Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I was thinking throughout that piece that this smugness is hardly confined to the left.



Case in point.

'Twas not a smug post on my part. I inquired of the Squire of Point of Rocks if this article struck a nerve. Base on his reply, he understood the author's points and, it seems, agreed with them.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

This may be reinforcing the article's point, but I've never said I've been above schadenfruede. That Kansas has turned into a streaming pile after going full derp is a reason to be smug. They re-elected Brownback even after the writing was on the wall regarding the impact of his policies; they're getting exactly what they voted for.

Likewise, Trump is the end result of seven years of media bombardment by the Murdoch empire that Obama is a socialist Muslim librul who is ruining the country. Otherwise intelligent people have bought into that line. They created the monster and now they have to deal with it. I'm not going to lie and say I don't get satisfaction that the chickens are coming home to roost.

If that's smugness, so be it. But I also get sick of the "blue collar hero" bullshiat that underlies that article and plenty of others, as though becoming educated and a professional is antithetical to being American. You know why cities get more attention these days? Because America is an urban country. 81% of Americans lived in urban areas in the last census. The frontier was settled decades ago, and machines mean we don't need 50 hired hands on every farm. I'm not going to apologize for getting an Ivy League degree and enjoying city life.

Sure, but you can glory in your life without belittling others. And yes, obviously, the Ted Cruz types will belittle us because that's how they appeal to their troops in the culture wars. I read the author as saying when we do that we weaken our own cause, and that's the bottom line.

I think this has a lot to do with the unwritten rule that mockery works better up than down. Blacks have a raw deal so black comics have a field day with whites, whereas you have to be a spectacularly talented white comic to be funny rather than a a-hole going the other way. Same with women and men, poor and rich. Maybe we've gotten to where country mouse is allowed to make fun of city mouse but if you go the other way you're a bully. I mean if that's true, the good news is: we won.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

'Twas not a smug post on my part. I inquired of the Squire of Point of Rocks if this article struck a nerve. Base on his reply, he understood the author's points and, it seems, agreed with them.

The formal title is "Seigneur."

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

This may be reinforcing the article's point, but I've never said I've been above schadenfruede. That Kansas has turned into a streaming pile after going full derp is a reason to be smug. They re-elected Brownback even after the writing was on the wall regarding the impact of his policies; they're getting exactly what they voted for.

Likewise, Trump is the end result of seven years of media bombardment by the Murdoch empire that Obama is a socialist Muslim librul who is ruining the country. Otherwise intelligent people have bought into that line. They created the monster and now they have to deal with it. I'm not going to lie and say I don't get satisfaction that the chickens are coming home to roost.

If that's smugness, so be it. But I also get sick of the "blue collar hero" bullshiat that underlies that article and plenty of others, as though becoming educated and a professional is antithetical to being American. You know why cities get more attention these days? Because America is an urban country. 81% of Americans lived in urban areas in the last census. The frontier was settled decades ago, and machines mean we don't need 50 hired hands on every farm. I'm not going to apologize for getting an Ivy League degree and enjoying city life.

And I do believe that you're missing some of the point the article. It isn't that liberalism is wrong in its end goals/conclusions on what will make America better, it's about changing the method of how you go about disseminating that point of view. Instead of taking a smug route, take the time to discuss with those lesser beings so you can help them understand. Don't spend time giving each other the wink-and-nod of righteousness, rather try reaching out and re-establishing a rapport with the masses. Most of all, when doing this, there has to be not only sincerity in meeting the end goal, but also intent and empathy. That latter two are where the liberal elites lose the masses, because it's often seen as the elites spouting off just to make themselves feel better about being superior, not a true desire to help.

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

To that end I'd make two deals with Bernie: 1) Fire DWS which benefits everyone but who he has a particular problem with and get somebody more competent in there more to his liking. He's not going to work with her in regards to my 2nd point which is: 2) I'd send Sanders into like 10 congressional districts in states where he ran strong, such as WI or IA or even MI but there's a Gooper in a semi-competitive race and ask him to go all in to turn out young voters to vote for the D. Have him use his network for fundraising as well. IF he manages to flip several of these seats, he just earned himself a lot of chips to cash in at a later date.

The first one is essential. Outside of The Clintonistas no one likes DWS. Bring back Howard Dean his strategy and leadership was awesome and I doubt Bernie has any issues with him. Your second idea is great too...have Bernie out there drumming up support from the Progressives. Use the fact that quite a large percentage like him and his ideas to push forth the Dem agenda country wide.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

And I do believe that you're missing some of the point the article. It isn't that liberalism is wrong in its end goals/conclusions on what will make America better, it's about changing the method of how you go about disseminating that point of view. Instead of taking a smug route, take the time to discuss with those lesser beings so you can help them understand. Don't spend time giving each other the wink-and-nod of righteousness, rather try reaching out and re-establishing a rapport with the masses. Most of all, when doing this, there has to be not only sincerity in meeting the end goal, but also intent and empathy. That latter two are where the liberal elites lose the masses, because it's often seen as the elites spouting off just to make themselves feel better about being superior, not a true desire to help.

Yes, that was what I took from the article.

Everyone is "smug" in that everyone constructs a worldview where they just accidentally turn out to have the most of whatever their particular currency of righteousness (intellect, learning, godliness, salt of the earth common sense, yadda yadda) is. But basically smugness smells worse when it comes from an advantaged group -- rich hipsters' smugness makes people want to bash their faces in, so does the smugness of rich Republicans going a week on food stamps and saying "see, that wasn't so hard..", or the smugness of rich countries telling poor countries "No! Fossil fuels are bad!!!"

We as liberals understand the issue with all those examples, but we're blind to it when we come to our own brand, which has become a highly lucrative portion of the general economy and culture.

Still, it wouldn't be so bad if we weren't trying to do stuff like, you know, win elections and get policies enacted. We are continually frustrated by rural whites voting for massive military budgets, but we never stop to think that the economy we have served up to them gives them exactly one major employer who offers a decent future: the military. Our response to having the advantage of access to comparative economic data which shows that higher marginal tax rates reduce poverty is to spend 1% of our time trying to pass that message along in an effective way to people who don't have the advantage of being able to spend all day researching on the internet, and 99% of our time responding to or thinking up witty memes that makes fun of them for cutting their own throats. And it's a case of, "did I say that out loud?" Used to be you could slag people all you wanted in private (god knows what rich Republicans say about their poor brethren behind closed doors), but now everything is viewable by everyone. The ideal is not to be a tool, but if one must be a tool, at least be circumspect.

That article really cut me hard. I see myself as exactly who he is talking about. It doesn't mean we're worse than the other side -- the Grievance Right earns a comfortable Beltway living ginning up dumb memes that make fun of "New York values" or extoll "Marine Corps Todd" or any amount of equivalent idiocy -- but again, we can only control what we do, and the more they do that the better because they in turn alienate anyone not in their club. In this environment, empathy is the new market inefficiency.

There must be ways to be effective and constructive. It doesn't, as the author points out, mean being less aggressive. In fact it means being moreso in some ways, since mockery is just a safe way of exchanging passwords with like-thinking people without doing any of the hard work of talking to somebody who disagrees with you and who you want to engage seriously with. If you're being insulting they're going to rightfully tell you to f-ck off. But by being respectful while being firm and coherent in your explanations of your reasoning, you make yourself vulnerable -- they'll challenge you too, after all. Plus, it is uncomfortable to trace truths you may have settled on long ago all the way back to first principles, on the fly, to participate in arguments that don't follow a logician's rules but spring from your interlocutor's personal experience. And so often the arguments seem to be confusing and mutually awkward, because if you both shared exactly the same premises and valuations and rhetorical rules you would likely not be of opposing view points.

We see people being lazy on the other side all the time, just mindlessly copy-pasting righty memes from Red State or Hot Air and then disingenuously claiming them as "troubling" or "interesting" or any of the other nonsense words of loaded rhetoric and propaganda. We attack that and we know it's dumb. Why, then, do it ourselves? Be it feels really good.

But it doesn't work, so there's got to be a better way.

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Ted has an interesting web ad. The actors / actresses are very good.

--------------

Regarding the employment of Bernie in an HRC campaign. Will the Clinton campaign be guilty of hubris and think they can win it on their own??

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Honestly, as I read that essay my first thought was we should just make it a "sticky" in Cafe, then discontinue the political threads.

[bronconick]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

This whole essay is brilliant and makes my blood run cold.

Beginning in the middle of the 20th century, the working class, once the core of the coalition, began abandoning the Democratic Party. In 1948, in the immediate wake of the Franklin Roosevelt, 66 percent of manual laborers voted for Democrats, along with 60 percent of farmers. In 1964, it was 55 percent of working-class voters. By 1980, it was 35 percent.

ctrl-f "Southern Strategy" - not found

Stopped reading there.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Honestly, as I read that essay my first thought was we should just make it a "sticky" in Cafe, then discontinue the political threads.

Well, one of two stickies. One could write something similar, though obviously not exactly the same, about the affectations of conservatives.

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Well, one of two stickies. One could write something similar, though obviously not exactly the same, about the affectations of conservatives.

stop it.

this isn't news either. mookie knows he been observing that for a long time. D always tries to tell you they know what's better for you. if anything R is the exact opposite with their policies. R says, "here, keep more of your money and good luck".

[MaizeRage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

if anything R is the exact opposite with their policies. R says, "here, keep more of your money and good luck...".

...in Iraq.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

This whole essay is brilliant and makes my blood run cold.

I can recall as far back as 2000, my mom describing the "oh-so-much-smarter-than-you Democrats". And she's voted Democrat in a majority of the elections held since 1974.

I think there is a distinction to be made this year though. I don't care how "anti-establishment" he comes off as to some folks - to anyone with a brain, Trump is a bald-faced charlatan. I give a pass to the Cruzers, who are presumably voting with their Bibles. At least they're supporting the only semi-honest Republican left in the race.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I can recall as far back as 2000, my mom describing the "oh-so-much-smarter-than-you Democrats". And she's voted Democrat in a majority of the elections held since 1974.

I think there is a distinction to be made this year though. I don't care how "anti-establishment" he comes off as to some folks - to anyone with a brain, Trump is a bald-faced charlatan. I give a pass to the Cruzers, who are presumably voting with their Bibles. At least they're supporting the only semi-honest Republican left in the race.

In a word, liberals are smug, conservatives are sanctimonious. Whichever side can reverse that most effectively will have a better shot at casual voters.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Reagan lost Latinos 40-60.
Dubya lost Latinos 35-65.
Drumpf? Try some piping hot 10-90.