|
Another piece of it is that liberal trends, both culturally and politically, are driven from the media and personalities coming out of the major cities (mostly New York), meaning you have a group of influencers who have likely grown up upper or upper-middle class and urban, and who have been trained to look down on poor rural communities as hicks through decades of classism, media stereotypes, and insider Democrat groupthink. They themselves are a dangerously small group with immense power to alter the narrative, which is how you end up with insanity like Hamilton being the most important cultural moment of the year (that almost nobody has been able to actually see) and Lena Dunham being thought of as a valuable surrogate with a wide fanbase -- poo poo that could only come from the most insulated people with no sense for the outside world at all. While a big part of it is denying responsibility for the Democrats (and Queen Hillary's) inability to appeal to voters, it's also this sense of betrayal. I feel like a lot of liberals earnestly don't understand how people could look at Hillary and not like her, or how they could look at the Democratic platform and be against it. It's very much a "if you don't like us, then gently caress you" attitude. As much of a role as misogyny and racism did actually play in the election, they will chock it all up to that, call Trump's victory inevitable, and use that as an excuse to write off every single person who voted for him as unforgivable bigots instead of people with actual complex opinions and struggles. TrixRabbi fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Mar 22, 2017 |
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
I think it's also important to look at the other side and recognize that part of the reason these rural communities flock to the Republicans is that, not only have the Democrats given them barely anything in the last 50 years to get excited about and that Dems can point to as proof of their benevolence, but the right-wing media are drat masters at manipulation, spin, and scapegoating. With their own complete lack of morals, outlets like Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Infowars, they're not afraid to lie and scheme and carefully brainwash through an influx of dopamine and outrage to get what they want. The problem is that while liberals have rightfully complained about these groups for decades, they've done next to nothing to effectively counter it. Effectively countering it would be to appeal to that base whether they vote for them or not by creating strong social programs that help them, that they can then take credit for. Obamacare, even if it helped, was complicated, involved fluctuating premiums and insurance options, and was easily spun by Republicans as a death sentence for the poor - whether that was true or not. Whereas something like single-payer is simple, direct, and once people have it they would never let the government take it from them. But liberals aren't about socialized programs, they're about these complex monetized programs that ultimately are designed to make the insurance companies money and do nothing to target the pharmaceutical industry. Then when voters don't understand the programs, it's the people's fault for not kissing the heel of the great Democratic saviors. If Democrats want to effectively counter right-wing propaganda, it's through action, not through "epic takedowns" and "eviscerations" from the John Olivers of the liberal media elite, whom those people have been trained to hate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 15:55
|
|