United States Politics Thread 46

[Ares Land]

So asking the working class to vote according to their interests is meaningless. You're asking people to read a book in a language they don't speak.

This.

I don't know why traditional Marxist class analysis is held as religious dogma in some socialist circles. I mean, Marx did an extraordinary job (his achievements are impressive, especially given that economics were amateurish and there were no social sciences to speak of) but what he did is a very rough tentative first draft of a representation of 19th century urban England.

[Travis B.]

I would not say that there is no such thing as working class class consciousness in the US, as, after all, conservative politicians often attack "the liberals" as an elitist group to try to cater to the working class. What I would say is there is little to no consciousness amongst the working class in the US of their economic interests, and in particular white working class people in the US are easily swayed to favor conservatives by the suggestion that said liberals favor anyone other than cisgender straight white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

[Moose-tache]

I think it's hard to call it class consciousness when economic issues are conspicuously absent. I used the word "signifier" for this very reason. Everyone knows that conservatives like pickup trucks and liberals like electric scooters. But these things are not class signifiers if divorced from economics. What American conservatives have is a tribal identity. Many of the signifiers of this identity are "working class things" in a superficial way, because American identity myths generally glorify the common man. But you can be rich, even wealthy, and adopt superficially working class signifiers. For example, most federal politicians are millionaires, but they all make a show of eating greasy hamburgers and calling people "folks." It's not class identity. It's performative tribal identity.

[Travis B.]

From that point of view one could say that conservatives have hijacked traditionally working class signifiers and turned them into conservative tribal signifiers while stripping them of much of what made them actually working class and making them far more superficial in nature.

[Ares Land]

What is missing here is that American conservatives have legitimate concerns of their own.

The visceral opposition to immigration feels wrong to me. But it's not tribalism: effectively forbidding all immigration is something people genuinely want.

Other concerns seem pretty legitimate: like worrying about law and order. Feeling that the government isn't necessarily good at fixing economical problems. Finding that well-meaning elites are often disastrously wrong.

It doesn't mean I agree with American conservatives. But I wouldn't call support for them 'tribalism.' They have genuine points to make.

(What to do with these points is another matter. Sometimes the left should address these and listen to what their opponents are saying. And often, hey, well, you can't please everyone.)

[Moose-tache]

You're putting the cart before the horse. The only reason conservatives want to ban immigration or lock up window breakers is because they've been told that's what Good People On Our Side are supposed to want.

What's my evidence? Well, all I can say in support is that liberals will argue against perfectly reasonable versions of these things because it's What Liberals Do. Ask a liberal if they want to put a man named Tyrone in jail because he sold crack while damaging a public building, and they'll say no, even though that would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, because liberals are supposed to believe that drugs and vandalism don't matter, and putting black people in jail can only be racial injustice. So tribalism is clearly coming before reason in that case. I think it's fair to assume that when a conservative says all immigrants are mooches dragging down the economy, or blacks bring crime with them, they're also only saying those things because it's what they're supposed to believe. Anyone who has the "correct" view on crime and immigration, according to very smart people like you and me, will come to that opinion entirely coincidentally.

[Vijay]

So I hear the US is trying to block Indian immigrants from coming in but US citizens are exempt?

[zompist]

What's my evidence? Well, all I can say in support is that liberals will argue against perfectly reasonable versions of these things because it's What Liberals Do. Ask a liberal if they want to put a man named Tyrone in jail because he sold crack while damaging a public building, and they'll say no, even though that would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, because liberals are supposed to believe that drugs and vandalism don't matter, and putting black people in jail can only be racial injustice. So tribalism is clearly coming before reason in that case. I think it's fair to assume that when a conservative says all immigrants are mooches dragging down the economy, or blacks bring crime with them, they're also only saying those things because it's what they're supposed to believe. Anyone who has the "correct" view on crime and immigration, according to very smart people like you and me, will come to that opinion entirely coincidentally.

How wonderful it is that there is one person in the world, yourself, to explain all this to the rest of us. What's it like being the only rational being on the planet? Is it lonely, or is your superiority over all human beings satisfaction enough?

I guess it's a perfect ideology for you.
* Everyone else is a subhuman idiot.
* You are a genius for having seen through everyone's schemes.
* You need never expend a bit of energy understanding why anyone does what they do.
* You need never choose a side or involve yourself in any way in politics, because deities do not need to care.

[Ares Land]

I think, rather, that people in general don't engage nearly often enough in an honest debate with conservatives. Or liberal, as the case may be.
Go read Quillette or the WSJ and try and get a feel for how the opposite side feels.


Regarding immigration, an issue where I really never have agreed with the conservative position, engaging right-wingers on the issue has I think helped me immensely. I can put forward a much more coherent argument on the matter.
I know it's not tribalism: people can provide very coherent arguments -- and ones that are surprisingly hard to counter. In some way, I probably can make a much more coherent case in favour of immigration now.

In some ways it lowered my opinion of conservatism, because as it happens I found out way too many people believe in the Bell Curve. But that's besides the point.

On other issues, I think activists would benefit from taking an outside view. Conservatives see trans rights as scary and weird and let's face it, it is sometimes scary and weird. To take but one example, the sudden public shaming of J.K. Rowling is scary and weird.

(Which doesn't mean I agree with J.K. Rowling, in fact I think she's in the same position as Tom Cruise: coopted by a very weird cult. What it means is that most people don't even know what a TERF is: what they're seeing is activists being incredibly and inexplicably angry. And yes, it's your job as an activist to go out explain what it is and why it's bad.)

(And of course conservatives should get out more too. Liberals see conservatives as weird bigots, but frankly when you're in panic because of trans athletes and still feel divorce is the end of civilization as we know it, you need to get out of the basement and get some fresh air, stat.)

[Travis B.]

So I hear the US is trying to block Indian immigrants from coming in but US citizens are exempt?

According to the Right of Return, which is a principle of international law, a nation may not prevent someone who is a citizen of that nation from returning to it.

[Linguoboy]

On other issues, I think activists would benefit from taking an outside view. Conservatives see trans rights as scary and weird and let's face it, it is sometimes scary and weird. To take but one example, the sudden public shaming of J.K. Rowling is scary and weird.

How though? The strangest thing to me about Conservative condemnations of "cancel culture" is that they've spent their entire lives cancelling people for offences real and perceived. This should be as familiar to them by now as the Book of Genesis.

I've seen plenty of intelligent explanations from leftists of why Rowling's position is awful. (Just last night, I finally got around to watching Sarah Z's terrific dissection of her terrible manifesto.) But we can't force Conservatives to watch them. As you say, a lack of curiosity about how the world has changed is one of their greatest shortcomings.

[Moose-tache]

Plus there have been at least three discrete attempts by Rowling to dig herself in deeper. She's had nothing but chances to walk it back thanks to her enormous cultural reach, and she's chosen the opposite. There is no "there but for the grace of God go I" about it. It's not sudden. It's not scary. This isn't Lindsey Ellis getting canceled accidentally by an algorithm. This is a bed she's been making on purpose for years.

The internet is stuffed full of elaborate think pieces about how the other side could be better, which will never be seen by the other side. That's mainly a consequence of the perfectly bifurcated media landscape. It used to be a lot harder for a conservative to never hear a liberal speak or vice versa. Now you have to go out of your way to hear someone who disagrees with you.

So we end up back at tribes again. People cannot learn their own shortcomings until they accept that a voice outside the tribe could be valid. Attempted "third ways" and moderates can't do it.

[Ares Land]

On other issues, I think activists would benefit from taking an outside view. Conservatives see trans rights as scary and weird and let's face it, it is sometimes scary and weird. To take but one example, the sudden public shaming of J.K. Rowling is scary and weird.

How though?

Honestly, I don't know. If I was any good at it, I'd be world dictator by know in politics.

Some people you just can't reach. You'll never convince the kind of conservatives that believe in cancel culture. Like the proverbial pigeon, they'll just prance around spreading shit everywhere. The thing is, we still have to do it. That's because debates are for the benefit of the audience. The purpose is to win the silent majority over.

It seems to me the more radical socially liberal people (aka 'woke people', but it's a term I'd rather avoid) mostly function as an ingroup. There's a lot of focus on internal turf wars, and sometimes what is discussed is arcane to the outsider. Mostly they gave up on debate. I do understand why. But what it means is that a) they come across as unwilling to accept contradiction (which is wrong! but I'm only talking about appearances here) b) right-wingers get to debate strawmen c) those that still engage with outsiders are, shall we say, not the sharpest or sanest people.

Feminism is an interesting case study. Mostly, feminists have given up on men altogether, and never consider trying to convince men. I do believe that's a perfectly natural decision, and probably best for their sanity.
Where do we go from there, though? At some point nothing will happen if they don't have men on their side. The plan seems to be to give up on the current generation, and place all hopes on the next one. Which is a great plan until the kids are 13 or so.
By which point, their ideas are entirely out of reach of their parents and will keep being so for at least ten years. Guess who they'll be getting their cues from?

It's interesting to look at what conservatives are doing. They're trying to convince everyone across the board, but especially focus on troubled young males from their teens to about 25.
That's a great demographic for many reasons: they start out with a lot of unquestioned assumptions in mind (which happen to border on conservative anyway), are eager to learn and generally unhappy and willing to find out why. Conveniently, right-wingers are right there, lying in wait, very happy to explain to them how stuff works and what exactly is wrong with the world.
(Then, conveniently, once they're older, they end up pretty much running the show because that's how the world works.)

This is exactly the kind of demographic the left should try to win over, and doesn't. Again, I get why. That kind of kids are nasty pieces of work already, I should know, I was one. I sure as heck don't want to be spending time around my 20-year old self and as I recall, I barely could stand myself back then. And yet, you know, these are kids that are willing to learn and understand things (and will end up running the show.)

Another thing right-wingers did is completely deflect their "nasty and annoying" public image towards the lefties. Now, your average right winger is a smart, friendly and funny guys making jokes at the expense of easily outraged, bigoted leftists.
The left isn't bigoted; but it's not making enough jokes. Make fun of the aging old fart terrified of trans girls. Don't be afraid to make fun of yourself.
Remember, South Park and Pepe Frog did more to elect Trump than all the campaign money in the world.

(South Park is a great example, BTW. The target demographic was I believe very liberal when it started airing. It wasn't afraid to shoot at conservative targets when they deserved it, it was viciously funny, and the right-wing messages they got through were either so subtle you didn't notice, or so over the top you couldn't help laughing.)

I should add that conservatives were good at this stuff about ten years ago, but now that seems in decline. The dog-whistling is now so elaborate you don't understand a single word they say, plus I don't think they're winning anyone over with conspiracy theories or oddly specific moral panics, so there's reason for hope. (Or despair, depending on whose side you're on.)

Plus there have been at least three discrete attempts by Rowling to dig herself in deeper. She's had nothing but chances to walk it back thanks to her enormous cultural reach, and she's chosen the opposite. There is no "there but for the grace of God go I" about it. It's not sudden. It's not scary. This isn't Lindsey Ellis getting canceled accidentally by an algorithm. This is a bed she's been making on purpose for years.

Oh, sure, she's a nasty piece of work all right. But as I recall, my first exposure to the debacle ;were people repeatedly going 'TERF' at her on Twitter. I didn't even know what a TERF was. That was, yeah, kind of weird.

The internet is stuffed full of elaborate think pieces about how the other side could be better, which will never be seen by the other side. That's mainly a consequence of the perfectly bifurcated media landscape. It used to be a lot harder for a conservative to never hear a liberal speak or vice versa. Now you have to go out of your way to hear someone who disagrees with you.

Yep. to which the solution is to get out of your way and find people you disagree with and even dislike.

[zompist]

Feminism is an interesting case study. Mostly, feminists have given up on men altogether, and never consider trying to convince men. I do believe that's a perfectly natural decision, and probably best for their sanity.
Where do we go from there, though? At some point nothing will happen if they don't have men on their side. The plan seems to be to give up on the current generation, and place all hopes on the next one. Which is a great plan until the kids are 13 or so.
By which point, their ideas are entirely out of reach of their parents and will keep being so for at least ten years. Guess who they'll be getting their cues from?

It's interesting to look at what conservatives are doing. They're trying to convince everyone across the board, but especially focus on troubled young males from their teens to about 25.
That's a great demographic for many reasons: they start out with a lot of unquestioned assumptions in mind (which happen to border on conservative anyway), are eager to learn and generally unhappy and willing to find out why. Conveniently, right-wingers are right there, lying in wait, very happy to explain to them how stuff works and what exactly is wrong with the world.
(Then, conveniently, once they're older, they end up pretty much running the show because that's how the world works.)

This is exactly the kind of demographic the left should try to win over, and doesn't. Again, I get why. That kind of kids are nasty pieces of work already, I should know, I was one. I sure as heck don't want to be spending time around my 20-year old self and as I recall, I barely could stand myself back then. And yet, you know, these are kids that are willing to learn and understand things (and will end up running the show.)

I'm guessing all this is based on France? For the US, I think it's pretty backwards.

Both left and right worry that the Other Side is frighteningly organized and effective while Our Side is divided and bumbling. So it's good to try to quantify what young people are thinking these days; this recent national poll of 18-to-29-years-olds from Harvard is a place to start. Some highlights:

* youth opinion moved significantly leftward (16-19 points on many issues) over the last five years
* whites are more divided, but more whites feel part of "Biden's America" than "Trump's America"
* 59% approve of Biden's performance so far

People often think "oh, young people are always more left-wing." That's not really true: young people in the 1980s favored Reagan and Thatcher by large margins.

In the US, the left seems to be doing far better with young people than the right, though of course there are regional differences too. I don't think this is coincidence; modern conservatism is increasingly aimed at older, whiter, richer people. Younger people are more diverse than ever, don't have a lot of money, and are losers rather than winners under an increasingly plutocratic system.

[Ares Land]

I'm guessing all this is based on France? For the US, I think it's pretty backwards.

Not specifically based on either (though of course my info on France is more accurate!) as these trends seem sort of synchronized across the Atlantic now.

But I guess my ideas were very out of date! I'd picked up that conservatives seemed less present and effective, but I guess I didn't realize by how much.

[Creyeditor]

I think feminists in Germany have not given up on men yet. Lots of discussion and people arguing their point. Fortunately

[Moose-tache]

The fact that you think feminists are ignoring men, and that "TERF" is an obscure buzzword, tells me far more about your media diet than it does about the world we live in.

[Ares Land]

The fact that you think feminists are ignoring men, and that "TERF" is an obscure buzzword, tells me far more about your media diet than it does about the world we live in.

I'm very curious at what you think of my media diet, though I'm pretty sure you're getting the wrong idea.

EDIT: on second thought: even then, what if it does? My whole point is that at some point, people should be trying to reach out to different media bubbles.

[Vijay]

I can't think of a single online majority-white space without white supremacists. I assure you, I end up on such spaces entirely by accident. I have absolutely no interest in seeking out white supremacists.

[Ares Land]

I can't think of a single online majority-white space without white supremacists. I assure you, I end up on such spaces entirely by accident. I have absolutely no interest in seeking out white supremacists.

Sadly, there's nothing surprising about that. It was already like that twenty years ago. They're like Internet roaches.