I think at the end of this post you are getting at the real key here.
We ought *not* be demanding that anyone, progressive or otherwise, give up or shut up about their sincere convictions on hot-button issues.
What we ought to demand is that people, progressive and otherwise, recognize that there is a legitimate debate to be had on these issues, and people engaging in that debate ought not to be read out of the Democratic Party or the anti-authoritarian coalition for doing so. That is, stop shrinking the tent.
The problem with The Groups is not that they articulate progressive views-- they are often right to do so!-- but that they treat those views as The Objective Truth which all well-informed decent people *must* agree with, and that nobody but a terrible bigot could dissent from in good faith. That's the attitude that turns off people outside the PMC bubble (and a good many within it).
When the Dems whiffed the response to the GOP's bad faith trans ad they were telling us something. They don't know how to defend this issue in the plain language you encourage them to use.
As James Surowiecki said: “The fundamental lesson I hope Dem politicians take from this election is that they should not adopt positions unless they can defend them, honestly, in a one-on-one conversation with the median American voter, who is a white, non-college 50-yr-old living in a small-city suburb."
The dems faced an impossible task: There is no way to define and defend this issue to the broad mass of Americans without recourse to off-putting jargon and philosophical discourse. In other words, without adapting the supercilious tone of condescension that the GOP has done so well in branding us with.
Another way to frame this is to ask: What works better, what is more persuasive--rhetoric consisting of facts and truth, or rhetoric designed to arouse emotion? Obviously, the GOP uses nothing but the latter, in conjunction with ignoring facts and truth and speaking nothing but lies. But, at least on their constituencies, it works. Emotion trumps (sorry) cognition every time.
Dems should learn that lesson--not to lie (because the facts, and truth, are on our side), but to present facts and truth, not as self-evidently wonderful and dispositive, but in emotionally-evocative terms. Fetterman's message, and AOC's "it is disgusting" are good examples.
Besides, the people you want to reach, and either convert or get off their couches, are not weighing abstract ideas and choosing not to vote Dem. They're living in their emotions and have to be reached where they are.
Why is it that many centrist Democrats are always demanding that progressive Democrats tone down their statements so centrist Democrats have an easier time getting elected, but centrist Democrats feel no similar obligation to help out progressive Democrats who may be in difficult situations? Also, that many centrist Democrats have little hesitation punching down progressive Democrats as a way to reinforce their centrist credentials but expect progressive Democrats to show much more restraint and discretion for the good of the team?
US society has a lot of serious problems that will require some sound thinking and courage to resolve. Language policing won't do that.
I think a current problem with Democrats is that many are aware of how our party was once on the wrong side of such issues as segregation and now most of us don't want to be on the wrong side of similar issues but are still not all that politically skilled regarding how to present our side of these disputes. Too often we hide the difficulties instead of confronting them and resolving them.
Why? Because when Mods are elected, we’ll institute an agenda that includes Progressive ideas and goals. And we can actually win elections, while Progressives cannot.
Hah. Remember “Defund The Police?” I got into a lot of arguments about that stupid, poorly thought-out slogan, which didn’t mean what it said and gave R/fascists all the ammunition they needed to paint Dems as out of touch, soft on crime, and clueless about the real world. I argued with one activist friend who did not want to admit that any slogan that has to be explained with an additional paragraph of reasoning is INEFFECTIVE at best and DAMAGING at worst.
It got more people to pay attention to a movement than ever before, which is what activists want.
Maybe. Instead of telling progressive activists they're dumb and wrong, the Democratic party should say what they believe about policing in a clear and understandable way. Like the article we just read argued...
Yeah, I’ll never understand why politicians and candidates could not challenge the slogan itself as inadequate, and hold to the ideals at the same time. I just don’t want to give bad people any more ammunition than they already have—so they can twist it and lie about with millions of dollars of political ads. Dem candidates and politicians HAVE to be able to stand up, especially to bold changes worthy of consideration, and be very clear about what they do and do not support without fretting over blowback from their own side. We’d all be better off if that were part of a healthy discourse and not a zero-sum litmus test battle. And activists surely need to understand that without any Dem control, racists and fascists will run roughshod over our entire society, which is, in fact a WORSE outcome than the Dems maintaining a less than optimal status quo. So people paid attention. What did that gain us?
"Before pressing politicians for their views on various issues, they should ask themselves “are we raising the salience of something unpopular?" This sentiment is a bit puzzling. The problem isn't folks who express themselves in a way that "the assembly line" (an unfortunate phrase!) won't understand, it's how politicians conduct themselves when they are saying something that might be controversial. Get to the crux of the matter. Does the assembly line really think a trans girl should be excluded from making friends with cis girls? Do they think this trans girl should be shunned, ostracized? Hurt? Most people would say that wouldn't be right. For those who want to see a video on this, check out a Bulwark discussion between Never Trump Republican (and gay) Tim Miller and philosopher/atheist Sam Harris. Harris indulges in awful stereotypes concerning trans folks, blames Kamala's loss on her responses to trans advocacy, and embarrasses himself throughout, while Miller intelligently lets him prattle on and then hang himself. We're not battling the differences in belief systems between the elites and the working class, we're trying to find a way to communicate on a basic human level. Here's the video: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/sam-harris-our-democracy-is-already?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web×tamp=2.3
I listened to that podcast, and while I don't necessarily agree with Harris, I didn't hear him stereotype trans people. He endorses trans rights clearly and unequivocally. And he did not blame Kamala's loss on that one issue - he said that her messaging on that issue is just one of many factors that he thinks contributed to her loss. He thinks the issue is far more nuanced than many trans rights activists will admit, and that Kamala could have helped herself in interviews by tweaking her messaging - by acknowledging that the issue is nuanced, and recognizing that many decent, non-bigoted Americans are still uncomfortable with, say, their young daughters competing athletically with other kids who were boys at birth and have boys' bodies (or however he put it). He was clear that this does not and should not require abandoning the basic pro-trans rights position. I think that is a reasonable argument, and there is nothing ignorant or bigoted about it. Dems cannot prevent an authoritarian takeover of the federal government without winning national elections. If softening our messaging on issues like trans rights will help us win, then we should do it.
Brian, it was liberals, not progressives that started the trend of identity politics back in 2015. They used it against Bernie Sanders & his supporters.
As for being tactical in raising issue, I agree with that. But Dems don’t want to fight for anything that doesn’t offend their donor base. They barely mentioned the minimum wage or never once said public option.
I don’t think any of these conversations can happen without talking about Gaza. Their hawkish support is a big reason why they lost.
"Their hawkish support is a big reason why they lost."
False.
If you've got evidence, go ahead and produce it. If some voters thought Trump was going to be more sympathetic to Palestinians, they were ill-informed to begin with, and with the appointment of Huckabee ("there is no West Bank, there is Judea and Samaria") their ignorance is already being challenged.
BTW, sorry for being so blunt, but, as you can tell, I disagree with your assertion.
I do too. I wonder how Rep. Tlaib is feeling right now facing a Trump administration that most assuredly “wants an end to the war in Gaza” for ALL the reasons Netanyahu does: they want the Palenstinians gone so they can turn Gaza into a resort on the sea. Maybe leading her foolish little rebellion against American foreign policy under Biden isn’t going to work out quite the way she imagined. Not only has she doomed the Palestinians, she helped create an administration that will trash our country. Great move.
Can we just say: Democrats (and all politicians) need both ethics and courage - table stakes? Add in an ability to reason and communicate, and you have political winners and people who can probably lead effectively once elected.
"Progressive activists should not clamor for radical change and any ideas they do clamor for should be rigorously poll-tested first."
1) Progressive activists are clamoring for change that is not in any way radical, as evidenced by the dozens of other nations who have enjoyed these 'changes' for decades.
2) Polls have shown that progressive policies and programs enjoy around 70% support in the electorate, even in the face of polls being useless with today's technology (i.e. nobody answers the phone to an unknown number anymore, online polls are very easily gamed).
Progressive activists need prophetic voices of the type that MLK exemplified. They may be out there, but they’re not breaking through.
Over the last years of King’s short life, he was not breaking through in his quest for economic justice. About the only voice that I hear speaking on the topic is that of Bernie Sanders, and he ain’t no damn Democrat.
AOC’s clip on this post comes close to the tone of messages that King put forth.
King was not a political insider. That may have made a difference. But ours was a different country then. Our concept of what made a person a leader was far less shaped by the media.
"...and any ideas they do clamor for should be rigorously poll-tested first."
And:
"Bad ideas are bad; but good ideas, articulated in activist jargon are still good—they just need to be workshopped a bit."
Great, if we have now discovered the reliable polls and focus groups that we didn't know about before November.
We can imagine a conversation among people with sincere opposing opinions on bathroom access who respect each other and agree vehemently on Israel's criminal actions in Gaza, West Bank and Lebanon. Is one of those issues "identity politics" and the other something else?
We shouldn't dismiss voters as simple-minded if we aren't willing or able to articulate even such minimally-complex issues in ways that inform people and guide them in regarding nuance and accepting compromise in a party that claims to represent a majority of voters.
Trans toilet use and Gaza are not complex nor, to my thinking, of equal importance but one party has mastered the synthesis and exploitation of emotional appeals and Democrats are caught flat-footed every stinkin' time.
We like to think of ourselves as the smarter party (that might be a mistake in itself) and the appeals I'm suggesting might need to reach people already disinclined to subtlety but how smart are we really when we fail, over and over, to articulate coherent principles in ways that appeal to voters on the margins?
I had trouble following the thrust of much of this essay, but the antipenultimate paragraph is the best formulation I have seen of my own thoughts regarding the trans issue.
2 cents on identity: I thought Harris did a great job of NOT emphasizing "identity." Republicans successfully demonized DEI, partly because the elite-derived technical language of DEI does not translate well to the real world. As a white male raised in "the patriarchy" (oh, this one is on feminists: get rid of that term), I resent being called an "oppressor" even though I fully recognize my "privilege" ("white" and "male" are WAY too limited to describe all the ways I've been advantaged), and the "victim" frame taken on by some groups not only disempowers them, but increases resistance from the oppressor class. /2 cents
I don't know if it comes straight from Marxism, but it's definitely one of those from the Universities. It seems to be a technical term in DEI education, but it's one that does not translate, because of its pejorative connotation in ordinary language.
Brian, I think this might be the best distillation of these dynamics yet. Please keep it up.
I think at the end of this post you are getting at the real key here.
We ought *not* be demanding that anyone, progressive or otherwise, give up or shut up about their sincere convictions on hot-button issues.
What we ought to demand is that people, progressive and otherwise, recognize that there is a legitimate debate to be had on these issues, and people engaging in that debate ought not to be read out of the Democratic Party or the anti-authoritarian coalition for doing so. That is, stop shrinking the tent.
The problem with The Groups is not that they articulate progressive views-- they are often right to do so!-- but that they treat those views as The Objective Truth which all well-informed decent people *must* agree with, and that nobody but a terrible bigot could dissent from in good faith. That's the attitude that turns off people outside the PMC bubble (and a good many within it).
Many at Conservative Inc. would argue this is exactly why Trump is president again.
When the Dems whiffed the response to the GOP's bad faith trans ad they were telling us something. They don't know how to defend this issue in the plain language you encourage them to use.
As James Surowiecki said: “The fundamental lesson I hope Dem politicians take from this election is that they should not adopt positions unless they can defend them, honestly, in a one-on-one conversation with the median American voter, who is a white, non-college 50-yr-old living in a small-city suburb."
The dems faced an impossible task: There is no way to define and defend this issue to the broad mass of Americans without recourse to off-putting jargon and philosophical discourse. In other words, without adapting the supercilious tone of condescension that the GOP has done so well in branding us with.
Another way to frame this is to ask: What works better, what is more persuasive--rhetoric consisting of facts and truth, or rhetoric designed to arouse emotion? Obviously, the GOP uses nothing but the latter, in conjunction with ignoring facts and truth and speaking nothing but lies. But, at least on their constituencies, it works. Emotion trumps (sorry) cognition every time.
Dems should learn that lesson--not to lie (because the facts, and truth, are on our side), but to present facts and truth, not as self-evidently wonderful and dispositive, but in emotionally-evocative terms. Fetterman's message, and AOC's "it is disgusting" are good examples.
Besides, the people you want to reach, and either convert or get off their couches, are not weighing abstract ideas and choosing not to vote Dem. They're living in their emotions and have to be reached where they are.
Agreed, but you’re asking politicians to do what few will. There are precious few Fetterman’s amongst upper echelon Democrats.
I don’t believe the party can fix it from the inside.
Why is it that many centrist Democrats are always demanding that progressive Democrats tone down their statements so centrist Democrats have an easier time getting elected, but centrist Democrats feel no similar obligation to help out progressive Democrats who may be in difficult situations? Also, that many centrist Democrats have little hesitation punching down progressive Democrats as a way to reinforce their centrist credentials but expect progressive Democrats to show much more restraint and discretion for the good of the team?
US society has a lot of serious problems that will require some sound thinking and courage to resolve. Language policing won't do that.
This is nothing new. Read or re-read MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” if you doubt that.
I am 80 years old. I remember and have no doubts.
I think a current problem with Democrats is that many are aware of how our party was once on the wrong side of such issues as segregation and now most of us don't want to be on the wrong side of similar issues but are still not all that politically skilled regarding how to present our side of these disputes. Too often we hide the difficulties instead of confronting them and resolving them.
You won't like the answer, but it's pretty simple: one belief set wins (or can win) elections and one doesn't. At least for the time being.
Why? Because when Mods are elected, we’ll institute an agenda that includes Progressive ideas and goals. And we can actually win elections, while Progressives cannot.
Hah. Remember “Defund The Police?” I got into a lot of arguments about that stupid, poorly thought-out slogan, which didn’t mean what it said and gave R/fascists all the ammunition they needed to paint Dems as out of touch, soft on crime, and clueless about the real world. I argued with one activist friend who did not want to admit that any slogan that has to be explained with an additional paragraph of reasoning is INEFFECTIVE at best and DAMAGING at worst.
It got more people to pay attention to a movement than ever before, which is what activists want.
Maybe. Instead of telling progressive activists they're dumb and wrong, the Democratic party should say what they believe about policing in a clear and understandable way. Like the article we just read argued...
Yeah, I’ll never understand why politicians and candidates could not challenge the slogan itself as inadequate, and hold to the ideals at the same time. I just don’t want to give bad people any more ammunition than they already have—so they can twist it and lie about with millions of dollars of political ads. Dem candidates and politicians HAVE to be able to stand up, especially to bold changes worthy of consideration, and be very clear about what they do and do not support without fretting over blowback from their own side. We’d all be better off if that were part of a healthy discourse and not a zero-sum litmus test battle. And activists surely need to understand that without any Dem control, racists and fascists will run roughshod over our entire society, which is, in fact a WORSE outcome than the Dems maintaining a less than optimal status quo. So people paid attention. What did that gain us?
"Before pressing politicians for their views on various issues, they should ask themselves “are we raising the salience of something unpopular?" This sentiment is a bit puzzling. The problem isn't folks who express themselves in a way that "the assembly line" (an unfortunate phrase!) won't understand, it's how politicians conduct themselves when they are saying something that might be controversial. Get to the crux of the matter. Does the assembly line really think a trans girl should be excluded from making friends with cis girls? Do they think this trans girl should be shunned, ostracized? Hurt? Most people would say that wouldn't be right. For those who want to see a video on this, check out a Bulwark discussion between Never Trump Republican (and gay) Tim Miller and philosopher/atheist Sam Harris. Harris indulges in awful stereotypes concerning trans folks, blames Kamala's loss on her responses to trans advocacy, and embarrasses himself throughout, while Miller intelligently lets him prattle on and then hang himself. We're not battling the differences in belief systems between the elites and the working class, we're trying to find a way to communicate on a basic human level. Here's the video: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/sam-harris-our-democracy-is-already?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web×tamp=2.3
I listened to that podcast, and while I don't necessarily agree with Harris, I didn't hear him stereotype trans people. He endorses trans rights clearly and unequivocally. And he did not blame Kamala's loss on that one issue - he said that her messaging on that issue is just one of many factors that he thinks contributed to her loss. He thinks the issue is far more nuanced than many trans rights activists will admit, and that Kamala could have helped herself in interviews by tweaking her messaging - by acknowledging that the issue is nuanced, and recognizing that many decent, non-bigoted Americans are still uncomfortable with, say, their young daughters competing athletically with other kids who were boys at birth and have boys' bodies (or however he put it). He was clear that this does not and should not require abandoning the basic pro-trans rights position. I think that is a reasonable argument, and there is nothing ignorant or bigoted about it. Dems cannot prevent an authoritarian takeover of the federal government without winning national elections. If softening our messaging on issues like trans rights will help us win, then we should do it.
Brian, it was liberals, not progressives that started the trend of identity politics back in 2015. They used it against Bernie Sanders & his supporters.
As for being tactical in raising issue, I agree with that. But Dems don’t want to fight for anything that doesn’t offend their donor base. They barely mentioned the minimum wage or never once said public option.
I don’t think any of these conversations can happen without talking about Gaza. Their hawkish support is a big reason why they lost.
"Their hawkish support is a big reason why they lost."
False.
If you've got evidence, go ahead and produce it. If some voters thought Trump was going to be more sympathetic to Palestinians, they were ill-informed to begin with, and with the appointment of Huckabee ("there is no West Bank, there is Judea and Samaria") their ignorance is already being challenged.
BTW, sorry for being so blunt, but, as you can tell, I disagree with your assertion.
I do too. I wonder how Rep. Tlaib is feeling right now facing a Trump administration that most assuredly “wants an end to the war in Gaza” for ALL the reasons Netanyahu does: they want the Palenstinians gone so they can turn Gaza into a resort on the sea. Maybe leading her foolish little rebellion against American foreign policy under Biden isn’t going to work out quite the way she imagined. Not only has she doomed the Palestinians, she helped create an administration that will trash our country. Great move.
https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1859632501108638108
Both vote totals in highly-Middle Eastern areas and polling are indicating that Dems lost a decent number of votes because of Biden's Gaza policy.
Thanks for your inclusion of John Fetterman's post. Exactly.
Can we just say: Democrats (and all politicians) need both ethics and courage - table stakes? Add in an ability to reason and communicate, and you have political winners and people who can probably lead effectively once elected.
"Progressive activists should not clamor for radical change and any ideas they do clamor for should be rigorously poll-tested first."
1) Progressive activists are clamoring for change that is not in any way radical, as evidenced by the dozens of other nations who have enjoyed these 'changes' for decades.
2) Polls have shown that progressive policies and programs enjoy around 70% support in the electorate, even in the face of polls being useless with today's technology (i.e. nobody answers the phone to an unknown number anymore, online polls are very easily gamed).
Progressive activists need prophetic voices of the type that MLK exemplified. They may be out there, but they’re not breaking through.
Over the last years of King’s short life, he was not breaking through in his quest for economic justice. About the only voice that I hear speaking on the topic is that of Bernie Sanders, and he ain’t no damn Democrat.
AOC’s clip on this post comes close to the tone of messages that King put forth.
King was not a political insider. That may have made a difference. But ours was a different country then. Our concept of what made a person a leader was far less shaped by the media.
"...and any ideas they do clamor for should be rigorously poll-tested first."
And:
"Bad ideas are bad; but good ideas, articulated in activist jargon are still good—they just need to be workshopped a bit."
Great, if we have now discovered the reliable polls and focus groups that we didn't know about before November.
We can imagine a conversation among people with sincere opposing opinions on bathroom access who respect each other and agree vehemently on Israel's criminal actions in Gaza, West Bank and Lebanon. Is one of those issues "identity politics" and the other something else?
We shouldn't dismiss voters as simple-minded if we aren't willing or able to articulate even such minimally-complex issues in ways that inform people and guide them in regarding nuance and accepting compromise in a party that claims to represent a majority of voters.
Trans toilet use and Gaza are not complex nor, to my thinking, of equal importance but one party has mastered the synthesis and exploitation of emotional appeals and Democrats are caught flat-footed every stinkin' time.
We like to think of ourselves as the smarter party (that might be a mistake in itself) and the appeals I'm suggesting might need to reach people already disinclined to subtlety but how smart are we really when we fail, over and over, to articulate coherent principles in ways that appeal to voters on the margins?
I had trouble following the thrust of much of this essay, but the antipenultimate paragraph is the best formulation I have seen of my own thoughts regarding the trans issue.
AOC 2028
Happy to read this!
2 cents on identity: I thought Harris did a great job of NOT emphasizing "identity." Republicans successfully demonized DEI, partly because the elite-derived technical language of DEI does not translate well to the real world. As a white male raised in "the patriarchy" (oh, this one is on feminists: get rid of that term), I resent being called an "oppressor" even though I fully recognize my "privilege" ("white" and "male" are WAY too limited to describe all the ways I've been advantaged), and the "victim" frame taken on by some groups not only disempowers them, but increases resistance from the oppressor class. /2 cents
Feels to me like one of the most over-used terms in American political discourse today is “oppressor.” It has cheapened the term.
I don't know if it comes straight from Marxism, but it's definitely one of those from the Universities. It seems to be a technical term in DEI education, but it's one that does not translate, because of its pejorative connotation in ordinary language.