United States Politics Thread 46

[jcb]

It's depressingly simple: not supporting Israel is political suicide. A recent poll shows 58% very or mostly favorable views of Israel. And it was over 60% for the entire period 2005-2023... often over 70%. You don't get ahead in US politics by bucking that kind of trend.

Support for raising the minimum wage to at least $15 is about 62%, yet we don't get that and no politicians get punished for failing to deliver it.

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (62%) say they favor raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, including 40% who strongly back the idea. About four-in-ten (38%) say they oppose the proposal, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 5-11.

[zompist]

Support for raising the minimum wage to at least $15 is about 62%, yet we don't get that and no politicians get punished for failing to deliver it.

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (62%) say they favor raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, including 40% who strongly back the idea. About four-in-ten (38%) say they oppose the proposal, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 5-11.

Yeah, look at your own page. Democratic support, 87%; Republican, 28%. Who controls the House?

[jcb]

Yeah, look at your own page. Democratic support, 87%; Republican, 28%. Who controls the House?

They controlled the house back in 2020 (but not the senate).

This raises the question: Why are Democrats always on the back foot? It's almost as if they intentionally adopted a bad (long-term) strategy (marginalizing organized labor) to justify their inability to make good (short-term) tactical decisions (because now they don't have enough votes to do it), because they don't actually want to do things like raise the minimum wage.

Also see: Obama's too busy being a venture capitalist to care about people making minimum wage (ick) or workers trying to unionize (go to college!). ( https://sg.style.yahoo.com/finance/news ... 34243.html , https://apnews.com/general-news-finance ... 1ca0e51a47 )

[zompist]

Yeah, look at your own page. Democratic support, 87%; Republican, 28%. Who controls the House?

They controlled the house back in 2020 (but not the senate).

Exactly. Which is why they passed a federal $15 minimum wage law in the House in 2019, and it died in the Senate.

This raises the question: Why are Democrats always on the back foot?

Two words: Southern Strategy.

I've said this about a million times, so I don't want to go over it in depth, but: yes, if you're remotely progressive, it's frustrating. But progressives are about half the Democratic party and zero of the Republican party, and it used to be far worse. In 1994 liberals + leftists were 25% of the Democratic Party, not 50%.

[masako]

Two words: Southern Strategy.

This is their go-to for everything. Abortion, class/economic issues, foreign policy...everything. It's really the only way they can exercise legislative power. And they'll use it every chance they get. Project 2025 is basically the Southern Strategy on steroids and should scare the shit out of anyone that doesn't fancy themselves a fascistic authoritarian.

[rotting bones]

It's depressingly simple: not supporting Israel is political suicide. A recent poll shows 58% very or mostly favorable views of Israel. And it was over 60% for the entire period 2005-2023... often over 70%. You don't get ahead in US politics by bucking that kind of trend.

Er, it looks like 35% Democrats say their sympathies are with Israelis, while 43% say they sympathize with Palestinians. 47% Democrats have a favorable view of Israel as opposed to 26% for PA, but I'm not sure a relative approval of the government translates into a blank check for war crimes against civilians on the other side. Biden is still trying to appeal to a Democratic base, right?

Look, if 58% of the citizens of Nazi Germany supported the Holocaust, would that somehow vindicate Hitler? As far as I'm concerned, that delegitimizes the use of democracy in that scenario.

[zompist]

It's depressingly simple: not supporting Israel is political suicide. A recent poll shows 58% very or mostly favorable views of Israel. And it was over 60% for the entire period 2005-2023... often over 70%. You don't get ahead in US politics by bucking that kind of trend.

Er, it looks like 35% Democrats say their sympathies are with Israelis, while 43% say they sympathize with Palestinians. 47% Democrats have a favorable view of Israel as opposed to 26% for PA, but I'm not sure a relative approval of the government translates into a blank check for war crimes against civilians on the other side. Biden is still trying to appeal to a Democratic base, right?

Note, I wasn't justifying Biden, but explaining.

The general rule in US federal politics is that you have to appeal to the "independents", the tiny minority that actually does switch votes between parties, frequently and whimsically.

Look, if 58% of the citizens of Nazi Germany supported the Holocaust, would that somehow vindicate Hitler? As far as I'm concerned, that delegitimizes the use of democracy in that scenario.

This is a red herring, but the Nazis never won a majority. They had 33% in November 1932 (but Hitler was named chancellor anyway, as a result of negotiations with the conservatives). The election of March 1933 was not free, but even then the Nazis couldn't get a majority— they got 44%.

[rotting bones]

Note, I wasn't justifying Biden, but explaining.

The general rule in US federal politics is that you have to appeal to the "independents", the tiny minority that actually does switch votes between parties, frequently and whimsically.

The Independents are not overwhelmingly pro-Israeli like the Republicans. They sympathize with Israelis 44% to 31%. Is their population large enough to overcome the 8% gap among Democrats?

This is a red herring, but the Nazis never won a majority. They had 33% in November 1932 (but Hitler was named chancellor anyway, as a result of negotiations with the conservatives). The election of March 1933 was not free, but even then the Nazis couldn't get a majority— they got 44%.

IIRC the Holocaust began in earnest after rival institutions had been demolished, and the Germans had been exposed to Nazi propaganda for years. Can you be confident they wouldn't have had a majority specifically for killing Jews even then?

[zompist]

Note, I wasn't justifying Biden, but explaining.

The general rule in US federal politics is that you have to appeal to the "independents", the tiny minority that actually does switch votes between parties, frequently and whimsically.

The Independents are not overwhelmingly pro-Israeli like the Republicans. They sympathize with Israelis 44% to 31%. Is their population large enough to overcome the 8% gap among Democrats?

See "Southern Strategy" above. I'm not happy about it either, but has any Democrat been elected president by catering to the 25% of the electorate that calls itself liberal or leftist?

IIRC the Holocaust began in earnest after rival institutions had been demolished,

Which was in July 1933. There were already concentration camps, started in March.

Can you be confident they wouldn't have had a majority specifically for killing Jews even then?

I am confident that democracy is not delegitimized by the horrors perpetrated by totalitarian dictatorships. Quite the reverse in fact.

(There are much better examples you could use; but those simply show that majorities will, if they can, oppress minorities. Which is why just relying on the vote is not enough.)

[rotting bones]

See "Southern Strategy" above. I'm not happy about it either, but has any Democrat been elected president by catering to the 25% of the electorate that calls itself liberal or leftist?

It's hard to tell what would have happened in a 2 party system.

Which was in July 1933. There were already concentration camps, started in March.

The Holocaust ramped up from 1938 with the nationwide pogrom, and went into overdrive from 1941 IIRC.

The Nazis would have killed every Jew as soon as possible if they could, but it's not easy to kill millions in practical terms.

I am confident that democracy is not delegitimized by the horrors perpetrated by totalitarian dictatorships. Quite the reverse in fact.

(There are much better examples you could use; but those simply show that majorities will, if they can, oppress minorities. Which is why just relying on the vote is not enough.)

"Following democracy" has many different meanings. If you disempower people, they can't participate in democracy. If the people vote to disempower parts of itself, then you have democracy contradicting itself. In that scenario, following the vote is opposing democracy by disempowering minorities. Rejecting the vote is opposing democracy by telling the majority to fuck off.

[Raphael]

zompist, I mostly agree with your points here, but one small nitpick.

This is a red herring, but the Nazis never won a majority. They had 33% in November 1932 (but Hitler was named chancellor anyway, as a result of negotiations with the conservatives). The election of March 1933 was not free, but even then the Nazis couldn't get a majority— they got 44%.

It's true that the March 1933 election wasn't free, but it doesn't really make sense to assert that "even then the Nazis couldn't get a majority". If you add up the votes of the Nazis and a smaller far-right nationalist party, the DNVP, which had clearly stated beforehand that it would join a coalition with the Nazis, you get a majority. And in multi-party electoral systems, that kind of thing is usually seen as "winning".

[zompist]

zompist, I mostly agree with your points here, but one small nitpick.

This is a red herring, but the Nazis never won a majority. They had 33% in November 1932 (but Hitler was named chancellor anyway, as a result of negotiations with the conservatives). The election of March 1933 was not free, but even then the Nazis couldn't get a majority— they got 44%.

It's true that the March 1933 election wasn't free, but it doesn't really make sense to assert that "even then the Nazis couldn't get a majority". If you add up the votes of the Nazis and a smaller far-right nationalist party, the DNVP, which had clearly stated beforehand that it would join a coalition with the Nazis, you get a majority. And in multi-party electoral systems, that kind of thing is usually seen as "winning".

OK, thanks for the clarification. It's a bit embarrassing for the Nazis that even in an unfree election the two parties only got 52% though.

[jcb]

I've said this about a million times, so I don't want to go over it in depth, but: yes, if you're remotely progressive, it's frustrating. But progressives are about half the Democratic party and zero of the Republican party, and it used to be far worse. In 1994 liberals + leftists were 25% of the Democratic Party, not 50%.

I'm confused. Wasn't FDR elected president 4 times in the past? Or are you saying that what he did wasn't "progressive"?

[zompist]

I've said this about a million times, so I don't want to go over it in depth, but: yes, if you're remotely progressive, it's frustrating. But progressives are about half the Democratic party and zero of the Republican party, and it used to be far worse. In 1994 liberals + leftists were 25% of the Democratic Party, not 50%.

I'm confused. Wasn't FDR elected president 4 times in the past? Or are you saying that what he did wasn't "progressive"?

Did you look up "Southern Strategy"? If so, when did that happen?

Hint: look up electoral maps of (say) 1956 vs. 1988. Which states voted for an unpopular Democratic candidate in those two years? Why those states?

[jcb]

I've said this about a million times, so I don't want to go over it in depth, but: yes, if you're remotely progressive, it's frustrating. But progressives are about half the Democratic party and zero of the Republican party, and it used to be far worse. In 1994 liberals + leftists were 25% of the Democratic Party, not 50%.

I'm confused. Wasn't FDR elected president 4 times in the past? Or are you saying that what he did wasn't "progressive"?

Did you look up "Southern Strategy"? If so, when did that happen?

Hint: look up electoral maps of (say) 1956 vs. 1988. Which states voted for an unpopular Democratic candidate in those two years? Why those states?

Let's compare the elections of 1988 to 2016. (Also two losing elections for the Democrats.)

1988:


2016:


Which counties voted for an unpopular Democratic candidate in those two years? Why those counties? (Bonus exercise: Without looking at a labelled map, guess which 5 counties hold the 5 largest cities in Pennsylvania or Ohio.)

The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner that includes basically only city dwellers and non-whites. Note the dark(er) shade of red that rural counties are in the 2016 map. Note also the specks of blue in the Dakotas are Indian reservations, the blue bits in the bottom of Texas majority Hispanic, and the blue streaks in Alabama and Mississippi are majority Black.

Sure, sometimes the Democrats win with the electoral map looking basically like this (like in 2020), but their victory is so marginal that they don't control the house and/or senate, and therefore can't pass any legislation. This sucks, and the fact that Democrats tell me that I should just accept this is insulting, given that I'm working class myself, (and worse yet, extremely dangerous, given that the fascists are waiting in the wings.)

This is my point: Democrats use the "Southern Strategy" as an excuse about why they can't win, and why the world can't be a better place. Focusing on racist southerners (and lumping rural and working class people in with them) allows them to delete economics from the political conversation. They don't have to admit that they stabbed organized labor in the back, and as a consequence, a significant amount of workers quit the party. They also don't have to admit their elitism and bigotry drove them to do this.

Furthermore, this betrayal was not by accident. They betrayed the working class, because their ideology of professional elitism (AKA "Meritocracy") has emboldened them to believe that they themselves (the professional class) are worthy, and that working class people are unworthy. They believe that reorienting the Democratic party around the wants of the professional class is a good thing, because it put both classes in their places: the professionals on top, and the working class on bottom. They believe that the working class doesn't deserve a good life.

Here's a video of Thomas Frank summing it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xPCMhwyHy0

[Raphael]

There might be some truth in what you say, jcb, but I don't think your timeline makes sense. The rural white working class jumped ship from the Dems before the betrayal you complain about happened. They voted, three times in a row, first for Ronald Reagan himself, and then for his VP, while the Dems had nominated Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. Only after that did Bill Clinton rise to the top among the Dems.

[zompist]

Did you look up "Southern Strategy"? If so, when did that happen?

Hint: look up electoral maps of (say) 1956 vs. 1988. Which states voted for an unpopular Democratic candidate in those two years? Why those states?

Let's compare the elections of 1988 to 2016. (Also two losing elections for the Democrats.)

Let's not delude ourselves with misleading maps. Here's one that actually reflects House seats correctly, one equal-sized color symbol for one seat, for 2020.



Look, astonishing, there are more blue dots than red dots. The Democrats won the Senate too.

(The map above isn't final; there's a better one here but it doesn't seem to be embeddable.)

Sure, sometimes the Democrats win with the electoral map looking basically like this (like in 2020), but their victory is so marginal that they don't control the house and/or senate, and therefore can't pass any legislation. This sucks

Actually the Democrats controlled the House and Senate in 2020, and passed important legislation. The midyear switchovers do suck, but FWIW they affected the Republicans in 2018 and 2006. The US electorate is much more fickle than it used to be. Though periods when the president's party can't do as it wants are surprisingly common in all of US history.

, and the fact that Democrats tell me that I should just accept this is insulting

Well, it would be if it wasn't made up.

This is my point: Democrats use the "Southern Strategy" as an excuse about why they can't win,

Jeez. Democrats can win, do win, and should win. You're on some sort of propaganda trip. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are "elitist" is regurgitating Republican propaganda, if perhaps second-hand.

The Southern Strategy explains why the Democrats went from an overwhelming domination of US politics, for about 40 years, to having to struggle (but still, let's remember, winning the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections). When you talk about FDR as a "progressive" you seem to be unaware of what progressive meant at the time, what the base of the Democratic Party was then and now, why things changed.

Here's a video of Thomas Frank summing it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xPCMhwyHy0

And about five minutes Googling produced this critique of Frank's thesis. The actual working class is not moving away from the Democrats.

One constant for the last 80 years: complaining that when your party loses it's because they don't take your advice and do exactly what you want them to, is a common but foolish self-delusion. Believe me, they don't take my advice either. I'd rather understand why things are, and that means looking at what a wide variety of people actually do and think, not ranting about how they're not just like me.

[masako]

I'd rather understand why things are, and that means looking at what a wide variety of people actually do and think, not ranting about how they're not just like me.

Then how on this grand green Earth will you ever get views on your TikTok!?

[jcb]

Let's not delude ourselves with misleading maps. Here's one that actually reflects House seats correctly, one equal-sized color symbol for one seat, for 2020.

Yes, that's a better map. Most of those very red counties have barely any people, after all. However, I still think it's useful to use the county map to highlight the fact that even small cities still vote majority Republican.

Furthermore, my state (North Dakota), although it rarely has voted Democrat for the president, as recently as 2009 had 2 Democratic senators, and 1 Democratic house rep. They're all Republican now, I really doubt any of them will be Democratic again for the rest of my life. The Democrats sure could use 2 more senators in the senate, and 1 more rep in the house, couldn't they?

Anyone who thinks the Democrats are "elitist" is regurgitating Republican propaganda, if perhaps second-hand.

Really? You don't understand how the likes of:
Bill "NAFTA" Clinton
Barack "Go to school!" Obama
Hillary "$12 is enough" Clinton
Joe "Stop striking!" Biden
could be seen as elitist?

The Southern Strategy explains why the Democrats went from an overwhelming domination of US politics, for about 40 years, to having to struggle (but still, let's remember, winning the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections).

But the president isn't determined by the popular vote! This is like saying after a basketball game: "If there was no three point line, we would've won." Sure, that may be true, but you knew the rules before/during the game, so if you care about winning (and you should) you should've tailored your strategy to the rules that are actually being used. (As an addendum, the electoral college should be abolished, but how are the Democrats gonna ever do that if they don't win according to the current set of rules!?)

When you talk about FDR as a "progressive" you seem to be unaware of what progressive meant at the time, what the base of the Democratic Party was then and now, why things changed.

Establishing a minimum wage and Social Security isn't progressive? ... Yes, I'm very aware that the democratic base of the time was full of many hardcore racists. My point isn't that all the racists nowdays can be dissuaded from voting Republican, or that a great majority of workers vote Republican, but that a critical amount of workers vote Republican to swing many elections.

And about five minutes Googling produced this critique of Frank's thesis. The actual working class is not moving away from the Democrats.

And five more minutes of searching produces Frank's critique of the critique: https://tcfrank.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... d_2005.pdf

Well, it would be if it wasn't made up.

And yet you say:

I'd rather understand why things are, and that means looking at what a wide variety of people actually do and think, not ranting about how they're not just like me.

Blue collar workers and professionals may be forced to share the same party now, but that doesn't mean that they always have the same interests, or that they'll always share a party. So, no, I'm not going to just "trust the plan" or whatever professionals are calling it these days.

[Travis B.]

The Democrats may not be ideal, but anyone who thinks that the Republicans are somehow better than them (including the people who think that the Republicans somehow favor the working class or that the Democrats should not be voted for because they are "elitist") is frankly either a fool or an enemy of humanity.