaign.
The case is built on the 14th Amendment, which was adopted three years after the end of the Civil War to guarantee rights for the formerly enslaved and to prevent former Confederates from returning to power. That latter provision, known as Section 3, is written broadly to say that those who engage in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution cannot hold office. In Sept. 2022, Couy Griffin, a county commissioner in New Mexico — and co-founder of "Cowboys for Trump" — was removed from office because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. District Court Judge Francis Mathew agreed that Griffin’s actions, though nonviolent, met the definition of disqualifying behavior.
PBS.org: Listen Live: Supreme Court hears case to decide if Trump is eligible to run for president. The event is scheduled to start at 10 a.m. ET on Thursday, Feb. 8. Watch the proceedings in the player above.
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:29 PM on February 5 [2 favorites]
The case is built on the 14th Amendment, which was adopted three years after the end of the Civil War to guarantee rights for the formerly enslaved and to prevent former Confederates from returning to power. That latter provision, known as Section 3, is written broadly to say that those who engage in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution cannot hold office. In Sept. 2022, Couy Griffin, a county commissioner in New Mexico — and co-founder of "Cowboys for Trump" — was removed from office because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. District Court Judge Francis Mathew agreed that Griffin’s actions, though nonviolent, met the definition of disqualifying behavior.
PBS.org: Listen Live: Supreme Court hears case to decide if Trump is eligible to run for president. The event is scheduled to start at 10 a.m. ET on Thursday, Feb. 8. Watch the proceedings in the player above.
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:29 PM on February 5 [2 favorites]
If the decision is even 5-4 to let Trump stay on the ballot I'll be surprised. I expect 6-3 and maybe even a couple of the so called liberal justices voting to let Trump stay on the ballot. And, worse, I can't say I'd really say they're WRONG if they did vote to let Trump stay on.
I don't really want, say, Texas deciding that it can arbitrarily decide Biden was an insurrectionist and tossing him off the ballot. And you know they will. If Trump actually does get booted from the ballot in any state you just KNOW a pile of Republican controlled states will start banning Biden.
I'm not sure that's a good reason to vote against the obvious truth that Trump committed insurrection and therefore should not be allowed to run. But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it'd just turn all the Republican states into Biden free zones. They'd say his "open borders" policy is insurrection and bye bye Biden ballot. Then they'd probably start looking at downticket races and deciding that ALL Democratic candidates were insurrectionists.
posted by sotonohito at 8:45 PM on February 5
I don't really want, say, Texas deciding that it can arbitrarily decide Biden was an insurrectionist and tossing him off the ballot. And you know they will. If Trump actually does get booted from the ballot in any state you just KNOW a pile of Republican controlled states will start banning Biden.
I'm not sure that's a good reason to vote against the obvious truth that Trump committed insurrection and therefore should not be allowed to run. But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it'd just turn all the Republican states into Biden free zones. They'd say his "open borders" policy is insurrection and bye bye Biden ballot. Then they'd probably start looking at downticket races and deciding that ALL Democratic candidates were insurrectionists.
posted by sotonohito at 8:45 PM on February 5
If the decision was arbitrary, the decision would get struck down. That's not realistically something anyone should worry about.
Trump actually did inspire and support an insurrection and I'm just fine barring people like that from office with all necessary due process which is exactly what has been happening.
If the GOP thought they could get away with just banning Biden from ballots, they'd have done so already. Someone with a voice in the party and surely floated the idea well before Biden administration as well as a bunch of other nonsense that was quickly dismissed as a waste of time.
posted by VTX at 9:00 PM on February 5 [2 favorites]
Trump actually did inspire and support an insurrection and I'm just fine barring people like that from office with all necessary due process which is exactly what has been happening.
If the GOP thought they could get away with just banning Biden from ballots, they'd have done so already. Someone with a voice in the party and surely floated the idea well before Biden administration as well as a bunch of other nonsense that was quickly dismissed as a waste of time.
posted by VTX at 9:00 PM on February 5 [2 favorites]
Opinion: Many Muslim voters no longer see Trump as worse than Biden
Is that "many" just a FOX News-style hand-wavy number of people the writer is pulling out of his ass? Because otherwise that's a pretty fucking stupid position to take when Trump directed border officials to block entry and re-entry of naturalized Muslims into the United States shortly after taking office in 2017.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:26 AM on February 6 [2 favorites]
Is that "many" just a FOX News-style hand-wavy number of people the writer is pulling out of his ass? Because otherwise that's a pretty fucking stupid position to take when Trump directed border officials to block entry and re-entry of naturalized Muslims into the United States shortly after taking office in 2017.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:26 AM on February 6 [2 favorites]
The argument made for Trump being allowed on the ballot is actually the argument against it. "Let the voters decide..." Taking that at face value, then void the electoral college first and require a two-thirds majority, noting that this is not how new amendments to the constitution are made, but close to it. If not raise the bar, then a Supreme Court should not entertain a method that could strip it of its power by minimum voter choice down the road. Letting the voters decide to pick a dictator in a simple election is voiding the Supreme Court itself, in one decision.
posted by Brian B. at 9:28 AM on February 6 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 9:28 AM on February 6 [1 favorite]
that's a pretty fucking stupid position to take when Trump directed border officials to block entry and re-entry of naturalized Muslims into the United States shortly after taking office in 2017.
Let me logic this shit out for you.
1. If you murder someone’s relatives they will not vote for you
2. See 1.
posted by Artw at 12:40 PM on February 6 [4 favorites]
Let me logic this shit out for you.
1. If you murder someone’s relatives they will not vote for you
2. See 1.
posted by Artw at 12:40 PM on February 6 [4 favorites]
If you murder someone’s relatives they will not vote for you
In 99% of cases, the 1997 Liberian election being one of those exceptions that proves the rule. Not sure that's the path Biden should be looking to follow though, or he really will go down in history as Genocide Joe.
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:00 PM on February 6
In 99% of cases, the 1997 Liberian election being one of those exceptions that proves the rule. Not sure that's the path Biden should be looking to follow though, or he really will go down in history as Genocide Joe.
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:00 PM on February 6
The Dems and their base are going to spend the entire election season insulting entire demographics, then send the FBI to harass them on top of that?
Brilliant! Truly this is the nth-dimensional chess game of masters.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:38 AM on February 7 [4 favorites]
Brilliant! Truly this is the nth-dimensional chess game of masters.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:38 AM on February 7 [4 favorites]
Yeah, Rep Pelosi seems to be working to actively drive people away from voting for the Democrats.
Don't support Biden's favorite genocide? Then you're a terrorist and the FBI should investigate you. Thanks Rep Pelosi, with galaxy brain planners like you the Democrats can't possibly lose this November!
posted by sotonohito at 9:15 AM on February 7 [2 favorites]
Don't support Biden's favorite genocide? Then you're a terrorist and the FBI should investigate you. Thanks Rep Pelosi, with galaxy brain planners like you the Democrats can't possibly lose this November!
posted by sotonohito at 9:15 AM on February 7 [2 favorites]
Funny how the people who are so quick to yell at me for not being a Biden cheerleader seem to be totally fine with Pelosi actively trying to drive away voters.
posted by sotonohito at 9:15 AM on February 7 [4 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 9:15 AM on February 7 [4 favorites]
The critical part about these very wealthy party leaders is that they don't especially need to win to feel like successes in life. They're not primarily motivated by literally winning the next election; they're motivated by being successful in their very wealthy political circles. They can be just as successful by positioning themselves as amazing politicians unfairly ousted by the Trumpist public as they can by governing well.
And of course it matters not a straw to them if Trump gets elected and demolishes the republic - they'll satisfy their self-esteem by heading up a foundation, or move to Italy and give speeches at Davos, or make a huge amount of money as the head of a thinktank. Even if they, eg, have a trans child, they'll just fund their child's move abroad. They have no skin in our game.
So it's very, very important to their egos that they not be proved wrong, and of course that they not be considered bad people. Saying that it's bad to send weapons to Israel and maybe a good person wouldn't do that - that's a huge insult, something only a terrorist would even think, because who could possibly believe that these fantastic wealthy Democrats are anything but the world's finest people? It's much, much more important to sic the FBI on your critics than to address the criticisms, even if it costs the election, because that's how you prove that you are right.
There's a lot in play here - climate crisis, the global rise of the right, the lack of turnover among Democratic elites, etc, but another big piece is that when you're ruled by the very, very wealthy they have no incentive to govern honestly. If we had a flatter social hierarchy, this wouldn't be happening - not that life would be a utopia, but we'd have some shared interests with our rulers.
posted by Frowner at 9:45 AM on February 7 [10 favorites]
And of course it matters not a straw to them if Trump gets elected and demolishes the republic - they'll satisfy their self-esteem by heading up a foundation, or move to Italy and give speeches at Davos, or make a huge amount of money as the head of a thinktank. Even if they, eg, have a trans child, they'll just fund their child's move abroad. They have no skin in our game.
So it's very, very important to their egos that they not be proved wrong, and of course that they not be considered bad people. Saying that it's bad to send weapons to Israel and maybe a good person wouldn't do that - that's a huge insult, something only a terrorist would even think, because who could possibly believe that these fantastic wealthy Democrats are anything but the world's finest people? It's much, much more important to sic the FBI on your critics than to address the criticisms, even if it costs the election, because that's how you prove that you are right.
There's a lot in play here - climate crisis, the global rise of the right, the lack of turnover among Democratic elites, etc, but another big piece is that when you're ruled by the very, very wealthy they have no incentive to govern honestly. If we had a flatter social hierarchy, this wouldn't be happening - not that life would be a utopia, but we'd have some shared interests with our rulers.
posted by Frowner at 9:45 AM on February 7 [10 favorites]
The deal where they did a bunch of Republican shit on immigration in immigration in exchange for aid to Ukraine (good) and Israel (bad) fell through, so…
The Biden administration is considering executive action to deter illegal migration at the southern border
I have a feeling the Israel aid will find a way to get through too.
posted by Artw at 7:04 PM on February 7 [4 favorites]
The Biden administration is considering executive action to deter illegal migration at the southern border
I have a feeling the Israel aid will find a way to get through too.
posted by Artw at 7:04 PM on February 7 [4 favorites]
Ah yes, the people who aren't happy about Biden's rabid frothing excitement for genocide will forget all about that once they're reminded about the... AI swarm drone army he's building.
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:43 PM on February 8 [5 favorites]
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:43 PM on February 8 [5 favorites]
Artw Of course.
The Green Lantern theory is proved time and agan when we see that something a Democratic President REALLY cares about always gets done even if it means breaking rules and laws.
The Democrats want to give the impression that they're rules following robots who will go all "ERROR ERROR" when there's even a suggestion that taking advantage of a loophole or very gently bending a law for the purposes of achieving something important for the American people is proposed.
But when it comes to protecting their rich friends, or killing more brown people in the Middle East, well, then nothing is ever permitted to stand in the way.
Biden openly, nakedly, and unapologetically, broke the fucking law to send more weapons to Israel without approval. No one has said anything, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats who normally start screeching like a Dalek at the merest hint of something not explicitly covered by the rules and currently polling at >51% be done. Nope, openly breaking the law to carry out a genocide is totally peachy keen fine and dandy as far as all the "rules obeying" Democrats are concerned.
It's only when when it comes to things that might help real people that suddenly that Green Lantern ring falters, the President becomes a mere figurehead rather than an elected monarch, and it's deeply morally wrong to do anything.
Make a genocide happen? All rules are meaningless, no law will be obeyed, and they will do absolutely anything it takes.
Secure voting rights for all Americans against Republican efforts at vote suppression? ZOMG what sort of Green Lantern believing hippie are you? The Sacred Filibuster means no one is permitted to do anything! How dare you suggest the President might have some sort of power they could use?
When they care, the Democrats will move mountains to accomplish their goals. It's a shame they don't care about anything but helping carry out a genocide.
And, on that note... Someone pointed out a fact I'd missed: when Russia started invading Ukraine, American universities and universities worldwide, started offering aid and even free tuition to help Ukranian university students who were unable to keep going to university due to Putin's invasion go to univeristy outside Ukraine.
Guess how many universities planetwide have offered a similar aid package to Gazan students who had to flee because their universty was blown up by Israel?
Zero.
posted by sotonohito at 6:27 AM on February 9 [5 favorites]
The Green Lantern theory is proved time and agan when we see that something a Democratic President REALLY cares about always gets done even if it means breaking rules and laws.
The Democrats want to give the impression that they're rules following robots who will go all "ERROR ERROR" when there's even a suggestion that taking advantage of a loophole or very gently bending a law for the purposes of achieving something important for the American people is proposed.
But when it comes to protecting their rich friends, or killing more brown people in the Middle East, well, then nothing is ever permitted to stand in the way.
Biden openly, nakedly, and unapologetically, broke the fucking law to send more weapons to Israel without approval. No one has said anything, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats who normally start screeching like a Dalek at the merest hint of something not explicitly covered by the rules and currently polling at >51% be done. Nope, openly breaking the law to carry out a genocide is totally peachy keen fine and dandy as far as all the "rules obeying" Democrats are concerned.
It's only when when it comes to things that might help real people that suddenly that Green Lantern ring falters, the President becomes a mere figurehead rather than an elected monarch, and it's deeply morally wrong to do anything.
Make a genocide happen? All rules are meaningless, no law will be obeyed, and they will do absolutely anything it takes.
Secure voting rights for all Americans against Republican efforts at vote suppression? ZOMG what sort of Green Lantern believing hippie are you? The Sacred Filibuster means no one is permitted to do anything! How dare you suggest the President might have some sort of power they could use?
When they care, the Democrats will move mountains to accomplish their goals. It's a shame they don't care about anything but helping carry out a genocide.
And, on that note... Someone pointed out a fact I'd missed: when Russia started invading Ukraine, American universities and universities worldwide, started offering aid and even free tuition to help Ukranian university students who were unable to keep going to university due to Putin's invasion go to univeristy outside Ukraine.
Guess how many universities planetwide have offered a similar aid package to Gazan students who had to flee because their universty was blown up by Israel?
Zero.
posted by sotonohito at 6:27 AM on February 9 [5 favorites]
If you murder someone’s relatives they will not vote for you
Unless you convince them it wasn’t you. Covid didn’t kill all those old folks, hospitals did! Drink Bleach 2020. This is why the GOP wants to destroy public education.
posted by rikschell at 10:38 AM on February 9 [1 favorite]
Unless you convince them it wasn’t you. Covid didn’t kill all those old folks, hospitals did! Drink Bleach 2020. This is why the GOP wants to destroy public education.
posted by rikschell at 10:38 AM on February 9 [1 favorite]
We probably don’t want to get into the “why Biden’s COVID policy is actually shit” discussion, but I see no way you can construct Trump as having murdered people with his bullshit that doesn’t allow for Biden murdering people with HIS bullshit.
No response to a deadly infectious disease that isn’t just “let everyone die” is possible for a sustained period under capitalism.
posted by Artw at 10:48 AM on February 9 [3 favorites]
No response to a deadly infectious disease that isn’t just “let everyone die” is possible for a sustained period under capitalism.
posted by Artw at 10:48 AM on February 9 [3 favorites]
I don’t disagree that Biden’s Covid policy is shit, but it couldn’t NOT be shit based on the principle of putting toothpaste back in the tube. Would a Hillary Clinton response in 2020 have been substantially better? We can never know for certain, but it wouldn’t have been worse.
posted by rikschell at 12:34 PM on February 9
posted by rikschell at 12:34 PM on February 9
Outside of playing footsy with some cranks and some light fraud with loans I doubt it would be substantially different all - it was all responses that were already in place. Plus we got super lucky with mRNA vaccines which could have happened to either of them.
Biden ramping the whole thing down is actually more substantial and negative.
posted by Artw at 12:47 PM on February 9
Biden ramping the whole thing down is actually more substantial and negative.
posted by Artw at 12:47 PM on February 9
(Would term 2 Clinton or term 2 Trump be substantially different? I profoundly doubt it. Capitalism was always going to want to declare the pandemic over and send everyone back to the office)
posted by Artw at 12:49 PM on February 9 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:49 PM on February 9 [4 favorites]
No response to a deadly infectious disease that isn’t just “let everyone die” is possible for a sustained period under capitalism.
Sorry, but that is just rubbish. Plenty of capitalist countries had very low mortality rates, some even lower than normal. The US healthcare system is uniquely bad for a Western nation, and probably any US president would struggle with an epidemic for that reason. Trump probably did worse than any other president would have, because he encouraged and supported all the crazy stuff, like the anti-vaxxers and states ignoring the lock-down recommendations.
Hillary Clinton, or an other Democrat, might have seized the opportunity to improve the system, but we can't know for sure. When Biden came along, the cat was out of the bag.
Anyhow. A second Trump term will be terrible. The Tucker Carlson interview with Putin is a dire warning that Trump intends to go all in with his dictator friends this time and abandon Ukraine (and the rest of Europe) and Taiwan, maybe even South Korea. He will sell military secrets. He will support the genocide in Palestine because his Saudi friends think it is a good idea. You might not care about foreign countries. But Project 2025 tells us exactly what the plan is for America: dismantle government and whatever remains of the rule of law, social security, environmental protections, civil rights. free speech etc.
Biden is not the best alternative one could imagine, but he is the best alternative there is.
posted by mumimor at 8:34 PM on February 9 [5 favorites]
Sorry, but that is just rubbish. Plenty of capitalist countries had very low mortality rates, some even lower than normal. The US healthcare system is uniquely bad for a Western nation, and probably any US president would struggle with an epidemic for that reason. Trump probably did worse than any other president would have, because he encouraged and supported all the crazy stuff, like the anti-vaxxers and states ignoring the lock-down recommendations.
Hillary Clinton, or an other Democrat, might have seized the opportunity to improve the system, but we can't know for sure. When Biden came along, the cat was out of the bag.
Anyhow. A second Trump term will be terrible. The Tucker Carlson interview with Putin is a dire warning that Trump intends to go all in with his dictator friends this time and abandon Ukraine (and the rest of Europe) and Taiwan, maybe even South Korea. He will sell military secrets. He will support the genocide in Palestine because his Saudi friends think it is a good idea. You might not care about foreign countries. But Project 2025 tells us exactly what the plan is for America: dismantle government and whatever remains of the rule of law, social security, environmental protections, civil rights. free speech etc.
Biden is not the best alternative one could imagine, but he is the best alternative there is.
posted by mumimor at 8:34 PM on February 9 [5 favorites]
The 81 year old pro-lifer who gropes women, loves genocide and is committed to being more racist and cruel on immigration is the best that can be asked for, and anyone who refuses to get excited about him is a fascist supporter who deserves to get lynched, yeah, no, we've been over that many times at this point.
posted by Audreynachrome at 9:27 PM on February 9 [2 favorites]
posted by Audreynachrome at 9:27 PM on February 9 [2 favorites]
So you prefer Trump? This is confusing. It's not like you can choose a third option within the US system.
I don't think leftists who are critical of Biden are fascists or deserve lynching, where does that come from? I think leftists who are too purist to vote for Biden are putting themselves, personally, in an extremely dangerous situation, almost exactly identical to that of the Weimar Republic socialists and Communists. This worries me.
Trump has vowed to get rid of the "radical left" and all his other critics when he gets into power again, and his people are building the structure to make it happen within the Project 2025 framework. These people are extremely dangerous. Since their version of the "radical left" includes Biden and everyone to the left of him, that is a pretty broad sweep. In Germany pre-WW2, Social Democrats, who were hardly radical, had to flee or die in concentration camps.
But you don't have to go that far back: look at Russia. I expect bad stuff to come to Argentina soon. The only thing that keeps Victor Orban from actual crimes is the promise of EU money.
A lot of people who are critical of Trump, left, right and in the middle are very keen to minimize the danger of second Trump presidency, and even his first term. "He took and hid the documents because he is a narcissist", "he loves Putin because he is stupid", "he couldn't even accomplish the border wall". Blabla.
Thousands of children were separated from their parents at the border, and many remain separated, in spite of the Biden administration's efforts. Immigrants were kept in cages under inhuman conditions.
Trump has sold access to foreign regimes for billions -- most visibly to the KSA. He has worked and probably still works with Russia to undermine the NATO alliance.
Trump has appointed corrupt judges to the Supreme Court who have ended Roe vs Wade and plans to end civil rights for trans people and other LGBT+ citizens.
Trump plans to use the military against US citizens who participate in lawful demonstrations and protests, and he will purge the defense leadership to get there. He didn't achieve that in his first term. Don't imagine he will be as unprepared the next time.
posted by mumimor at 10:24 PM on February 9 [3 favorites]
I don't think leftists who are critical of Biden are fascists or deserve lynching, where does that come from? I think leftists who are too purist to vote for Biden are putting themselves, personally, in an extremely dangerous situation, almost exactly identical to that of the Weimar Republic socialists and Communists. This worries me.
Trump has vowed to get rid of the "radical left" and all his other critics when he gets into power again, and his people are building the structure to make it happen within the Project 2025 framework. These people are extremely dangerous. Since their version of the "radical left" includes Biden and everyone to the left of him, that is a pretty broad sweep. In Germany pre-WW2, Social Democrats, who were hardly radical, had to flee or die in concentration camps.
But you don't have to go that far back: look at Russia. I expect bad stuff to come to Argentina soon. The only thing that keeps Victor Orban from actual crimes is the promise of EU money.
A lot of people who are critical of Trump, left, right and in the middle are very keen to minimize the danger of second Trump presidency, and even his first term. "He took and hid the documents because he is a narcissist", "he loves Putin because he is stupid", "he couldn't even accomplish the border wall". Blabla.
Thousands of children were separated from their parents at the border, and many remain separated, in spite of the Biden administration's efforts. Immigrants were kept in cages under inhuman conditions.
Trump has sold access to foreign regimes for billions -- most visibly to the KSA. He has worked and probably still works with Russia to undermine the NATO alliance.
Trump has appointed corrupt judges to the Supreme Court who have ended Roe vs Wade and plans to end civil rights for trans people and other LGBT+ citizens.
Trump plans to use the military against US citizens who participate in lawful demonstrations and protests, and he will purge the defense leadership to get there. He didn't achieve that in his first term. Don't imagine he will be as unprepared the next time.
posted by mumimor at 10:24 PM on February 9 [3 favorites]
Me: "refuses to get excited about"
You: "So you prefer Trump...
...I dont think leftists who are critical of Biden are fascists or deserve lynching, where does that come from?"
Kinda answering your own question there. I said "refuses to get excited" and I'm being accused of preferring Trump.
Not to mention the requests that people be quiet about genocide to ease up pressure on Biden that others have made. Silence on genocide, let alone denial, is never acceptable, whatever justification people find for it.
Biden can still be the best option without doing genocide denial.
posted by Audreynachrome at 10:33 PM on February 9 [4 favorites]
You: "So you prefer Trump...
...I dont think leftists who are critical of Biden are fascists or deserve lynching, where does that come from?"
Kinda answering your own question there. I said "refuses to get excited" and I'm being accused of preferring Trump.
Not to mention the requests that people be quiet about genocide to ease up pressure on Biden that others have made. Silence on genocide, let alone denial, is never acceptable, whatever justification people find for it.
Biden can still be the best option without doing genocide denial.
posted by Audreynachrome at 10:33 PM on February 9 [4 favorites]
Artw, looking from outside but if Trump gets in it is very likely the end of the American project (and conflict if Biden gets in: Jan6 episode two), his backers are extreme libertarians and New Apostolic Reformation maniacs, the former just racists, the latter desire global war and Rapture
and revenge againt those who stand against Trump, from General Milley down to ordinary people.
Look at NZ's new goverment they are the same people. PM is a Dominionist, co-leaders racists and conspiracy theorists. Together actively destroying anything good from the last 50 years. Trump will be
same.
posted by unearthed at 12:11 AM on February 10
and revenge againt those who stand against Trump, from General Milley down to ordinary people.
Look at NZ's new goverment they are the same people. PM is a Dominionist, co-leaders racists and conspiracy theorists. Together actively destroying anything good from the last 50 years. Trump will be
same.
posted by unearthed at 12:11 AM on February 10
The 81 year old pro-lifer who gropes women,
Well, Donald Trump certainly admitting groping women, but let's be honest. Donald Trump is an 81 year old pro-lifer RAPIST. Donald Trump is a RAPIST. He's not just some perv with boundary-issues. Donald Trump is a -- no qualification -- rapist.
And it's past time that people put and kept that front-and-center in the discussion. Because the only question that should be put to any Trump supporters is, "Why do you support a known rapist?" (Which will be met with denial, of course, but it should end the conversation if you just keep repeating the question, which may be desirable)
posted by mikelieman at 5:19 AM on February 10
Well, Donald Trump certainly admitting groping women, but let's be honest. Donald Trump is an 81 year old pro-lifer RAPIST. Donald Trump is a RAPIST. He's not just some perv with boundary-issues. Donald Trump is a -- no qualification -- rapist.
And it's past time that people put and kept that front-and-center in the discussion. Because the only question that should be put to any Trump supporters is, "Why do you support a known rapist?" (Which will be met with denial, of course, but it should end the conversation if you just keep repeating the question, which may be desirable)
posted by mikelieman at 5:19 AM on February 10
Hey, when I call Biden a groper, I'm going by my faith in his own VP, a righteous woman who would only ever persecute trans women if like, she felt there was a legal obligation to.
Those who think she was doing it as a whim have been soundly refuted, she's made it clear she was just following orders, which is okay.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:28 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
Those who think she was doing it as a whim have been soundly refuted, she's made it clear she was just following orders, which is okay.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:28 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
Trump is 77, in case you're still confused. I'm referring to this. (The Hill)
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:31 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:31 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
I really wish there had been some attempt to find another candidate for 2024. In addition to Biden's very many real problems, the Republicans have spent the last four years making him a boogie man their voters will turn out to oppose.
I don't think Biden will be able to beat Trump. That's what's so frustrating. It would be one thing if people were being asked to put their principles aside for a super electable candidate, but we've gotten stuck with a weak candidate in possibly the most important election in the last 80 years.
Hopefully between Trump's open fascism and the Republican's gutting women's rights, disgust for Trump will carry him over the edge.
Biden strongly signalled he would be a one term president, and chose to run again anyway. If he loses to Trump that will be on his head.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 6:46 AM on February 10 [2 favorites]
I don't think Biden will be able to beat Trump. That's what's so frustrating. It would be one thing if people were being asked to put their principles aside for a super electable candidate, but we've gotten stuck with a weak candidate in possibly the most important election in the last 80 years.
Hopefully between Trump's open fascism and the Republican's gutting women's rights, disgust for Trump will carry him over the edge.
Biden strongly signalled he would be a one term president, and chose to run again anyway. If he loses to Trump that will be on his head.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 6:46 AM on February 10 [2 favorites]
I hate to disagree, but I think BIden is going to win.
"Biden strongly signalled he would be a one term president, and chose to run again anyway. If he loses to Trump that will be on his head."
Sure, true. I hope so, even. I do think there is enough liberal inertia penned up to get Biden in.
What bothers me is people suggesting we should bend the truth, ignore the evidence of our own eyes. That's pretty sus to begin with before we even raise the issue of genocide.
I do believe it's good to choose the lesser evil instead of abstaining. I just think that when you choose the lesser evil, you have an obligation to familarise yourself with the pain you are choosing to inflict. If you choose the lesser evil and then choose to minimise and deny the lesser evil's, well, evilness, you're showing that you didn't assess properly what was the lesser evil. A moral sacrifice can be just, but only honestly.
posted by Audreynachrome at 7:00 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
"Biden strongly signalled he would be a one term president, and chose to run again anyway. If he loses to Trump that will be on his head."
Sure, true. I hope so, even. I do think there is enough liberal inertia penned up to get Biden in.
What bothers me is people suggesting we should bend the truth, ignore the evidence of our own eyes. That's pretty sus to begin with before we even raise the issue of genocide.
I do believe it's good to choose the lesser evil instead of abstaining. I just think that when you choose the lesser evil, you have an obligation to familarise yourself with the pain you are choosing to inflict. If you choose the lesser evil and then choose to minimise and deny the lesser evil's, well, evilness, you're showing that you didn't assess properly what was the lesser evil. A moral sacrifice can be just, but only honestly.
posted by Audreynachrome at 7:00 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
I hate to disagree, but I think BIden is going to win.
I really, really hope you're right.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:04 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
I really, really hope you're right.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:04 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
Everyone is allowed to voice their disappointment with Biden. But it does make a lot of us very unhappy when you do, because it contributes to a climate that feels like people aren’t going to turn out to support him. I canvassed fucking hard for Hillary Clinton in a solid blue city and got LOTS of pushback from Dem voters who said they simply didn’t cast a presidential ballot because they were too mad about Bernie. I swear I’m not here to relitigate the primaries, but I still have a certain amount of PTSD from that night when we saw everything come crashing down on live TV like the twin towers. So I’m glad to hear the most critical people say they are going to cast their ballots for Biden despite how much they despise him, and I’m very stressed to hear some people say they are going to sit this one out.
For me, I have been trying to put the best spin I can on Biden despite how awful a candidate I personally think he is, simply because I want to give people reasons to vote for him and not give people reasons to stay home. Things are always going to be bad, probably horrible. But things could also be much worse than horrible. I recognize that some people have a need to publicly declaim him even while supporting him enough to give him your vote. You should be allowed to do that. Just know that it brings up really awful feelings inside a lot of us when you do.
The American system of “democracy” has always been broken, and maybe some would argue that it’s better to live in an honest dictatorship than a fake democracy. I think that’s ridiculous personally, but I’ve never lived in a dictatorship before and I’d just as soon not try.
posted by rikschell at 7:13 AM on February 10 [4 favorites]
For me, I have been trying to put the best spin I can on Biden despite how awful a candidate I personally think he is, simply because I want to give people reasons to vote for him and not give people reasons to stay home. Things are always going to be bad, probably horrible. But things could also be much worse than horrible. I recognize that some people have a need to publicly declaim him even while supporting him enough to give him your vote. You should be allowed to do that. Just know that it brings up really awful feelings inside a lot of us when you do.
The American system of “democracy” has always been broken, and maybe some would argue that it’s better to live in an honest dictatorship than a fake democracy. I think that’s ridiculous personally, but I’ve never lived in a dictatorship before and I’d just as soon not try.
posted by rikschell at 7:13 AM on February 10 [4 favorites]
I think it's emotionally helpful to feel bad things when the world is so fucked that voting for a genocidaire is your best option. I'm a lot more worried about the people who feel nothing. I've never asked that people not make the utilitarian choice. Just that they acknowledge the costs of that choice.
posted by Audreynachrome at 7:20 AM on February 10 [2 favorites]
posted by Audreynachrome at 7:20 AM on February 10 [2 favorites]
Artw, looking from outside but if Trump gets in it is very likely the end of the American project
Right, but I’m not going to pretend the Biden admin has COVID policy that it does not have.
posted by Artw at 7:26 AM on February 10 [3 favorites]
Right, but I’m not going to pretend the Biden admin has COVID policy that it does not have.
posted by Artw at 7:26 AM on February 10 [3 favorites]
With this devastating "forgetful old man" knifing from Hur... Biden is fucked. Utterly fucked. Whether or not his capacity to govern is actually questionable, it puts into sharp relief just how lousy both presidential candidates are. The less bad choice is still... pretty bad. There's less reason for independents and moderates to vote for Biden, except for "he's not Trump".
The only way for Biden to shake this off is in public. Maybe do a week on Jeopardy? Could he actually debate Trump competently? Every new gaffe is going to sink him further.
Would it be wrong of me to wish for a meteorite to hit TWO campaign buses simultaneously?
It seems that the only surefire way to stop Trump is to prevent him from running, and we know that these efforts are failing. What a horrible year this is shaping up to be...
posted by Artful Codger at 7:28 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
The only way for Biden to shake this off is in public. Maybe do a week on Jeopardy? Could he actually debate Trump competently? Every new gaffe is going to sink him further.
Would it be wrong of me to wish for a meteorite to hit TWO campaign buses simultaneously?
It seems that the only surefire way to stop Trump is to prevent him from running, and we know that these efforts are failing. What a horrible year this is shaping up to be...
posted by Artful Codger at 7:28 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
Everyone is allowed to voice their disappointment with Biden. But it does make a lot of us very unhappy when you do, because it contributes to a climate that feels like people aren’t going to turn out to support him.
Urge you to form a healthier relationship with politicians that’s less parasocial and more reality based where this sort of thing does not make you unhappy.
posted by Artw at 7:28 AM on February 10 [4 favorites]
Urge you to form a healthier relationship with politicians that’s less parasocial and more reality based where this sort of thing does not make you unhappy.
posted by Artw at 7:28 AM on February 10 [4 favorites]
I recognize that some people have a need to publicly declaim him even while supporting him
I mean, he's moving heaven and earth to enable a genocide. How does anyone square the prime human obligation to never do or accept a genocide with with *not* declaiming for that, even if it was set in stone that he was going to be better than Trump.
It's genocide. Like, there's no higher sin to escalate to. Genocide. The big G. The Final Solution to those pesky Palestinians who reject colonial military control over their land. Denying it is a human rights failure in and of itself.
posted by Audreynachrome at 7:41 AM on February 10 [4 favorites]
I mean, he's moving heaven and earth to enable a genocide. How does anyone square the prime human obligation to never do or accept a genocide with with *not* declaiming for that, even if it was set in stone that he was going to be better than Trump.
It's genocide. Like, there's no higher sin to escalate to. Genocide. The big G. The Final Solution to those pesky Palestinians who reject colonial military control over their land. Denying it is a human rights failure in and of itself.
posted by Audreynachrome at 7:41 AM on February 10 [4 favorites]
I do it by understanding that it's an aspect of being a political actor. I'm going to amplify the positive aspects of the candidate I prefer, and avoid broadcasting the negatives.
I assume that if I can't think of any awful aspects of my preferred candidate, I'm more likely to be ignorant than absolutely correct in my positivity.
Why would I bring up Biden's role in the genocide if I'm trying to convince people to vote for him? At most, I'd try to shift focus to the tidbits of reporting that say he's working to rein in the Israeli government behind the scenes, but more likely I'd want to talk about how much worse Trump would be.
Given the binary choice in this election, I can hardly consider myself voting in favor of a genocide by voting for Biden as opposed to Trump, so I'll not be beating myself up over pulling the lever for him. I can only hope most voters will share that peace of mind as they vote for him too.
posted by otsebyatina at 10:20 AM on February 10 [2 favorites]
I assume that if I can't think of any awful aspects of my preferred candidate, I'm more likely to be ignorant than absolutely correct in my positivity.
Why would I bring up Biden's role in the genocide if I'm trying to convince people to vote for him? At most, I'd try to shift focus to the tidbits of reporting that say he's working to rein in the Israeli government behind the scenes, but more likely I'd want to talk about how much worse Trump would be.
Given the binary choice in this election, I can hardly consider myself voting in favor of a genocide by voting for Biden as opposed to Trump, so I'll not be beating myself up over pulling the lever for him. I can only hope most voters will share that peace of mind as they vote for him too.
posted by otsebyatina at 10:20 AM on February 10 [2 favorites]
Why would I bring up Biden's role in the genocide if I'm trying to convince people to vote for him? At most, I'd try to shift focus to the tidbits of reporting that say he's working to rein in the Israeli government behind the scenes, but more likely I'd want to talk about how much worse Trump would be.
I don't think the purpose of every political conversation is to win votes for the current guy. Sometimes it is to express opinion, to try to understand a different point of view, or to build common understanding about how things should change.
This is a relatively small online space with very few politically undecided participants. There is no obligation to repeat a particular candidates talking points. And if we want positive change from within the Democratic party, talking about what is wrong qith it is necessary.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 11:39 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
I don't think the purpose of every political conversation is to win votes for the current guy. Sometimes it is to express opinion, to try to understand a different point of view, or to build common understanding about how things should change.
This is a relatively small online space with very few politically undecided participants. There is no obligation to repeat a particular candidates talking points. And if we want positive change from within the Democratic party, talking about what is wrong qith it is necessary.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 11:39 AM on February 10 [1 favorite]
With this devastating "forgetful old man" knifing from Hur... Biden is fucked.
Yesterday's move could have seen designated allies immediately excoriating Hur personally -- partisan, petty, whatever -- while those front-and-center emphasized and summarized the meat of Hur's report, and somebody sat on Biden until he cooled off? Offense, rather than defense, but Democrats gonna democrat.
"The Special Counsel Robert Hur report has been grossly mischaracterized by the press. The report finds that the evidence of a knowing, willful violation of the criminal laws is wanting. Indeed, the report, on page 6, notes that there are 'innocent explanations' that Hur 'cannot refute.' That is but one of myriad examples we outline in great detail below of the report repeatedly finding a lack of proof. And those findings mean, in DOJ-speak, there is simply no case. Unrefuted innocent explanations is the sine qua non of not just a case that does not meet the standard for criminal prosecution – it means innocence. Or as former Attorney General Bill Barr and his former boss would have put it, a total vindication (but here, for real).
"But even without the prompting of a misleading 'summary' by Barr, the press has gotten the lede wrong. This may be because of a poorly worded (we’re being charitable) thesis sentence on page 1 of Hur’s executive summary. Hur writes at the outset: 'Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.' You have to wait for the later statements that what the report actually says is there is insufficient evidence of criminality, innocent explanations for the conduct, and affirmative evidence that Biden did not willfully withhold classified documents." - JustSecurity.org, Feb. 10, 2024 (emphasis added)
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:59 AM on February 10 [4 favorites]
Yesterday's move could have seen designated allies immediately excoriating Hur personally -- partisan, petty, whatever -- while those front-and-center emphasized and summarized the meat of Hur's report, and somebody sat on Biden until he cooled off? Offense, rather than defense, but Democrats gonna democrat.
"The Special Counsel Robert Hur report has been grossly mischaracterized by the press. The report finds that the evidence of a knowing, willful violation of the criminal laws is wanting. Indeed, the report, on page 6, notes that there are 'innocent explanations' that Hur 'cannot refute.' That is but one of myriad examples we outline in great detail below of the report repeatedly finding a lack of proof. And those findings mean, in DOJ-speak, there is simply no case. Unrefuted innocent explanations is the sine qua non of not just a case that does not meet the standard for criminal prosecution – it means innocence. Or as former Attorney General Bill Barr and his former boss would have put it, a total vindication (but here, for real).
"But even without the prompting of a misleading 'summary' by Barr, the press has gotten the lede wrong. This may be because of a poorly worded (we’re being charitable) thesis sentence on page 1 of Hur’s executive summary. Hur writes at the outset: 'Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.' You have to wait for the later statements that what the report actually says is there is insufficient evidence of criminality, innocent explanations for the conduct, and affirmative evidence that Biden did not willfully withhold classified documents." - JustSecurity.org, Feb. 10, 2024 (emphasis added)
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:59 AM on February 10 [4 favorites]
Hur showed his hand, not to mention his true character, by alleging Joe Biden couldn't remember the date of Beau and Nella Biden's death. (Nella being his first wife as you all no doubt well know.) Which is demonstrably false -- I recall reading only recently a story recently about how Biden had met a woman patient in the cancer ward two days before Beau died and promising, on her request, to call her, which he did and did every year thereafter on that date. Hur's needless, senseless adding-injury-to-insult troll is a bullet with a star candidate for the Cheap Shot Hall of Fame Top Ten.
posted by y2karl at 1:00 PM on February 10 [3 favorites]
posted by y2karl at 1:00 PM on February 10 [3 favorites]
And to paraphrase James Carville:
It's not the gerontocracy, it's the plutocracy stupid. This is why there should be a Maximum Guaranteed Income. I'd prefer that be, say, $100,000 USD but, fine, let's say $1 billion because entrepreneurs gotta entrepreneur. Any profits over that from either wages or invested capital go 100% to income support for the folks on the other end. In a just world. But good luck with that.
posted by y2karl at 1:21 PM on February 10 [2 favorites]
It's not the gerontocracy, it's the plutocracy stupid. This is why there should be a Maximum Guaranteed Income. I'd prefer that be, say, $100,000 USD but, fine, let's say $1 billion because entrepreneurs gotta entrepreneur. Any profits over that from either wages or invested capital go 100% to income support for the folks on the other end. In a just world. But good luck with that.
posted by y2karl at 1:21 PM on February 10 [2 favorites]
Why would I bring up Biden's role in the genocide if I'm trying to convince people to vote for him? At most, I'd try to shift focus to the tidbits of reporting that say he's working to rein in the Israeli government behind the scenes, but more likely I'd want to talk about how much worse Trump would be.
Well, if you're talking to someone who's aware of the genocide then they'll get the impression you're trying to bullshit them and lie by omission if nothing else.
And since specifically we're talking about more leftward leaning Americans here, you're going to need to approach it from the standpoint of acknowledging Biden's failures and shortcomings while arguing that despite all that Trump is basically the same if not worse on the genocide and war side of things and Biden is better than Trump on many important, mostly domestic, issues. If you just goin singing Biden's praises to a leftist they're going to write you off as just another liberal who loves war and genocide.
The same applies if talking to a Muslim or an Arab American who feels, entirely correctly and rightly, that Biden values their lives less than other lives. You are never going to get anywhere by trying to pretend that Biden isn't, still, actively endorsing and supporting the ongoing Israeli efforts at genocide in Gaza. A few tepid sanctions on West Bank "settlers" is not going to make up for that. You have the task of confronting Biden's greatest shortcoming head on, admitting it exists, acknowledging how bad it is, and then saying that despite his active support for genocide, Trump would be genociding harder and would also be worse on many domestic issues.
I'm fairly sure many white, non-Muslim, leftists are either already persuaded on that matter, or at least persuadable if you take the approach of acknowledging the problem. I'm not at all sure that the absolutely critical Palestinian American vote in Michigan is persuadable. But I am as close to certain as it is possible for me to be, that you are never going to change their minds by ignoring the genocide and just praising Biden.
I'm hard pressed to think of any group that would be persuadable that way. The Tinkerbell Theory isn't going to work here.
I will also note that this is entirely, 100%, a problem of Biden's own creation. He didn't actually have to endorse Israel's genocidal efforts while equipping them with weapons to carry out the genocide. It actually was physically possible for him to acknowledge the genocidal aspect of Israel's attack on Gaza and refuse to send weapons. He CHOSE to back Israel's genocidal efforts. He CHOSE to be so focused on supplying Israel with the means of carrying out its genocide that he broke the law to send them weapons he wasn't officially allowed to. He CHOSE to turn off that supposed "famous empathy" he supposedly has when it came to the Palestinian people.
He's supposed to be the political big brain, shouldn't he have been thinking about how that was going to play out with Arab Americans? Instead, apparently, that's all on us to just shrug and say "lulz, guess he's gonna genocide VBNMW!"
posted by sotonohito at 4:17 PM on February 10 [6 favorites]
Well, if you're talking to someone who's aware of the genocide then they'll get the impression you're trying to bullshit them and lie by omission if nothing else.
And since specifically we're talking about more leftward leaning Americans here, you're going to need to approach it from the standpoint of acknowledging Biden's failures and shortcomings while arguing that despite all that Trump is basically the same if not worse on the genocide and war side of things and Biden is better than Trump on many important, mostly domestic, issues. If you just goin singing Biden's praises to a leftist they're going to write you off as just another liberal who loves war and genocide.
The same applies if talking to a Muslim or an Arab American who feels, entirely correctly and rightly, that Biden values their lives less than other lives. You are never going to get anywhere by trying to pretend that Biden isn't, still, actively endorsing and supporting the ongoing Israeli efforts at genocide in Gaza. A few tepid sanctions on West Bank "settlers" is not going to make up for that. You have the task of confronting Biden's greatest shortcoming head on, admitting it exists, acknowledging how bad it is, and then saying that despite his active support for genocide, Trump would be genociding harder and would also be worse on many domestic issues.
I'm fairly sure many white, non-Muslim, leftists are either already persuaded on that matter, or at least persuadable if you take the approach of acknowledging the problem. I'm not at all sure that the absolutely critical Palestinian American vote in Michigan is persuadable. But I am as close to certain as it is possible for me to be, that you are never going to change their minds by ignoring the genocide and just praising Biden.
I'm hard pressed to think of any group that would be persuadable that way. The Tinkerbell Theory isn't going to work here.
I will also note that this is entirely, 100%, a problem of Biden's own creation. He didn't actually have to endorse Israel's genocidal efforts while equipping them with weapons to carry out the genocide. It actually was physically possible for him to acknowledge the genocidal aspect of Israel's attack on Gaza and refuse to send weapons. He CHOSE to back Israel's genocidal efforts. He CHOSE to be so focused on supplying Israel with the means of carrying out its genocide that he broke the law to send them weapons he wasn't officially allowed to. He CHOSE to turn off that supposed "famous empathy" he supposedly has when it came to the Palestinian people.
He's supposed to be the political big brain, shouldn't he have been thinking about how that was going to play out with Arab Americans? Instead, apparently, that's all on us to just shrug and say "lulz, guess he's gonna genocide VBNMW!"
posted by sotonohito at 4:17 PM on February 10 [6 favorites]
Mod note: A couple deleted. 1) just flag or contact us if you think someone is breaking the guidelines, and 2) please post Israel/Palestine links in the current I/P thread.
posted by taz (staff) at 10:41 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 10:41 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]
I'm going to suggest that for people who do want to be out there spruiking for Biden, especially if it's to leftist people, try framing it as "critical support".
It's a nifty term that packs in the idea that you have severe reservations or even direct criticisms of someone or something, you acknowledge that they're doing or have done terrible things, but acknowledges that in a world of bad choices, you still support them as being the ones who have half of the right idea.
It gets you out of that moral bind where you feel you have to pretend that the bad things simply are not happening because you still overall support the person or thing. Because that is wrong, especially so when its genocide. That veers over into genocide denial by omission, and hopefully we all agree that genocide denial is *never* acceptable.
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:28 AM on February 11 [3 favorites]
It's a nifty term that packs in the idea that you have severe reservations or even direct criticisms of someone or something, you acknowledge that they're doing or have done terrible things, but acknowledges that in a world of bad choices, you still support them as being the ones who have half of the right idea.
It gets you out of that moral bind where you feel you have to pretend that the bad things simply are not happening because you still overall support the person or thing. Because that is wrong, especially so when its genocide. That veers over into genocide denial by omission, and hopefully we all agree that genocide denial is *never* acceptable.
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:28 AM on February 11 [3 favorites]
I’m gonna suggest anyone taking potshots at “the left” for not being supportive is going to have a way more productive time taking on talking points put out there by The New York Times and CNN, who absolutely do want Trump to win, have a large megaphone to sway votes with and, you will note, are very much center right.
posted by Artw at 7:07 AM on February 11 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 7:07 AM on February 11 [1 favorite]
that you are never going to change their minds by ignoring the genocide and just praising Biden.
It isn't changing minds about genocide, but Biden's role in it, who is threading a needle by supporting an ally in a region controlled by a Russian-Iranian axis. He's riding a tiger of failed conservative foreign policy and the initial attacks and war was partly instigated for the purpose of defeating him (because the aforementioned regional axis receives a professional courtesy from all fellow dictators, including Trump). Biden represents modern society and democracy, and it is evil to them because local citizens get modern ideas about settling for a non-traditional future the longer it keeps stable that way. The so-called left isn't even left of Biden when factoring in individualist versus collectivist social leanings, the latter being ultra-conservative by historical standards. The confusion surrounding the left hating liberalism arises from this, and the left organizes among those dissatisfied with individualist-leaning society but who have no experience with collectivist society or even have a blueprint for it, a recipe for fantasy.
posted by Brian B. at 8:16 AM on February 11
It isn't changing minds about genocide, but Biden's role in it, who is threading a needle by supporting an ally in a region controlled by a Russian-Iranian axis. He's riding a tiger of failed conservative foreign policy and the initial attacks and war was partly instigated for the purpose of defeating him (because the aforementioned regional axis receives a professional courtesy from all fellow dictators, including Trump). Biden represents modern society and democracy, and it is evil to them because local citizens get modern ideas about settling for a non-traditional future the longer it keeps stable that way. The so-called left isn't even left of Biden when factoring in individualist versus collectivist social leanings, the latter being ultra-conservative by historical standards. The confusion surrounding the left hating liberalism arises from this, and the left organizes among those dissatisfied with individualist-leaning society but who have no experience with collectivist society or even have a blueprint for it, a recipe for fantasy.
posted by Brian B. at 8:16 AM on February 11
Genocide is genocide. Genocide with excuses is genocide. You are not going to find a way to dress it up to make it acceptable to people, don’t even bother.
posted by Artw at 8:26 AM on February 11 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:26 AM on February 11 [3 favorites]
The so-called left isn't even left of Biden when factoring in individualist versus collectivist social leanings, the latter being ultra-conservative by historical standards.
Not to be too blunt, but this is nonsense.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 10:50 AM on February 11
Not to be too blunt, but this is nonsense.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 10:50 AM on February 11
Not to be too blunt, but this is nonsense.
Feudal Japan is the go-to example for collectivist culture.
posted by Brian B. at 11:03 AM on February 11
Feudal Japan is the go-to example for collectivist culture.
posted by Brian B. at 11:03 AM on February 11
Feudal Japan is the go-to example for collectivist culture.
That may be so, but it has nothing to do with the left. Like even remotely.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 11:06 AM on February 11
That may be so, but it has nothing to do with the left. Like even remotely.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 11:06 AM on February 11
That may be so, but it has nothing to do with the left. Like even remotely.
It depends. If one's idea of the left is to overthrow democratic liberalism and control individual expression, including voting and the arts, then there are plenty of examples associated with leftist revolutions. Most were established in places that never culturally evolved from feudal village or family control extending from a centralized power, such as North Korea, which today features work units of assigned labor as one's personal identity, and is ultra-conservative in nearly every conceivable way.
posted by Brian B. at 11:35 AM on February 11
It depends. If one's idea of the left is to overthrow democratic liberalism and control individual expression, including voting and the arts, then there are plenty of examples associated with leftist revolutions. Most were established in places that never culturally evolved from feudal village or family control extending from a centralized power, such as North Korea, which today features work units of assigned labor as one's personal identity, and is ultra-conservative in nearly every conceivable way.
posted by Brian B. at 11:35 AM on February 11
> If you just goin singing Biden's praises to a leftist they're going to write you off as just another liberal who loves war and genocide.To be clear, I'm not encountering any well-informed leftists in my life outside the internet, and rarely get into arguments online trying to convince leftists to vote for Biden. I don't have the patience or the knowledge to get involved like that.
The people I am trying to convince tend to be friends, family, and coworkers; those low-information voters that catch some news from a tv on in the background of their daily lives. The ones that just "heard some concerning things" about Biden and, with some reassurance, might actually take the time to vote rather than stay home.
posted by otsebyatina at 11:50 AM on February 11 [1 favorite]
It depends. If one's idea of the left is to overthrow democratic liberalism and control individual expression, including voting and the arts,
I'm sorry, but this amounts to "if leftists held a position the vast majority of them don't, they'd be to Biden's right." It's true, but it has nothing to do with actual leftists.
I don't know why you'd think that the response of feudal societies to becoming Stalinist satraps would be relevant to the opinions of American leftists. Any single term that can be used to distinguish both the world view of medieval samurai and Emma Goldman from the rest of the world pretty clearly isn't describing anything especially meaningful.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 12:24 PM on February 11 [3 favorites]
I'm sorry, but this amounts to "if leftists held a position the vast majority of them don't, they'd be to Biden's right." It's true, but it has nothing to do with actual leftists.
I don't know why you'd think that the response of feudal societies to becoming Stalinist satraps would be relevant to the opinions of American leftists. Any single term that can be used to distinguish both the world view of medieval samurai and Emma Goldman from the rest of the world pretty clearly isn't describing anything especially meaningful.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 12:24 PM on February 11 [3 favorites]
Brian B.
Just real quick, could you give a brief one or two sentence definition of what you mean when you say left and right in the political context? I'm asking because if you're citing Feudal anywhere as an example of leftism then you're operating on a definition that is idiosyncratic at the very least.
posted by sotonohito at 12:28 PM on February 11 [2 favorites]
Just real quick, could you give a brief one or two sentence definition of what you mean when you say left and right in the political context? I'm asking because if you're citing Feudal anywhere as an example of leftism then you're operating on a definition that is idiosyncratic at the very least.
posted by sotonohito at 12:28 PM on February 11 [2 favorites]
Mostly “leftists” just want the Democratic Party to be vaguely competent and do good things and not be constantly ratfucking itself in the doomed hope of convincing some conservatives to like them.
It’s even less of an uncrackable code than the “trump supporters are actually just fascists” code.
And yet…
posted by Artw at 12:57 PM on February 11 [3 favorites]
It’s even less of an uncrackable code than the “trump supporters are actually just fascists” code.
And yet…
posted by Artw at 12:57 PM on February 11 [3 favorites]
The ones that just "heard some concerning things" about Biden and, with some reassurance, might actually take the time to vote rather than stay home.
But, of course, you wouldn't intentionally downplay or deny the ongoing genocide in Gaza to provide that reassurance, right?
That would be a step beyond the pale.
posted by Audreynachrome at 1:20 PM on February 11 [2 favorites]
But, of course, you wouldn't intentionally downplay or deny the ongoing genocide in Gaza to provide that reassurance, right?
That would be a step beyond the pale.
posted by Audreynachrome at 1:20 PM on February 11 [2 favorites]
Sotonohito, the idiosyncrasies are often mutual, as when liberals are insistently described as non-left. My preference for levels of individualistic versus collectivist is more sociological than political, and collectivist is generally a society where people are demanded to conform, including dogmatic or religious. Collectivist definitions don't shy away from lumping feudalism and modern China, for example. It also beats weirder discussions about capitalism versus socialism, whereas Sweden is considered as a prime example of either but rarely both by the same person.
posted by Brian B. at 2:01 PM on February 11
posted by Brian B. at 2:01 PM on February 11
Brian B.
OK, but can you define what you mean when you say "left" and "right" in the political context? Just a quick little rough sketch, I'm not asking for a detailed thesis or anything. And I'm not trying to trap you or set you up for a gotcha. I'm genuinely asking because I want to understand your point and I don't.
To avoid being coy about it, I'm asking because you're using definitions that don't seem to match either of the two definitions in mainstream usage.
There's the common in informal discussions definition in which there is a sort of nebulous "center" which is somewhere in between the Republicans and the Democrats and left and right are defined relative to that center.
Then there's the political science definitions which say right wing politics is rooted in the belief that hierarchy is some combination of good, necessary, inevitable, or beneficial, and left wing politics is rooted in the belief that hierarchy is some combination of bad, unnecessary, avoidable, and harmful. [1]
Neither seems to match how you are using the terms, since "collectivism" is a really nebulous concept at best (are corporations "collectivist"? you'd think so based on the plain meaning of the word, but they are never counted as collectivist by people who use the term in a political sense) and also even if we could agree on a definition collectivism isn't particularly left or right by any of the definitions I'm familiar with. I could see both right wing and left wing collectivism as being possible. Like authoritarianism, it isn't the domain of either left or right by any of the definitions I know.
[1] This, BTW is where the "liberalism is right wing" statement comes from, because liberalism does support hierarchy. It wants, as Bush Sr put it, a kinder gentler hierarchy but liberalism is ultimately pro-hierarchy and thus right wing by the standard polisci definitions.
posted by sotonohito at 3:08 PM on February 11 [1 favorite]
OK, but can you define what you mean when you say "left" and "right" in the political context? Just a quick little rough sketch, I'm not asking for a detailed thesis or anything. And I'm not trying to trap you or set you up for a gotcha. I'm genuinely asking because I want to understand your point and I don't.
To avoid being coy about it, I'm asking because you're using definitions that don't seem to match either of the two definitions in mainstream usage.
There's the common in informal discussions definition in which there is a sort of nebulous "center" which is somewhere in between the Republicans and the Democrats and left and right are defined relative to that center.
Then there's the political science definitions which say right wing politics is rooted in the belief that hierarchy is some combination of good, necessary, inevitable, or beneficial, and left wing politics is rooted in the belief that hierarchy is some combination of bad, unnecessary, avoidable, and harmful. [1]
Neither seems to match how you are using the terms, since "collectivism" is a really nebulous concept at best (are corporations "collectivist"? you'd think so based on the plain meaning of the word, but they are never counted as collectivist by people who use the term in a political sense) and also even if we could agree on a definition collectivism isn't particularly left or right by any of the definitions I'm familiar with. I could see both right wing and left wing collectivism as being possible. Like authoritarianism, it isn't the domain of either left or right by any of the definitions I know.
[1] This, BTW is where the "liberalism is right wing" statement comes from, because liberalism does support hierarchy. It wants, as Bush Sr put it, a kinder gentler hierarchy but liberalism is ultimately pro-hierarchy and thus right wing by the standard polisci definitions.
posted by sotonohito at 3:08 PM on February 11 [1 favorite]
My preference for levels of individualistic versus collectivist is more sociological than political, and collectivist is generally a society where people are demanded to conform, including dogmatic or religious.
So your original comments about the left being more conservative than Biden is based on an imaginary version of "the left", and a frankly bizarre definition of "conservative".
I am not especially interested in unpacking those ideas, so I'll just ask you to have a good rest of your day.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 3:39 PM on February 11 [1 favorite]
So your original comments about the left being more conservative than Biden is based on an imaginary version of "the left", and a frankly bizarre definition of "conservative".
I am not especially interested in unpacking those ideas, so I'll just ask you to have a good rest of your day.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 3:39 PM on February 11 [1 favorite]
> But, of course, you wouldn't intentionally downplay or deny the ongoing genocide in Gaza to provide that reassurance, right?No, it's more about reaching understanding that there is no option on the ballot better than Biden as far as the genocide is concerned. So even if someone's sole or primary concern come election day is that, their interests are still best served by voting for Biden.
posted by otsebyatina at 4:07 PM on February 11 [1 favorite]
This seems relevant: Israel’s assault on Gaza is exposing the holes in everything liberal politicians claim to believe
Is it working? No. But it will continue. And that’s that. Because the war passes no tests. It’s not consistent with liberal principles, and it’s not even logical in terms of security. The Middle East is the most unstable it has been in decades, and the conflict is making political life increasingly volatile at home, particularly in the US and the UK. Two parties of centrist “grownups” have positioned themselves as alternatives to chaotic and corrupt rightwing competitors in a crucial election year, and are now worried about losing support, and regularly have to fend off the heckles from pro-Palestine protesters.
This strange inability to respond appropriately to Israeli aggression is about more than Gaza. Events there have exposed the flaws in an entire model of politics and the assumptions that underpin it. If liberalism cannot offer a moral and stabilising form of governance, then what is it for? In the midst of such a historically bloody and disruptive conflict, if liberalism shows no ability or desire to protect civilian life, regional security and its own electoral prospects, then its mission-defining claims of principle and competence collapse.
posted by Artw at 5:47 AM on February 12 [8 favorites]
Is it working? No. But it will continue. And that’s that. Because the war passes no tests. It’s not consistent with liberal principles, and it’s not even logical in terms of security. The Middle East is the most unstable it has been in decades, and the conflict is making political life increasingly volatile at home, particularly in the US and the UK. Two parties of centrist “grownups” have positioned themselves as alternatives to chaotic and corrupt rightwing competitors in a crucial election year, and are now worried about losing support, and regularly have to fend off the heckles from pro-Palestine protesters.
This strange inability to respond appropriately to Israeli aggression is about more than Gaza. Events there have exposed the flaws in an entire model of politics and the assumptions that underpin it. If liberalism cannot offer a moral and stabilising form of governance, then what is it for? In the midst of such a historically bloody and disruptive conflict, if liberalism shows no ability or desire to protect civilian life, regional security and its own electoral prospects, then its mission-defining claims of principle and competence collapse.
posted by Artw at 5:47 AM on February 12 [8 favorites]
OK, but can you define what you mean when you say "left" and "right" in the political context?
Yes, left and right in a political context is within a political system, generally meaning liberal versus conservative regarding laws, funding and taxes. This means that any left that excludes liberal from its meaning is suggesting another system, usually hinting at a collectivist project. Because collectivism is total among a population it is also a collectivist sociology, not being a representation political system anymore. Marx is one of the founders of sociology, for those wondering. Any collectivist sociology would be to the right of Biden, because it outlaws liberalism. Not coincidentally, this is how it always played out in recent history: collectivist totalitarianism, because it isn't a politics or system of choice, but a structure of power, no different than the others long term.
posted by Brian B. at 11:06 AM on February 13
Yes, left and right in a political context is within a political system, generally meaning liberal versus conservative regarding laws, funding and taxes. This means that any left that excludes liberal from its meaning is suggesting another system, usually hinting at a collectivist project. Because collectivism is total among a population it is also a collectivist sociology, not being a representation political system anymore. Marx is one of the founders of sociology, for those wondering. Any collectivist sociology would be to the right of Biden, because it outlaws liberalism. Not coincidentally, this is how it always played out in recent history: collectivist totalitarianism, because it isn't a politics or system of choice, but a structure of power, no different than the others long term.
posted by Brian B. at 11:06 AM on February 13
what
curious where, like, most Western countries that aren't the US fit into your taxonomy
like, what? liberalism is the best we can do because anything to the left of it is to the right of it?
posted by sagc at 11:15 AM on February 13
curious where, like, most Western countries that aren't the US fit into your taxonomy
like, what? liberalism is the best we can do because anything to the left of it is to the right of it?
posted by sagc at 11:15 AM on February 13
The discussion around Brian B's comments is political word salad. We won't reach understanding talking past one another.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are words that widely mean different things in political theory vs. practice, and in political practice in different jurisdictions. It's true-ish, as mr B says, that " left and right in a political context is within a political system," but this statement is tautological. Where does a political context occur other than within a political system?
Meanwhilst, "collectivist" is a dog-whistle for Objectivism, the "philosophy of selfishness promulgated by Ayn Rand. I suspect that Objectivists are unable to engage honestly with other political philosophies. I don't think Brian B. is having this problem, just a spot of difficulty making himself understood in a minefield of loaded political language.
On the other hand, I tend to tune out people who use the word "collectivist" in this way. There's no Collectivist Party or common collectivist platform of ideas. "Collectivist" is a slur used by right-wing ideologues against those who use collective action like governmental regulations, strikes or demonstrations.
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 11:30 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
"Liberal" and "conservative" are words that widely mean different things in political theory vs. practice, and in political practice in different jurisdictions. It's true-ish, as mr B says, that " left and right in a political context is within a political system," but this statement is tautological. Where does a political context occur other than within a political system?
Meanwhilst, "collectivist" is a dog-whistle for Objectivism, the "philosophy of selfishness promulgated by Ayn Rand. I suspect that Objectivists are unable to engage honestly with other political philosophies. I don't think Brian B. is having this problem, just a spot of difficulty making himself understood in a minefield of loaded political language.
On the other hand, I tend to tune out people who use the word "collectivist" in this way. There's no Collectivist Party or common collectivist platform of ideas. "Collectivist" is a slur used by right-wing ideologues against those who use collective action like governmental regulations, strikes or demonstrations.
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 11:30 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
curious where, like, most Western countries that aren't the US fit into your taxonomy
We're only addressing Biden's US, where liberalism is both a term for an entire political spectrum and liberal denotes the left portion, not the name of a centrist political party somewhere else. If left is not liberal, it is not in that system. We obviously disagree on whether absolute power dictatorship is conservative in nature.
Meanwhilst, "collectivist" is a dog-whistle for Objectivism, the "philosophy of selfishness promulgated by Ayn Rand.
Do an internet search and most collectivist descriptions are very positive in their selection. So, untrue.
posted by Brian B. at 11:34 AM on February 13
We're only addressing Biden's US, where liberalism is both a term for an entire political spectrum and liberal denotes the left portion, not the name of a centrist political party somewhere else. If left is not liberal, it is not in that system. We obviously disagree on whether absolute power dictatorship is conservative in nature.
Meanwhilst, "collectivist" is a dog-whistle for Objectivism, the "philosophy of selfishness promulgated by Ayn Rand.
Do an internet search and most collectivist descriptions are very positive in their selection. So, untrue.
posted by Brian B. at 11:34 AM on February 13
I should also point out that Ayn Rand considered liberals to be closet collectivists, as a dog whistle to conflate anything not conservative as communist, essentially denying liberals exist. To my liberal surprise, it is used here to dog whistle a liberal as a conservative. No hardcore socialist or communist would be insulted at being called a collectivist. If anyone was offended, I apologize and now celebrate the fact that collectivism is actually a bad word on Metafilter.
posted by Brian B. at 11:52 AM on February 13
posted by Brian B. at 11:52 AM on February 13
OK, so what what rubric do you use to determine if a given issue is "liberal" or "conservative"? Is there a means other than waiting to see which party endorses it?
Take, for example, genetically engineered crops. Is it liberal, or conservative, to oppose them? Why?
How could you define those terms separately, that is without either definition referencing the opposite side.
What, basicaly, when taken in isolation IS liberalism in your view? And conservatism?
And heck, while were at it what do you mean by "collectivism"?
posted by sotonohito at 2:52 PM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Take, for example, genetically engineered crops. Is it liberal, or conservative, to oppose them? Why?
How could you define those terms separately, that is without either definition referencing the opposite side.
What, basicaly, when taken in isolation IS liberalism in your view? And conservatism?
And heck, while were at it what do you mean by "collectivism"?
posted by sotonohito at 2:52 PM on February 13 [1 favorite]
I think they are relative terms, and it's only when they become concrete that problems arise. As for collective, its applied to a culture or society. If one is arrested for blasphemy or speaking against the regime, for example, the implication is that they violated a collective enforced identity or norm, no individual choice allowed.
posted by Brian B. at 3:18 PM on February 13
posted by Brian B. at 3:18 PM on February 13
Because collectivism is total among a population it is also a collectivist sociology, not being a representation political system anymore
Not sure I follow this. Are you saying that there can't be degrees of collectivist versus individualist thought within a party or society? That anyone who might emphasize the common good and the responsibility of citizens to their larger community is automatically some kind of totalitarian?
posted by Reverend John at 4:18 PM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Not sure I follow this. Are you saying that there can't be degrees of collectivist versus individualist thought within a party or society? That anyone who might emphasize the common good and the responsibility of citizens to their larger community is automatically some kind of totalitarian?
posted by Reverend John at 4:18 PM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Brian B.
It is impossible to accurately define your terms because doing so creates unspecified problems? I'm... a bit confused. If you don't even know what the words mean, or what the general outline of the categories are, then how are they useful? And more specifically how are your own non-definitions superior to actual definitions used by political scientists?
Could you expand on the whole collectivist thing? You started talking about the scope of the concept without actually defining what it is.
I'm not trying to be a dick here, but having exact definitions of our terms is essential for meaningful communication. If I said that some politicians and/or policies were flurm, and some were glark but I couldn't actually tell you how to determine which is which, then it would seem that the division is not especially useful.
posted by sotonohito at 4:51 PM on February 13 [1 favorite]
It is impossible to accurately define your terms because doing so creates unspecified problems? I'm... a bit confused. If you don't even know what the words mean, or what the general outline of the categories are, then how are they useful? And more specifically how are your own non-definitions superior to actual definitions used by political scientists?
Could you expand on the whole collectivist thing? You started talking about the scope of the concept without actually defining what it is.
I'm not trying to be a dick here, but having exact definitions of our terms is essential for meaningful communication. If I said that some politicians and/or policies were flurm, and some were glark but I couldn't actually tell you how to determine which is which, then it would seem that the division is not especially useful.
posted by sotonohito at 4:51 PM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Are you saying that there can't be degrees of collectivist versus individualist thought within a party or society?
There are degrees, by humanity's evolution towards individualization, which once existed in our primitive past, but was erased and had to be reestablished though the combination of abstract thought and common sense equality. The notion of collective doesn't really pop up until nations go the reverse direction, regressing into the past. The ancient world was mostly collective though a culture of deified strong-men, as necessary enforcers to the concept. It was what we crawled out from for the last five thousand years. Today we still see collective tendencies to ban opposing political parties, or when religions force convert others. So there seems to be a human tendency to mandate ideals from paper to reality, but it is just human pride, an emotional idealism. This is where it gets interesting, because we invented insurance to cover the odds of catastrophe, and established regulatory agencies, and we subsidize health care, retirement and education. Then the safety nets start to appeal to a utopian vision. This leads to a collectivization of what functioned as a social utility, to prime economic pumps, but not designed to replace an economy. Ironically, the concept of safety regulation usually disappears under total collectivization, since it is deemed extraneous to a perfected and supplied society where individuals matter far less, if at all.
Sotonohito, right and left are relative terms, and maybe liberal and conservative too, but anything more is always interpretation and such theories. Something obscure inside those theories are the notions that authors can't dictate their meaning, and texts take on a life of their own. These texts have become our Frankensteins, quoted long past their debunking because they contain divine or prophetic solutions. The nice thing about democracy is that it addresses all contingencies that arise outside of anyone's imagination. But voting is also voting for our independence every time, not our salvation, and with autonomy comes the demonized burden of self-direction, fraught with both sin and success. This works fine for most, but not everyone, and that's the line we need to draw for collectivization. Anything more is something we fail at because there simply isn't a reason or demand to do it.
posted by Brian B. at 10:47 AM on February 14
There are degrees, by humanity's evolution towards individualization, which once existed in our primitive past, but was erased and had to be reestablished though the combination of abstract thought and common sense equality. The notion of collective doesn't really pop up until nations go the reverse direction, regressing into the past. The ancient world was mostly collective though a culture of deified strong-men, as necessary enforcers to the concept. It was what we crawled out from for the last five thousand years. Today we still see collective tendencies to ban opposing political parties, or when religions force convert others. So there seems to be a human tendency to mandate ideals from paper to reality, but it is just human pride, an emotional idealism. This is where it gets interesting, because we invented insurance to cover the odds of catastrophe, and established regulatory agencies, and we subsidize health care, retirement and education. Then the safety nets start to appeal to a utopian vision. This leads to a collectivization of what functioned as a social utility, to prime economic pumps, but not designed to replace an economy. Ironically, the concept of safety regulation usually disappears under total collectivization, since it is deemed extraneous to a perfected and supplied society where individuals matter far less, if at all.
Sotonohito, right and left are relative terms, and maybe liberal and conservative too, but anything more is always interpretation and such theories. Something obscure inside those theories are the notions that authors can't dictate their meaning, and texts take on a life of their own. These texts have become our Frankensteins, quoted long past their debunking because they contain divine or prophetic solutions. The nice thing about democracy is that it addresses all contingencies that arise outside of anyone's imagination. But voting is also voting for our independence every time, not our salvation, and with autonomy comes the demonized burden of self-direction, fraught with both sin and success. This works fine for most, but not everyone, and that's the line we need to draw for collectivization. Anything more is something we fail at because there simply isn't a reason or demand to do it.
posted by Brian B. at 10:47 AM on February 14
I am trying to presume good intent on your part, so clearly the problem is that I'm not communicating well enough or asking my question the right way.
I am not asking for vague philosophic ramblings.
I am not asking for walls of text with no paragraphs talking about things from outside our imagination.
I am not asking for discussions of the dangers of collectivism.
I am asking just one, very simple, question:
I'm not even asking for a precice, perfect, definition. I'm not here to try to rules lawyer you and try to trick you or play gotcha games.
I just want a simple, one or two sentence, summary of what you mean when you say the word "collectivism".
posted by sotonohito at 3:11 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]
I am not asking for vague philosophic ramblings.
I am not asking for walls of text with no paragraphs talking about things from outside our imagination.
I am not asking for discussions of the dangers of collectivism.
I am asking just one, very simple, question:
What does the word collectivism mean?I hope I've made it clear enough what I'm asking and that my question isn't vague or difficult to comprehend and is confused with a request for talks about utopia.
I'm not even asking for a precice, perfect, definition. I'm not here to try to rules lawyer you and try to trick you or play gotcha games.
I just want a simple, one or two sentence, summary of what you mean when you say the word "collectivism".
posted by sotonohito at 3:11 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]
https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivism
Many have wondered why so many Trump cult followers seem to casually vote against their interests or beliefs, but there it is.
posted by Brian B. at 7:22 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Many have wondered why so many Trump cult followers seem to casually vote against their interests or beliefs, but there it is.
posted by Brian B. at 7:22 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Yes that's what Britannica says. But what do YOU mean? Because you seem to be using it differently. To be honest it seems mostly like you're using the term collectivism to refer to more or less anything you don't like and you're hammering it into places it doesn't really work (such as by describing authoritarian actions as collectivist and with anti-individual motives).
Also, are you arguing that Trumpers vote for him because they've fallen victim to collectivist thinking or because they're voting against evil Democratic collectivism?
You APPEAR to be reinventing horseshoe theory only with collectivism as the dire evil that both far left and far right bend around to rather than authoritarianism which is the traditional horseshoe bs.
However, since you steadfastly refuse to tell me what you mean with that term, let's take a different term:
"right".
What makes any given policy or politician "right wing"? What is the general principle that unites the various people who identify as right wing?
You've rejected the real definition and claimed it will result in unspecified evils.
So what's your definition?
Why, for example, is opposition to abortion a policy on the right instead of the left?
Why, for example, are increased rights and moves for equality for LGBT people a policy in the left rather than a policy on the right?
What factor explains both of those and can be used to extrapolate future issues, or "predict" the past accurately and apply to positions currently identified as left or right?
I'm fairly sure the standard polisci answer is a pretty good rubric for that, but since you reject it tell me your better rubic please.
posted by sotonohito at 1:26 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Also, are you arguing that Trumpers vote for him because they've fallen victim to collectivist thinking or because they're voting against evil Democratic collectivism?
You APPEAR to be reinventing horseshoe theory only with collectivism as the dire evil that both far left and far right bend around to rather than authoritarianism which is the traditional horseshoe bs.
However, since you steadfastly refuse to tell me what you mean with that term, let's take a different term:
"right".
What makes any given policy or politician "right wing"? What is the general principle that unites the various people who identify as right wing?
You've rejected the real definition and claimed it will result in unspecified evils.
So what's your definition?
Why, for example, is opposition to abortion a policy on the right instead of the left?
Why, for example, are increased rights and moves for equality for LGBT people a policy in the left rather than a policy on the right?
What factor explains both of those and can be used to extrapolate future issues, or "predict" the past accurately and apply to positions currently identified as left or right?
I'm fairly sure the standard polisci answer is a pretty good rubric for that, but since you reject it tell me your better rubic please.
posted by sotonohito at 1:26 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Sotonohito, your grilling began after I labeled antipathy to liberalism as a collectivism, and called the latter a historically conservative idea. I defended liberalism itself as the modern political philosophy of individual and equal rights, in line with the encyclopedic definition of liberalism (cautiously noting that "liberal" also refers to an individual who is not conservative inside the political spectrum labeled liberalism). Then came collectivism, the clearly labeled obverse of individualism. My link even mentions fascism and racism as examples, with communism the most extreme form. But I sense we are really debating the correct use of the terms right and left. I don't use those terms concretely as ideologies. I prefer descriptions like collectivism, liberalism, individuality, totalitarian, authoritarian, etc., and of course ideologies by name, not just by hint. Otherwise your questions are pertinent. Can't answer the one about abortion, since much of it was manufactured for political effect, but I sense they are situational to the groups they target. Trump has four family-centered themes in tow: religion, social class, race, and patriotism, with abortion touching all of them. No doubt designed to attack liberalism at one its perceived weak spots, as with crime.
posted by Brian B. at 6:48 PM on February 15
posted by Brian B. at 6:48 PM on February 15
This Saturday just past I listened to NPR's Hidden Brain with Shankar Vedantam's US 2.0: Not at the Dinner Table, a rerun from 2020 which was informative but not exactly a happy listen:
Shankar Vedantam: Some of this is Americans don't want to live next to one another, political partisans that is. They can't bear to talk to one another, and of course they don't want their children marrying people from the other party. You conducted a survey some years ago. When you drill down specifically on the marriage question, what was the hunch you were exploring, and what did you ask?posted by y2karl at 6:06 PM on February 21
Yanna Krupnikov: The way we looked at the marriage question happened during these conversations I'd had with my co-authors John Barry Ryan and Samara Klar. We were talking about this marriage question, that something about it seemed quite unusual to us. You are in a survey, you're being asked whether you want your child to marry somebody from the other party, but that's really all you know about this person. All you know about them is that they are a Republican, or that they are a Democrat. When that's all you know about them, one, you can't really put that person into context. But the other thing you might think about them is essentially, if they're telling me this person's partisanship, that person's partisanship is probably something that's really, really important to them. If I was inviting you to meet one of my friends and we had just a brief moment, and I use that brief moment to tell you, you're going to meet my friend, she likes cats. You might imagine that you're about to meet somebody who's essentially going to talk non-stop about cats, if that's the only thing I shared with you about this person. What if this is what's happening in a survey? What if, when people are asked about this hypothetical in-law, and the only thing they know about this person is that they're a member of the opposing party? What if they're imagining somebody who will literally talk about politics for every dinner from now on as their in-law?
Yanna Krupnikov: What we found is significant differences in people's preferences for the other side. Once people were told that their child's future spouse was actually not really going to talk about politics, their animosity toward the other side quite profoundly decreased.
Shankar Vedantam: In other words, if I was a Republican parent, the thing that I might be most worried about is not that my child is going to marry a Democrat, my child's going to marry a Democrat who's going to talk politics all the time. If I had the reassurance that politics was not going to come up all the time, my feelings about my future Democratic son-in-law or daughter-in-law changed quite profoundly.
Yanna Krupnikov: Exactly. In theory, what people were concerned about is essentially politics coming up in their day-to-day lives. They actually were not as concerned about the opposing partisanship component of it...
Well that's weird. How could you be comfortable with your child marrying someone who is functionally evil?
Whether you consider them evil because you think they're a "groomer" or because they don't believe in bodily autonomy?
Both seem like things you'd be pretty worried about your child being married to. Like, the evil is more important than the talking about it, isn't it?
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:55 PM on February 21 [2 favorites]
Whether you consider them evil because you think they're a "groomer" or because they don't believe in bodily autonomy?
Both seem like things you'd be pretty worried about your child being married to. Like, the evil is more important than the talking about it, isn't it?
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:55 PM on February 21 [2 favorites]
« Older Здорово! ser la leche! macizo! ヤバイ! knorke! | It’s cold enough to freeze your tires square. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by zamboni at 12:02 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]