United States Politics Thread 46

[Ares Land]

Maybe the lesson leftists should learn from Trump is not that people are essentially conservative, but that people are essentially dumb.

Or maybe that they're easy marks. Reactionary conservativism of the kind the Republicans and Trump practice is essentially a large scale con.
I don't know if people can actually be fooled into socialism; there's probably too much about it that's counter-intuitive.

At least 12% of Sanders supporters switched to Trump IIRC. Not all, but a significant fraction. A woman in Jan 6 who was mentioned by the media several times was one of them. Try Googling: Sanders–Trump voters.

Many more were simply demoralized when Sanders didn't gain traction, and stopped following politics.

Interesting; I'll have to look this up. 12% is more than I expected.

You know more about this. I remember reading analyses saying that when the Socialists were in power, they were not able to govern as socialists like their voters expected.

That is also correct To put it shortly, it's worth keeping in mind expectations and standards here are way to the left of Americans; and used to be even further left.

The core demographic that constitutes the fascist base are people with small proprietor class interests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqESHNvmP20 Granted, these people can be difficult to reason with.

Yes, that's what I believe as well.

In the American context, the key is that leftists have to convince them the left is not in favor of "replacing" the majority by appeasing minorities, safe spaces are compatible with personal liberty, etc. A lot of these grievances are perpetuated by right-wing propaganda outlets. This suggests a strategy of making them see the owners of these outlets as rivals who are keeping them down (absolutely true) rather than businessmen with a common cause.

I'm not so sure about that... Why even engage these grievances? Even acknowledging, say, Great Replacement theory is an automatic win for the far-right.

You didn't say the time is not right for a socialist President. I read you as saying that as long as there's a fascist threat, the conversation should be about how to counter it. If you don't discuss socialist alternatives, what will motivate voters to counter the fascist threat? How will 51% ever be in favor of socialism if it's never the right time to argue for it?

There's kind of a balancing act, I believe? It's always the right time to argue for socialism; but I don't think it's incompatible with acknowledging that the Democrats are still better than the Republicans.

I can get the attacks against liberals... but at times the rhetoric sounds like an own goal; or even borders to parroting Republican talking points.

[keenir]

Was watching some speeches during lunch...

The Republican VP-Canidate was helping FOX News celebrate - sorry, "mark" - the one-year anniversary of Israel going guns-a-blazing against Hamas {given how Fox kept finding new ways to misspell "festival", I'm not sure they knew its signifigance, other than as a source of survivors and witnesses}
And very nearly every time Vance prefixed a statement with "Trump and I", the statement would earn a mental "WTF?" from me. Such as...

Vance: "President Trump and I will stand with Americans against anti-Semitism in America."
Me: "Isn't the KKK and the Proud Boys among Trump's supporters?"

&

Vance: "President Trump and I will end the funding of Hamas."
Me: "Trump's going to say what exactly to his buddies in Russia and Syria?"

[bradrn]

The Republican VP-Canidate was helping FOX News celebrate - sorry, "mark" - the one-year anniversary of Israel going guns-a-blazing against Hamas

Amazing how people forget. In fact, October 7 is the date of the most brutal massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Israel did not ‘go guns-a-blazing’ until a week or two later.

(I said some time ago that I am refraining from talking politics on this board, so I won’t be replying to any response. But just on this occasion I wanted to at least make an effort to set the record straight. It’s probably futile.)

[keenir]

The Republican VP-Canidate was helping FOX News celebrate - sorry, "mark" - the one-year anniversary of Israel going guns-a-blazing against Hamas

Amazing how people forget. In fact, October 7 is the date of the most brutal massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Israel did not ‘go guns-a-blazing’ until a week or two later.

I'm just summarizing Fox's stance and how the talking heads were treating it: as the declaration of an Open Season on Hamas, so as to prevent a holocaust (which one speaker says was happening at US colleges every time anyone is remotely mean to a Jew {no, i don't know if he was being deliberately misinterpretting anti-Semitism or if he was one of those people who seem to think that Jews don't belong in the US - they only belong in Israel...as Vance's own statements seemed to echo}

[Linguoboy]

The Republican VP-Canidate was helping FOX News celebrate - sorry, "mark" - the one-year anniversary of Israel going guns-a-blazing against Hamas

Amazing how people forget. In fact, October 7 is the date of the most brutal massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Israel did not ‘go guns-a-blazing’ until a week or two later.

From CNN, Monday 9 October 2023:

Israel has been pounding Gaza with airstrikes and formally declared war on Hamas Sunday [9 October]. More than 400 Palestinians have died, according to the health ministry in Gaza, and medical care has been complicated by Israel cutting power to the territory.

Ground operations began on 13 October and the "full-scale invasion" began on October 27th. So if we're equating "going guns-a-blazing" to the actual invasion then, yes, it was almost three weeks after 7 October. But I'ma go out on a limb here and say that it's fair to characterise 400+ fatalities from missile bombardment as "going guns-a-blazing". YMMV.

On FB, I posted a link to an article about the alienation of Arab-Americans over the massacres in the Middle East possibly costing Harris Michigan (and thus the election). Naturally, the more diehard Zionists in my friend group read this to mean that I was rooting for DJT to win rather than sick to my stomach at the prospect and furious at the Dems for--once again--proving to be their own worst enemies in an election year.

[Travis B.]

These people are horribly naive to think that Trump would be an improvement in any way, shape, or form over the current administration, including over Israel/Palestine. And if they throw the election to Trump they will not be forgiven.

[Travis B.]

The thing is do these people forget that Trump was Mr. Muslim Ban and Mr. Let's Recognize Jerusalem as Israel's Capital when he was in office? Do they think that any pro-Palestinian noise coming out of the Republican party is anything other than just a cynical and empty attempt to get votes?

About the administration's Israel/Palestine policy, the fact of the matter is that the administration is between a rock and a hard place. While there are people like these who are willing to throw the election to Trump over this issue, they cannot simply refuse to support Israel because polls show that about 6 out of 10 Americans support the US supporting Israel militarily, so refusing to support Israel to placate Arab-Americans could also cost them the election in that way too.

[Emily]

good point, people whose families are being slaughtered en masse in an ongoing genocide should vote for the candidate who is funding, arming, and abetting that same genocide and who has promised to continue doing so if re-elected, because if they don't then someone else might be elected who is also going to fund, arm, and abet the genocide, and won't they be embarrassed when that happens!

[Travis B.]

good point, people whose families are being slaughtered en masse in an ongoing genocide should vote for the candidate who is funding, arming, and abetting that same genocide and who has promised to continue doing so if re-elected, because if they don't then someone else might be elected who is also going to fund, arm, and abet the genocide, and won't they be embarrassed when that happens!

They'll also inflict a dictatorship upon not just themselves but the rest of America too (and as America is still a superpower, the world by extension). It'd be fine if only they had to deal with what will be wrought by the second coming of Donald Trump, but unfortunately that is not true.

[Travis B.]

Really, this is the problem with thinking that your own chosen issue, however important it may be, is particularly special, and is worth more than all the other issues at stake as a whole together. Yes, the war in Gaza (and now Lebanon) is awful, but if Trump wins he will fuck over women, workers, LGBT people, anyone politically opposed to Trumpism or for that matter anyone who does not bow down sufficiently to him (regardless of party), and the world as a whole. If Trump wins, these people can tell themselves that they showed Harris how powerful they are, but frankly they'll just have screwed over all of America and the entire world for their own pet issue's sake, while having actually gained nothing for their own issue (because Trump isn't going to do anything about Israel in reality, of course).

[Emily]

i am struggling to write a response that doesn't come off as condescending as yours did, but to start with, genocide is not a "pet issue", jesus christ. yes, some issues are in fact more urgent than others and should be clear-cut lines in the sand, and an ongoing active genocide that we are all watching in real time is one of them. if the democrats lose because they refuse to stop supporting that genocide, that's their fault, not the fault of people who don't want to vote for someone who supports it

it's also the democrats' fault if harris loses because people don't want a "more lethal military", or a further militarized border, or they don't trust her long history of draconian law-and-order policies, or they're disgusted that she's openly courting and bragging of the support of war criminals like dick cheney (who along with bush served the exact same bogeyman position trump now serves in your type's arguments for why we needed to hold our nose and vote for kerry in 2004). political candidates and parties need to earn people's votes; they are not owed them by some sort of mystical default. if they don't appeal to voters, it is not the fault of the voters, it is the fault of the democrats. and on a practical level, you're not gonna win any voters over by berating them for not voting for a candidate who they are disgusted by!

lastly, the people who are refusing to vote for harris because of her support for genocide—particularly those in swing states—are making their positions very clear. if harris and the democrats wants their vote, they can win it right now with an arms embargo and meaningful sanctions, and they know that. if they refuse to do so, lose those votes, and lose the election, it means that they would rather lose the election than stop supporting a genocide. if you are really invested in the democrats winning, you should be pressuring them to do what it takes to win, rather than berating voters who are standing up for what they believe is right

[fusijui]

Thanks, Emily. I can't remember the last time I looked in on this kind of thread, and assumed I'd regret every bit of it, but the entire last page (all I've looked at, TBH) was not regrettable, and I appreciated starting at the bottom with your comments.

[rotting bones]

Polls show that American voters by and large don't care about Israel or even human rights. Many of them are apparently under the impression that prices of essential goods were lower under Trump, and voting for him will magically bring the good times back again.

[Ares Land]

I never really understood how people get into their heads that letting Trump win will somehow improve things for Palestine, or improve American foreign policy generally. I probably never will. But, hey, you do you! Enjoy four years of Trump, now with extra fascism and added dementia!

[rotting bones]

The polls say a factor that demotivated a lot of Democrats are the promises by Kamala Harris to work closely with the Republicans.

As for Trumpists, most people apparently don't trust competent leaders in general. They trust leaders who sound kinda dopey and promise to "fight like hell" against nebulous outgroups.

From an evolutionary psychology standpoint, it's interesting that players on the Survivor game show don't trust competent leaders either. They want leaders they can outsmart in the end. I don't know if this is relevant.

[Travis B.]

I never really understood how people get into their heads that letting Trump win will somehow improve things for Palestine, or improve American foreign policy generally. I probably never will. But, hey, you do you! Enjoy four years of Trump, now with extra fascism and added dementia!

This.

[Travis B.]

[snip]

The problem is that voting in such a fashion will only help elect someone who is not only much worse in every way but no better on the issue of Israel/Palestine in the very least! There is no rational way in which it can be justified. So yeah, you at least will get to feel righteous while you bring down a fascist dictatorship on all of America and do nothing to actually help your own issue.

[MacAnDàil]

I think politicians deserve a vote as long as they are better than their opponents because, at the end of the day, somebody will be in power and, fi we don't choose the best person available, we'll get somebody, not a hypothetical ideal. Which is part of the reason why I would vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz and any other Democrat if I were American.

[jcb]

political candidates and parties need to earn people's votes

I can't help but notice how I repeated this same idea.

Sure, for example, in theory, if there was a far left voter, and there were only two viable parties to vote for, it would make sense for them to vote for the lefter one, no matter how far away that lefter one is, but in reality, that's not how people actually vote. How people actually vote, is that the closer a candidate is to their position, the more motivated and likely they are to vote. Therefore, if both candidates are far away, the most likely outcome is that they vote for neither. I doubt that chiding people for behaving like this is effective or wide-spread enough to make a difference. Therefore, it would be wise for Democrats to adapt to this reality if they want to win.

Many of them are apparently under the impression that prices of essential goods were lower under Trump, and voting for him will magically bring the good times back again.

Literalism strikes again. When people report believing things that are false (like that the president controls the price of gas), it's probably an expression of some real anxiety. The solution, against liberal instinct, is not to chide them for being stupid, but to agree that their anxieties are real, and redirect their energies to achieving policies that actually address the very real economic anxieties that exist in America today. The problem with chiding them is that although it sets them right about what's true, it also communicates to them that you don't care about their underlying anxieties, and therefore they feel alienated from you. It's like how in improve comedy you are encouraged to say "yes, and..." instead of "no".

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH_I5dgFlFc

Furthermore, chiding people for these things contributes to the deletion of economics from politics, teaching people that politics has nothing to do with economics, and that no matter who they vote for, they will get the same economic policy. Instead, it teaches them that politics has to do with only things like abortion, gay marriage, and trans rights, so they should be voting according to what they think about those things, and not economics!

[Ares Land]

Furthermore, chiding people for these things contributes to the deletion of economics from politics, teaching people that politics has nothing to do with economics, and that no matter who they vote for, they will get the same economic policy. Instead, it teaches them that politics has to do with only things like abortion, gay marriage, and trans rights, so they should be voting according to what they think about those things, and not economics!

This may be a bit blunt, but here's what I think. The chances for a Trump victory look pretty high right now. It honestly looks like American voters are, for instance, completely unbothered by attacks on abortion rights. Or in fact, on women in general. Or on immigrants.
In fact, it looks like American voters are willing to elect an obvious unfit president -- who has proven his incompetence during his four years as president and certainly looks to be mentally declining -- just so they get to boss around women and immigrants.
Under these circumstances, it's hard to show respect to Trump voters.

As for the idea that a Trump victory would somehow lead to a net win for socialism -- I'm sorry, but that's just magical thinking.