|
I feel the need to point out that the idea of people falling on an ideological spectrum, while occasionally useful, is utter bullshit. Liberalism isn't the halfwaypoint between Nationalism and Communism. It's an independent set of class values, in this case those shared by the professional classes (Middle management, doctors, coders, etc). This is why conservatives want to keep the government out of their medicare. Looked at as an ideological stance it makes no sense. However when you look at where in society the people making these statements sit suddenly their positions make all the sense in the world. This is important to understand because people don't actually vote based on ideas but on who they think represents their tribe. And once you understand that the true stupidity of neoliberal triangulation as a campaign strategy becomes clear. Yes, you can obtain short term gains by quietly switching allegiance from one tribe to another while pretending to represent both. However in the long run this is self-defeating because you can't represent two tribes with opposing values forever. Eventually the side you've abandoned will realize you're working against them and abandon you forever. Which is exactly what happened to Clinton. Now, let's look at this question with this in mind: Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I think we all agree on that, the question is how to help them do that. Getting people to change political allegiances is incredibly difficult because, again, it's not really about the ideas themselves but how a movement helps a voter's tribe. For this reason a lot of neoliberals would probably go Republican if the Bernie Sanders wing took over because right now the Democrats are basically the party of the top %30, and that tribe is much closer to the top %1 than the tribes at the bottom %60. Fortunately this logic works both ways, which means progressives can win over Republicans by showing how a progressive agenda would help them. Don't think in terms of changing people's minds because you won't. Instead think of showing people how they and their communities would directly benefit. Talk about how Medicare for all would mean never dealing with an insurance company again or how a public ownership of a company could force it to stay local. You'll get some hemming and hawing about hippies and communists but at the end of the day a lot would support you because they'd understand on an instinctual level that you're on their side. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Jan 21, 2017 |
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:So the question is, are liberals going to acknowledge class or not? Considering that party leaders are literally paid not to do this I kind of doubt it. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:This isn't true though. Democrats consistently win the lower-income voting blocs (though their voting power is diminished because of mass disenfranchisement). While true I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Democrats currently represent the interests of poor. Yes, they certainly do a lot in the name of the poor, but when it comes to actually doing stuff their solutions are often really just roundabout ways to help the professional class. For example Hillary was big on microloans as a way to combat poverty overseas. Not only did this not work (it actually made people worse off) it also funneled a lot of money into the hands of the banks that held those loans. The liberal obsession with innovation is another great example. Yes, self driving cars are neat and will probably be a good thing long term but right now they threaten to put thousands out of work. The liberal answer to this? Education! Which probably makes sense to them considering they come from backgrounds where education did real good in their lives. However here once again we see a liberal bias against the poor at work. Education is all well and good but degrees don't actually create jobs or raise wages. If anything they can lower wages if a field becomes over-saturated. Hell, even their education solutions are biassed towards the professional class. HRC's grand idea was to let people with certain degrees tweak their interest rates. It was only when Bernie Sanders started talking about free college that actually forgiving student loans was even considered. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Trump's core voters made above the median income. They were mostly upper-middle income earners in suburbs and exurbs. Sort of. He's popular among the shrinking middle class. People who have stuff and are watching it slowly get taken away. These people may appear well off on paper but often they have more in common with the poor than with people in Silicon Valley. Again, I see no reason we can't sell this crowd on "Medicare for all" or "public ownership of companies" as a way of getting the boot off their necks. If they think you're sincerely trying to help them rather than just pander I think a surprising number would switch sides.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Really? I haven't ever studied it in-depth but all the stupid pop-summaries I read were fairly positive. Can you throw a paper or something at me? I'm going off of the book Listen Liberal by Thomas Frank. If I have time later I'll try to find something on the actual study he referenced since I'd like to see the details myself.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 23:32
|
|