Passing the Baton
March 12, 2017 9:20 AM Subscribe
What saulgoodman said.
The casual dismissal of HRC as "Clinton's wife" is a jarring mis-step, given that they have always been the quintessential complementary power couple—he with the electoral instincts, she the brains of the operation—but the analysis of the illness of the neoliberal DNC is spot on overall.
posted by fifthrider at 10:06 AM on March 12, 2017 [2 favorites]
The casual dismissal of HRC as "Clinton's wife" is a jarring mis-step, given that they have always been the quintessential complementary power couple—he with the electoral instincts, she the brains of the operation—but the analysis of the illness of the neoliberal DNC is spot on overall.
posted by fifthrider at 10:06 AM on March 12, 2017 [2 favorites]
Some of us should have been alerted when Bill Clinton helped deregulate the financial industry as to where the Democratic party was moving in its alliances.
posted by Postroad at 11:18 AM on March 12, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 11:18 AM on March 12, 2017 [6 favorites]
The dismissal of HRC as "Clinton's wife" is pretty much the only thing that you need to read in this article. The fact that neither an editor nor the writer realized the level of casual misogyny that line betrays is exactly why I'd rather a neoliberal DNC than a white male leftist one.
Foreign policy is often also a red herring in these discussions. It's used as an ideological trump card (quite literally) -- anyone who isn't a True Leftist clearly doesn't understand the oppressive scope of American politics! How dare you vote for a Democrat with blood on their hands! (Left unstated is that, when one is in a position of privilege, one always has blood on ones hands. Also left unstated is that the leftist heroine Jill Stein defended Russian atrocities. Murder is fine, so long as we're not the ones who are doing it.)
The article also cherry-picks minority experiences to support its claims. The third of minorities who reported a negative experience with Obamacare aren't the same as the majority of whites who report the same thing. When a racial divide is that great with regards to a policy that has nothing to do with race, that should raise a red flag.
I'm really sick of seeing the left critique everyone else. What I'd rather have is an essay about what the left itself ought to have done. The current situation is a disaster. The two candidates were clearly not "equally bad." Stein's margins in Wisconsin and Michigan could have flipped the two states; the same is effectively true in Pennsylvania. Had she endorsed HRC -- as the libertarian VP candidate effectively did, as virtually every mainstream Republican-leaning paper did -- she might have altered the race. Had the left actually gotten behind HRC instead of relitigating the primaries, that might have altered the race. Hell, had the left done something else, maybe it could have flipped the primaries. But all of these essays pretend it doesn't have power.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 11:54 AM on March 12, 2017 [33 favorites]
Foreign policy is often also a red herring in these discussions. It's used as an ideological trump card (quite literally) -- anyone who isn't a True Leftist clearly doesn't understand the oppressive scope of American politics! How dare you vote for a Democrat with blood on their hands! (Left unstated is that, when one is in a position of privilege, one always has blood on ones hands. Also left unstated is that the leftist heroine Jill Stein defended Russian atrocities. Murder is fine, so long as we're not the ones who are doing it.)
The article also cherry-picks minority experiences to support its claims. The third of minorities who reported a negative experience with Obamacare aren't the same as the majority of whites who report the same thing. When a racial divide is that great with regards to a policy that has nothing to do with race, that should raise a red flag.
I'm really sick of seeing the left critique everyone else. What I'd rather have is an essay about what the left itself ought to have done. The current situation is a disaster. The two candidates were clearly not "equally bad." Stein's margins in Wisconsin and Michigan could have flipped the two states; the same is effectively true in Pennsylvania. Had she endorsed HRC -- as the libertarian VP candidate effectively did, as virtually every mainstream Republican-leaning paper did -- she might have altered the race. Had the left actually gotten behind HRC instead of relitigating the primaries, that might have altered the race. Hell, had the left done something else, maybe it could have flipped the primaries. But all of these essays pretend it doesn't have power.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 11:54 AM on March 12, 2017 [33 favorites]
I'm really sick of seeing the left critique everyone else. What I'd rather have is an essay about what the left itself ought to have done.
A thousand times this. Instead, what we appear doomed to keep getting is a seemingly inexhaustible supply of tiresome no-true-leftist-ing and self-important leftier-than-thou posturing.
posted by dersins at 11:59 AM on March 12, 2017 [20 favorites]
A thousand times this. Instead, what we appear doomed to keep getting is a seemingly inexhaustible supply of tiresome no-true-leftist-ing and self-important leftier-than-thou posturing.
posted by dersins at 11:59 AM on March 12, 2017 [20 favorites]
I'm baffled how Elizabeth Warren would have been more likely to win as President given she wasn't even fucking running. Dear gods, sexism is an incredible drug.
posted by Deoridhe at 12:01 PM on March 12, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by Deoridhe at 12:01 PM on March 12, 2017 [7 favorites]
For he is the first celebrity President—that is, a politician whose very appearance was a sensation, from the earliest days of his quest for the Democratic nomination onwards: to be other than purely white, as well as good-looking and mellifluous, sufficed for that.
It's a minor point, but I think he's pushing a very, very narrow definition of "celebrity" to avoid having Reagan, Kennedy, and hell, even Theodore Roosevelt in some ways in there. Celebrity has been part of getting to the Oval Office for quite a long time.
As a postmortem and analysis it's not a bad piece at all, but like most of the postmortem/analyses I've read coming from the political Left, it's very short on how to actually grow the Left's share of the electorate. There's little to no analysis of Black Lives Matter or Fight For 15, or for that matter the anti-Trump demonstrations of women, scientists, and anti-anti-immigration demonstrators - or perhaps he just considers all these to be too "centrist" and "liberal"? If so, how do you mobilize that anger and convert it to support for whatever it is that his posited "one foot in, one foot out" socialist movement is going to be advocating?
Instead, the main point of the piece (bolstered by a pretty effective takedown of the incipient Obama Administration funerary cult) is the same one we were hearing before the past election, indeed before the 2008 election: remember that the liberals are the true enemy here. Okay, fine. I'm a liberal myself, whose spent his entire adult lifetime hearing Leftists complain about us seducing the American populace away from clean, wholesome socialism with our filthy wiles. Presume that's true. What is the Left going to do about it?
At some point this sort of thing has to translate into a plan, one which doesn't depend upon liberals ('cause we're the real enemy), and that results in a sizable and lasting coalition, presumably including large segments of the population which presently lean conservative or liberal. How do you do that? Economic populism alone didn't suffice, as the 2016 Democratic primary showed, and given that the economy is recovering it doesn't look as though that particular element will become stronger. Even if we do hit another 2008-level crash, the last one brought us the Obama Administration who, as this guy notes, didn't pursue any particularly radical changes at all.
Racism and nativism are apparently powerful enough forces to move sizable elements of the population to support radical challengers to the status quo, but that's not a tool that is either consonant with Leftist values and its readier to hand for Rightist movements anyway. National security has been a Republican lock for decades now and that doesn't look to change.
Alternatively, instead of looking for a backdoor into the hearts and minds of American voters, you could try the front door - i.e. start launching grassroots evangelism. Make the case for socialism (however defined) or egalitarianism or whatever values their new Left Party of America is advocating. That's a long, hard road towards change but its one that conservatives followed to considerable victory over the twenty years or so from Goldwater's defeat to Reagan's victory. It's doable. And you could start with talking to all those radicalized moderate voters who are wearing pussy hats or marching for immigrants' rights. But the sine qua non here is that if the Left wants to become something that can shove all us liberals aside and take command, it needs to have more bodies.
I'm really sick of seeing the left critique everyone else. What I'd rather have is an essay about what the left itself ought to have done.
On preview, steady-state strawberry is far, far more succinct that I am.
posted by AdamCSnider at 12:10 PM on March 12, 2017 [12 favorites]
It's a minor point, but I think he's pushing a very, very narrow definition of "celebrity" to avoid having Reagan, Kennedy, and hell, even Theodore Roosevelt in some ways in there. Celebrity has been part of getting to the Oval Office for quite a long time.
As a postmortem and analysis it's not a bad piece at all, but like most of the postmortem/analyses I've read coming from the political Left, it's very short on how to actually grow the Left's share of the electorate. There's little to no analysis of Black Lives Matter or Fight For 15, or for that matter the anti-Trump demonstrations of women, scientists, and anti-anti-immigration demonstrators - or perhaps he just considers all these to be too "centrist" and "liberal"? If so, how do you mobilize that anger and convert it to support for whatever it is that his posited "one foot in, one foot out" socialist movement is going to be advocating?
Instead, the main point of the piece (bolstered by a pretty effective takedown of the incipient Obama Administration funerary cult) is the same one we were hearing before the past election, indeed before the 2008 election: remember that the liberals are the true enemy here. Okay, fine. I'm a liberal myself, whose spent his entire adult lifetime hearing Leftists complain about us seducing the American populace away from clean, wholesome socialism with our filthy wiles. Presume that's true. What is the Left going to do about it?
At some point this sort of thing has to translate into a plan, one which doesn't depend upon liberals ('cause we're the real enemy), and that results in a sizable and lasting coalition, presumably including large segments of the population which presently lean conservative or liberal. How do you do that? Economic populism alone didn't suffice, as the 2016 Democratic primary showed, and given that the economy is recovering it doesn't look as though that particular element will become stronger. Even if we do hit another 2008-level crash, the last one brought us the Obama Administration who, as this guy notes, didn't pursue any particularly radical changes at all.
Racism and nativism are apparently powerful enough forces to move sizable elements of the population to support radical challengers to the status quo, but that's not a tool that is either consonant with Leftist values and its readier to hand for Rightist movements anyway. National security has been a Republican lock for decades now and that doesn't look to change.
Alternatively, instead of looking for a backdoor into the hearts and minds of American voters, you could try the front door - i.e. start launching grassroots evangelism. Make the case for socialism (however defined) or egalitarianism or whatever values their new Left Party of America is advocating. That's a long, hard road towards change but its one that conservatives followed to considerable victory over the twenty years or so from Goldwater's defeat to Reagan's victory. It's doable. And you could start with talking to all those radicalized moderate voters who are wearing pussy hats or marching for immigrants' rights. But the sine qua non here is that if the Left wants to become something that can shove all us liberals aside and take command, it needs to have more bodies.
I'm really sick of seeing the left critique everyone else. What I'd rather have is an essay about what the left itself ought to have done.
On preview, steady-state strawberry is far, far more succinct that I am.
posted by AdamCSnider at 12:10 PM on March 12, 2017 [12 favorites]
Perry Anderson is not, IMO, the best of the NLR. Also, he's a British historian, so there's a lot omitted - he devotes, like, two lines to racism and doesn't seem aware of the normal patterns of loss of seats and the way the presidency tends to alternate parties. (The swing in legislative seats during Obama's administration was significant but more like "this is a thing that happens every so often" rather than "OMG Obama what a fuck up".)
Also - and I'm actually going to email the NLR about this - he and the entire editorial board don't seem to know that you don't call undocumented people 'illegals'". That is a slur, and I don't give a good goddamn if he's staking out some kind of anti-PC position for ideological reasons or if they're just not familiar with colloquial US English.
I mean, it's a piece where there's a lot to agree with - Obama's foreign policy was pretty demoralizing although not out of line with other US presidents, for instance. And I think the idea that Obama was kind of a celebrity president and therefore made cultural space for Trump as nothing but a celebrity president is interesting, although I feel like it discounts, like, the whole internet in order to blame Obama personally.
Which is one of the things that I find puzzling about a lot of analysis of the presidency on all sides. Many years ago, when I was chewing through Noam Chomsky's books and finding them rather slow going, I remember reading about his idea of "filters" - that because of the nature of capitalism, you will never, ever get a president who is fundamentally to the left of big capital. It can never happen, because the entirity of the political process filters out people whose ideas are not compatible with big donors and other politicians long before they become competitive presidential candidates. If it does happen, you'll get an Allende - a radical reformer with strong ties to the elites - and he'll go the Allende route down into the grave. Radical change doesn't happen because you, like, elect this one guy and then the guy does stuff.
I mean, whatever, Obama was about as left of center a president as the historical moment allowed; this says far more about the historical moment than about Obama.
posted by Frowner at 12:20 PM on March 12, 2017 [16 favorites]
Also - and I'm actually going to email the NLR about this - he and the entire editorial board don't seem to know that you don't call undocumented people 'illegals'". That is a slur, and I don't give a good goddamn if he's staking out some kind of anti-PC position for ideological reasons or if they're just not familiar with colloquial US English.
I mean, it's a piece where there's a lot to agree with - Obama's foreign policy was pretty demoralizing although not out of line with other US presidents, for instance. And I think the idea that Obama was kind of a celebrity president and therefore made cultural space for Trump as nothing but a celebrity president is interesting, although I feel like it discounts, like, the whole internet in order to blame Obama personally.
Which is one of the things that I find puzzling about a lot of analysis of the presidency on all sides. Many years ago, when I was chewing through Noam Chomsky's books and finding them rather slow going, I remember reading about his idea of "filters" - that because of the nature of capitalism, you will never, ever get a president who is fundamentally to the left of big capital. It can never happen, because the entirity of the political process filters out people whose ideas are not compatible with big donors and other politicians long before they become competitive presidential candidates. If it does happen, you'll get an Allende - a radical reformer with strong ties to the elites - and he'll go the Allende route down into the grave. Radical change doesn't happen because you, like, elect this one guy and then the guy does stuff.
I mean, whatever, Obama was about as left of center a president as the historical moment allowed; this says far more about the historical moment than about Obama.
posted by Frowner at 12:20 PM on March 12, 2017 [16 favorites]
I'm baffled how Elizabeth Warren would have been more likely to win as President given she wasn't even fucking running.
The article suggested Biden as another candidate who would have won. He wasn't running either. But what about Martin O'Malley? I think he would have won.
I've heard Democrats lament the right's choice of candidates in the primaries, wishing that moderates like Huntsman and Kasich got more attention. I think the left has the same problem, ignoring electable moderates in favor of exciting long shots.
posted by foobaz at 12:58 PM on March 12, 2017 [2 favorites]
The article suggested Biden as another candidate who would have won. He wasn't running either. But what about Martin O'Malley? I think he would have won.
I've heard Democrats lament the right's choice of candidates in the primaries, wishing that moderates like Huntsman and Kasich got more attention. I think the left has the same problem, ignoring electable moderates in favor of exciting long shots.
posted by foobaz at 12:58 PM on March 12, 2017 [2 favorites]
I'm baffled how Elizabeth Warren would have been more likely to win as President given she wasn't even fucking running. Dear gods, sexism is an incredible drug.
I don't understand how those two sentences relate to each other. Isn't the author postulating a counterfactual 'would have been more likely to win' that includes a necessary precondition ('if she'd been running')?
And how is it sexism to say one woman would have been more likely to win, presumably because of better populist bona fides and less ancient ingrained Clinton-hatred?
Sorry if I'm being dumb.
posted by Sebmojo at 1:34 PM on March 12, 2017 [4 favorites]
I don't understand how those two sentences relate to each other. Isn't the author postulating a counterfactual 'would have been more likely to win' that includes a necessary precondition ('if she'd been running')?
And how is it sexism to say one woman would have been more likely to win, presumably because of better populist bona fides and less ancient ingrained Clinton-hatred?
Sorry if I'm being dumb.
posted by Sebmojo at 1:34 PM on March 12, 2017 [4 favorites]
FTA:
Racially, was there any significant improvement in conditions of Afro-American life? Certainly not in treatment by the police: black riots in response to shootings marked Obama’s tenure, not his predecessor’s.
It was he who made Clinton’s wife his Secretary of State...The notoriously damaged and unpopular second Clinton was his choice, foisted on primary voters reluctant from the beginning to accept her, and shielded by his Department of Justice from the penal consequences visited on the humblest of leakers in his Administration, unlike her acting for public-spirited reasons, not arrogant personal privilege.
Hopes that Obama would bring transformation with any ounce of audacity were always illusory.
(emphasis mine)
I see.
So, okay. I am, admittedly, cranky today. But I am really done with these supposedly thinky critiques from the left of What Went Wrong (TM) that somehow never explicitly mention--let alone truly engage with--white supremacy and misogyny. It's so much part of the background radiation these days that I've given up even hoping that someone might factor heteropatriarchy, toxic Christianity, or antisemitism into their analyses, either. And I guess never mind about the complete dereliction of duty exhibited by the US press/media.
Yes, there are some interesting observations buried in that wall-o-text (e.g. ‘the Obama era feels increasingly like the last days of a now moribund centrism’).
But the smug, faux objectivity stinks like old fish.
posted by skye.dancer at 2:15 PM on March 12, 2017 [13 favorites]
Racially, was there any significant improvement in conditions of Afro-American life? Certainly not in treatment by the police: black riots in response to shootings marked Obama’s tenure, not his predecessor’s.
It was he who made Clinton’s wife his Secretary of State...The notoriously damaged and unpopular second Clinton was his choice, foisted on primary voters reluctant from the beginning to accept her, and shielded by his Department of Justice from the penal consequences visited on the humblest of leakers in his Administration, unlike her acting for public-spirited reasons, not arrogant personal privilege.
Hopes that Obama would bring transformation with any ounce of audacity were always illusory.
(emphasis mine)
I see.
So, okay. I am, admittedly, cranky today. But I am really done with these supposedly thinky critiques from the left of What Went Wrong (TM) that somehow never explicitly mention--let alone truly engage with--white supremacy and misogyny. It's so much part of the background radiation these days that I've given up even hoping that someone might factor heteropatriarchy, toxic Christianity, or antisemitism into their analyses, either. And I guess never mind about the complete dereliction of duty exhibited by the US press/media.
Yes, there are some interesting observations buried in that wall-o-text (e.g. ‘the Obama era feels increasingly like the last days of a now moribund centrism’).
But the smug, faux objectivity stinks like old fish.
posted by skye.dancer at 2:15 PM on March 12, 2017 [13 favorites]
Any smart analysis of the election underplays racism and misogyny because they weren't important in the outcome. A subset of the populace, well represented in the media (and MeFi) is obsessed with race and gender and was so triggered by Trump that they can't help but think it was important, but that doesn't make it so. Republicans voted Republican. Democrats voted Democrat. A small number of people who voted for Obama in 2012 didn't vote in 2016, and a small number who didn't vote in 2012 came out to vote for Trump, due to the disillusion and hope inversion you get every time a party is seeking its third turn in the White House, and it happened that number was heavily concentrated in exurban counties in FL, MI, WI and PA ... and there's the election.
posted by MattD at 3:30 PM on March 12, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by MattD at 3:30 PM on March 12, 2017 [2 favorites]
I will say that his throw-away point that Kasich or Rubio would have been Clinton by more than Trump is absolutely without any basis.
posted by MattD at 3:33 PM on March 12, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by MattD at 3:33 PM on March 12, 2017 [1 favorite]
Any smart analysis of the election underplays racism and misogyny because they weren't important in the outcome.
Men are 58 for 58 in presidential elections. White people are 57.5 for 58. An otherwise spectacularly unqualified white guy just beat a woman with a longer and more varied resume than 90 percent of presidents. But I'm sure you're right about racism and misogyny not being factors. After all, you can't help but think they're not, and that makes it so.
posted by Etrigan at 3:37 PM on March 12, 2017 [17 favorites]
Men are 58 for 58 in presidential elections. White people are 57.5 for 58. An otherwise spectacularly unqualified white guy just beat a woman with a longer and more varied resume than 90 percent of presidents. But I'm sure you're right about racism and misogyny not being factors. After all, you can't help but think they're not, and that makes it so.
posted by Etrigan at 3:37 PM on March 12, 2017 [17 favorites]
Etrigan, no one votes on resume. People voted for (or against) Trump for all the reasons they usually for or against a Republican (guns, Supreme Court, taxes, jobs, health care, immigration, coal, etc.) and the people who voted for Trump are getting exactly what they wanted, and would have gotten none of what they wanted voting for any Democrat regardless of race or gender.
You -- and to be fair many people, and maybe the critical decision makers in Clinton campaigned -- believe(d) that there was something so particularly defective about Trump's rhetoric or particularly appealing about Clinton's resume that would cause people who wanted Trump's policies to somehow vote for Clinton anyway. It was never reasonable to expect that, and the thing that was unreasonable to expect to happen did not, in fact, happen.
posted by MattD at 3:46 PM on March 12, 2017
You -- and to be fair many people, and maybe the critical decision makers in Clinton campaigned -- believe(d) that there was something so particularly defective about Trump's rhetoric or particularly appealing about Clinton's resume that would cause people who wanted Trump's policies to somehow vote for Clinton anyway. It was never reasonable to expect that, and the thing that was unreasonable to expect to happen did not, in fact, happen.
posted by MattD at 3:46 PM on March 12, 2017
I guess the conspicuousness of #NeverTrump Republicans like Romney, the Bushes, and the National Review Corner crew may have contributed to that misapprehension, although even then it wasn't so much vote for Clinton as it was throw away your vote on a third party candidate.
posted by MattD at 3:50 PM on March 12, 2017
posted by MattD at 3:50 PM on March 12, 2017
People voted for (or against) Trump for all the reasons they usually for or against a Republican (guns, Supreme Court, taxes, jobs, health care, immigration, coal, etc.) and the people who voted for Trump are getting exactly what they wanted, and would have gotten none of what they wanted voting for any Democrat regardless of race or gender.
This is shaping up to be a pointless derail (particularly since it has nothing to do with the TFA), but I will point out that, if you think things are that simple, you have read nothing since the election.
Without the Comey letter, Clinton would have won in a landslide. We'd probably also have a tied or Democratic Senate. Had any mainstream newspaper actually focused on the dossier or on any of the Russian connections, Clinton would have won.
People might vote for or against Trump for various reasons, but they can also choose to not vote. And people choosing not to vote after the Comey letter is something we have pretty clear evidence of.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 3:59 PM on March 12, 2017 [10 favorites]
This is shaping up to be a pointless derail (particularly since it has nothing to do with the TFA), but I will point out that, if you think things are that simple, you have read nothing since the election.
Without the Comey letter, Clinton would have won in a landslide. We'd probably also have a tied or Democratic Senate. Had any mainstream newspaper actually focused on the dossier or on any of the Russian connections, Clinton would have won.
People might vote for or against Trump for various reasons, but they can also choose to not vote. And people choosing not to vote after the Comey letter is something we have pretty clear evidence of.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 3:59 PM on March 12, 2017 [10 favorites]
There is a persistent thread in the 'what if' discussions that assumes that Trump only won due to the weaknesses of his opponents, that a high-quality Republican primary field would have taken him apart, that a candidate without Clinton's weaknesses would have beaten him easily. This is reinforced by Trump's idiosyncrasies - the racist/sexist comments, the picking of stupid Twitter fights, etc. But, despite all that, Trump won.
In 2015 the Republican primary was supposed to be loaded with talent - the smarter of the Bush brothers, a conservative darling in Rubio, Kasich, Walker... and yet they all folded. Clinton was also viewed as a powerful candidate - she had weight of history as the first female candidate with a genuine shot at winning, an excellent CV, and the full support of the establishment Democratic party... and yet she lost. Not by much, admittedly, but she lost.
How about we employ Occam's Razor and try an alternative hypothesis: Despite appearances, Donald Trump is pretty good at politics.
He has his personal weaknesses, sure, but he's able to offset them by being highly effective negative campaigner. Any shot that gets fired his way, he shrugs off and returns with interest. That works despite the accusations against him being broadly true and his own accusations being pretty much fictional, partly because people tend to believe their own 'side' and partly because the media has trouble saying 'X is probably true but Y is bollocks' without getting accused of bias.
posted by Urtylug at 4:10 PM on March 12, 2017 [4 favorites]
In 2015 the Republican primary was supposed to be loaded with talent - the smarter of the Bush brothers, a conservative darling in Rubio, Kasich, Walker... and yet they all folded. Clinton was also viewed as a powerful candidate - she had weight of history as the first female candidate with a genuine shot at winning, an excellent CV, and the full support of the establishment Democratic party... and yet she lost. Not by much, admittedly, but she lost.
How about we employ Occam's Razor and try an alternative hypothesis: Despite appearances, Donald Trump is pretty good at politics.
He has his personal weaknesses, sure, but he's able to offset them by being highly effective negative campaigner. Any shot that gets fired his way, he shrugs off and returns with interest. That works despite the accusations against him being broadly true and his own accusations being pretty much fictional, partly because people tend to believe their own 'side' and partly because the media has trouble saying 'X is probably true but Y is bollocks' without getting accused of bias.
posted by Urtylug at 4:10 PM on March 12, 2017 [4 favorites]
Any smart analysis of the election underplays racism and misogyny because they weren't important in the outcome.
Available data [pdf] appear to indicate that this is utter nonsense.
posted by dersins at 4:48 PM on March 12, 2017 [8 favorites]
Available data [pdf] appear to indicate that this is utter nonsense.
posted by dersins at 4:48 PM on March 12, 2017 [8 favorites]
Any smart analysis of the election underplays racism and misogyny because they weren't important in the outcome.
I am genuinely baffled by this statement. I don't see how the fact of racism, misogyny can just be held as constants or hand waved out of the analysis when people’s voting behavior known to be influenced by them. When over and over again for the past 8+ years we’ve seen evidence of that.
A subset of the populace, well represented in the media (and MeFi) is obsessed with race and gender and was so triggered by Trump that they can't help but think it was important, but that doesn't make it so.
So queer people, people of color, practitioners of minority religions are just imagining the spate of bomb threats, hate crimes, and hate speech both before and after the election? The heil Trump salutes at campaign rallies were just ironic? The full-on distributed denial of service attack by the Republicans on US democracy for 8 years over birth certificates and healthcare was just politics, whatevs?
Okay.
Also, when we live in a world in which this is true: Racism-induced stress linked with high black infant mortality rates, I find it rather condescending for you to imply that those of us who are hurt by this crap are merely “obsessed with race and gender”.
People voted for (or against) Trump for all the reasons they usually for or against a Republican (guns, Supreme Court, taxes, jobs, health care, immigration, coal, etc.)
Yes. And (among other things) I am saying that not explicitly calling out the roots of those reasons (e.g. all the embedded dog whistles) is bad analysis and sloppy scholarship and I’m really bored of reading it.
No matter how erudite it sounds, it’s stale. I want more and better insightful analysis that actually engages with how We The People Of the United States have let our undealt-with toxic sludge of genocide, slavery, greed, and religious bigotry hijack our forebrains, our government, our foreign policy--and how we can fix it.
What would reconciliation look like for the US? I don’t know. But I’d like some of these deep thinkers like Anderson who have been steeped in the scholarship for decades to take a damned crack at it.
posted by skye.dancer at 4:51 PM on March 12, 2017 [9 favorites]
I am genuinely baffled by this statement. I don't see how the fact of racism, misogyny can just be held as constants or hand waved out of the analysis when people’s voting behavior known to be influenced by them. When over and over again for the past 8+ years we’ve seen evidence of that.
A subset of the populace, well represented in the media (and MeFi) is obsessed with race and gender and was so triggered by Trump that they can't help but think it was important, but that doesn't make it so.
So queer people, people of color, practitioners of minority religions are just imagining the spate of bomb threats, hate crimes, and hate speech both before and after the election? The heil Trump salutes at campaign rallies were just ironic? The full-on distributed denial of service attack by the Republicans on US democracy for 8 years over birth certificates and healthcare was just politics, whatevs?
Okay.
Also, when we live in a world in which this is true: Racism-induced stress linked with high black infant mortality rates, I find it rather condescending for you to imply that those of us who are hurt by this crap are merely “obsessed with race and gender”.
People voted for (or against) Trump for all the reasons they usually for or against a Republican (guns, Supreme Court, taxes, jobs, health care, immigration, coal, etc.)
Yes. And (among other things) I am saying that not explicitly calling out the roots of those reasons (e.g. all the embedded dog whistles) is bad analysis and sloppy scholarship and I’m really bored of reading it.
No matter how erudite it sounds, it’s stale. I want more and better insightful analysis that actually engages with how We The People Of the United States have let our undealt-with toxic sludge of genocide, slavery, greed, and religious bigotry hijack our forebrains, our government, our foreign policy--and how we can fix it.
What would reconciliation look like for the US? I don’t know. But I’d like some of these deep thinkers like Anderson who have been steeped in the scholarship for decades to take a damned crack at it.
posted by skye.dancer at 4:51 PM on March 12, 2017 [9 favorites]
How about we employ Occam's Razor and try an alternative hypothesis: Despite appearances, Donald Trump is pretty good at politics.
Everybody but the tiny vocal racist misogynist minority who supported him were completely stunned Trump won, on both sides. There's credible evidence a hostile foreign intelligence service with an anti US and anti democratic agenda, the most experienced propaganda machine in the world, and sophisticated hacking capabilities went all out to give the election to Trump to make us doubtful about the effectiveness of democracy as a political system and more willing to embrace authoritarianism.
We also know from previous election scandals and the lack of any deep reforms to our election processes or computer elections systems since, that many of our election systems are hackable. Trump won with a very precisely targeted technical win, on small margins, in a small number of systemically important districts in a small number of swing states. The very precision of the win is suspect.
If Russia's whole mission was to undermine faith in democracy, what better way than to rig the election to put in the guy a clear majority didn't really want?
I still think my Occam's razor delivers a much smoother shave here.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:58 PM on March 12, 2017 [5 favorites]
Everybody but the tiny vocal racist misogynist minority who supported him were completely stunned Trump won, on both sides. There's credible evidence a hostile foreign intelligence service with an anti US and anti democratic agenda, the most experienced propaganda machine in the world, and sophisticated hacking capabilities went all out to give the election to Trump to make us doubtful about the effectiveness of democracy as a political system and more willing to embrace authoritarianism.
We also know from previous election scandals and the lack of any deep reforms to our election processes or computer elections systems since, that many of our election systems are hackable. Trump won with a very precisely targeted technical win, on small margins, in a small number of systemically important districts in a small number of swing states. The very precision of the win is suspect.
If Russia's whole mission was to undermine faith in democracy, what better way than to rig the election to put in the guy a clear majority didn't really want?
I still think my Occam's razor delivers a much smoother shave here.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:58 PM on March 12, 2017 [5 favorites]
Everybody but the tiny vocal racist misogynist minority who supported him were completely stunned Trump won, on both sides.
Fivethirtyeight's final pre-election prediction of the EC winner suggested a 71.4% chance of Clinton winning and a 28.6% chance of Trump winning. Trump was never the favourite, but he was a close enough outsider that, based on the numbers, his win should not have been a huge shock.
posted by Urtylug at 5:34 PM on March 12, 2017 [4 favorites]
Fivethirtyeight's final pre-election prediction of the EC winner suggested a 71.4% chance of Clinton winning and a 28.6% chance of Trump winning. Trump was never the favourite, but he was a close enough outsider that, based on the numbers, his win should not have been a huge shock.
posted by Urtylug at 5:34 PM on March 12, 2017 [4 favorites]
And how is it sexism to say one woman would have been more likely to win, presumably because of better populist bona fides and less ancient ingrained Clinton-hatred?
It's very easy to postulate support for someone who was not running and vocally said she would not be running.
Much harder to support actual candidates.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:11 PM on March 12, 2017 [5 favorites]
It's very easy to postulate support for someone who was not running and vocally said she would not be running.
Much harder to support actual candidates.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:11 PM on March 12, 2017 [5 favorites]
Despite appearances, Donald Trump is pretty good at politics.
He is pretty good at leveraging media and putting on a "show". I put that in quotes because for me, "show" means two things: (1) Making a narrative that's entertaining to some and/or dramatic to others. (2) I also think "show" in the sense that's all there is. It's only about the facade and a preservation of self-image, and everything else is secondary.
So yes, those are political skills, but I don't know if I'd say he's good at politics as a whole. He's trying to learn, but I'm thinking (2) is starting to come out more and more.
posted by FJT at 9:26 PM on March 12, 2017
He is pretty good at leveraging media and putting on a "show". I put that in quotes because for me, "show" means two things: (1) Making a narrative that's entertaining to some and/or dramatic to others. (2) I also think "show" in the sense that's all there is. It's only about the facade and a preservation of self-image, and everything else is secondary.
So yes, those are political skills, but I don't know if I'd say he's good at politics as a whole. He's trying to learn, but I'm thinking (2) is starting to come out more and more.
posted by FJT at 9:26 PM on March 12, 2017
I personally find the constant name-calling and evident disgust of some thinkers of The Left towards Democrats in general and HRC and Obama in particular rather irritating, even if I have sympathy for the policy positions those critiques represent.
They have little sense of context, so while Obama is slammed for his compromises in getting the ACA enacted, they don't enlighten us as to the Left magic that would have made Max Baucus (among other Senators of course) become a champion of single payer, or the public option. The ACA was passed because it was the most progressive thing that could pass. And while it may be flawed, it brought coverage to millions and saved many lives (my own likely among them).
Somehow this guy manages to blame Obama for African American "riots" in reaction to police shootings? I don't get how he's at fault for the police shootings that were reacted to with protest, and, rarely, violence. How does this work in a federal system? If anything, the Justice Department was quite active in investigating police abuse (and caught an enormous amount of flack for it).
Call me naïve, I probably am, but can these Important Voices of The Left recognize that many of us in the party are allies of the non-capitalized left variety?
Or am I missing the point of "objective" scoldings austerely separated out into numbered sections?
posted by lackutrol at 12:24 AM on March 13, 2017 [10 favorites]
They have little sense of context, so while Obama is slammed for his compromises in getting the ACA enacted, they don't enlighten us as to the Left magic that would have made Max Baucus (among other Senators of course) become a champion of single payer, or the public option. The ACA was passed because it was the most progressive thing that could pass. And while it may be flawed, it brought coverage to millions and saved many lives (my own likely among them).
Somehow this guy manages to blame Obama for African American "riots" in reaction to police shootings? I don't get how he's at fault for the police shootings that were reacted to with protest, and, rarely, violence. How does this work in a federal system? If anything, the Justice Department was quite active in investigating police abuse (and caught an enormous amount of flack for it).
Call me naïve, I probably am, but can these Important Voices of The Left recognize that many of us in the party are allies of the non-capitalized left variety?
Or am I missing the point of "objective" scoldings austerely separated out into numbered sections?
posted by lackutrol at 12:24 AM on March 13, 2017 [10 favorites]
a seemingly inexhaustible supply of tiresome no-true-leftist-ing and self-important leftier-than-thou posturing.
Metaf--
ah, fuck it, mostly it's not that bad.
posted by Sebmojo at 12:32 AM on March 13, 2017
Metaf--
ah, fuck it, mostly it's not that bad.
posted by Sebmojo at 12:32 AM on March 13, 2017
Elizabeth Warren's popularity is trumpeted until she runs for office, at which point her popularity drops to Hillary-Clinton-running-for-office levels. She's also said, repeatedly, she's not running for President. She keeps being asked despite being more effective in Congress where she doesn't have to be bipartisan.
Clinton is popular until she runs for office, then becomes massively unpopular, then becomes popular again. Look up the graphs; this isn't news. The second she's seeking power - people hate her. The second she has power - people love her. It's sickening.
It's also sexist. As is the whole "This woman who said she doesn't want to run for president / says she dislikes politics should run because she'd totally win!!!" No, she wouldn't "TOTALLY WIN!!!!" She'd likely be insulted, slimed, blamed for things she did which were milder than her male equivalents, then blamed for being blamed for it.
Every single one of these post-mortems ignore the effects of sexism and the racist backlash that grew under Obama, as near as I can tell because people don't want to confront how racist and sexist the left continues to be. Racism and sexism elected Trump. Racism, sexism, and transphobia are making him popular with his core base and not driving away the rest of his base. Ableism is used to excuse his behavior by the left. The whole dynamic makes me physically ill.
posted by Deoridhe at 12:20 PM on March 14, 2017 [3 favorites]
Clinton is popular until she runs for office, then becomes massively unpopular, then becomes popular again. Look up the graphs; this isn't news. The second she's seeking power - people hate her. The second she has power - people love her. It's sickening.
It's also sexist. As is the whole "This woman who said she doesn't want to run for president / says she dislikes politics should run because she'd totally win!!!" No, she wouldn't "TOTALLY WIN!!!!" She'd likely be insulted, slimed, blamed for things she did which were milder than her male equivalents, then blamed for being blamed for it.
Every single one of these post-mortems ignore the effects of sexism and the racist backlash that grew under Obama, as near as I can tell because people don't want to confront how racist and sexist the left continues to be. Racism and sexism elected Trump. Racism, sexism, and transphobia are making him popular with his core base and not driving away the rest of his base. Ableism is used to excuse his behavior by the left. The whole dynamic makes me physically ill.
posted by Deoridhe at 12:20 PM on March 14, 2017 [3 favorites]
« Older Spring forward, bike safely | Building The Sound They Would Have To Later Chop... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also, this analysis asserts a lot of dubious and unsupported opinions and interpretations as statements of fact for building its narrative connections. But there are so many such claims you could spend decades picking them apart without getting anywhere useful.
There's some useful analysis here. I think the critique of Clinton's campaign would be dead on even if we don't ever bother trying to rule out small scale result manipulation at the polls to give Trump the precise electoral successes he needed to win without getting even close to a majority of votes.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:40 AM on March 12, 2017 [8 favorites]