United States Politics Thread 46

[zompist]

This. Wherever you have a Middle Class with a stake in the system, people are generally more willing to support those who promise them to protect their status from whatever outsider*) threat they see - whether real or imaginary, i.e., supporting conservative authoritarians and fascists, than supporting change that would threaten their status. As people mostly are more concerned about relative status than absolute status, this makes them averse even against changes that lift others up to their level, even if that wouldn't change their wealth or material conditions of living.
That is why succesful communist / socialist revolutions only happen in states where a substantial Middles Class hasn't been formed yet, but takeovers by authoritarians can happen anytime when people feel sufficiently threatened.

Oh shit. I never thought about it this way, but you make a really good case for what you're saying. If only anyone had a good idea for how to solve this problem...

If it was easy everyone would know how to do it. But we can approach this from a jaded cynical perspective, or a more hopeful one.

One proven solution is to let the bad guys have their way, and when they inevitably fuck everything up badly, a more rational path can be chosen. So, the US had to be divided in half and have a war before slavery was abolished; capitalists had drive the world into a huge depression before the US got a social safety net; Germany had to lose WWII before fascism could be beaten back.

Obviously this 'strategy' is a bit risky. On the other hand, it can be said to have worked in minor cases: e.g. Trump just had one term (and just 2 years of legislative majority), Bolsonaro got kicked out; the UK Tories are very likely to be sent packing.

Another way of putting it though: don't we want the middle class to grow? do we prefer revolutions?

The overall liberal idea, which also has history behind it, is that people forget historical quarrels when their life is improving. A lot of the divisions that once seemed dire and eternal, and led to wars and very nasty politics, are now remembered only by scholars.

This is why I've made such a big deal about the US turn toward plutocracy since 1980. For nearly 50 years everybody's life was getting better-- all classes, all races, all sexes. Now only the 10% get better off. It's not just a bad deal in economic terms: it turns out that under those circumstances, the majority knowing that they are not getting the fruits of prosperity and not understanding why, that right-wing authoritarianism flourishes.

[rotting bones]

It makes a lot of sense; that books sounds very interesting.

It's a standard text on social theory, and therefore unknown to the general public. Personally, I don't like it much, but it is the correct citation.

That's the more traditional Marxist view; but I'm not sure I agree. For one thing, I think it's too broad (all of identity politics?everywhere?) Second, some varieties of it did make socialist ideas popular again. Feminism definitely revived socialist ideas.
Finally, in the global West 'working class' and 'minorities' are increasingly equivalent.

The thing is, if an idpol movement is actually emancipatory, then it subsumes the interests of that identity to a broader social struggle. Such a movement would be under constant attack from within that identity as "sellouts" or worse. Black Feminists like For Harriet have received such sustained abuse from black men that they stopped making content for years on end. If an idpol movement is committed to general emancipation, then the encouragement of a specific identity may be a tactical mistake. Compare the Robbers Cave Experiment.

[rotting bones]

What is "girlboss fascism"?

For example, the tendency of white feminists to broadly assume all Arabs(/Muslims/poors) are misogynistic. Recent example: https://youtu.be/9a7LrWo47I0

[zompist]

Rule of thumb: the only people advocating that people "vote for the center" are center-right columnists, people like David Brooks-- if you haven't heard of him you're lucky.

I assumed the implication of the "socialism doesn't appeal to voters" talking point is "vote for the center to defeat fascism".

If you assume that explanations are excuses, please cut that shit out. I get really tired of leftists who think that ignorance of politics is a virtue. I haven't ever hidden my personal views, and it's extremely rude to pretend that they've suddenly changed to centrism.

I would call Biden a centrist because IIRC he has both supported strikes and broken them as politically expedient.

Yes, but on the whole his record on labor is good. Did you notice the bit where no previous US president has joined a picket line? Personally Biden is barely liberal-- he was after all chosen by Obama precisely to reassure people who thought Obama was too far left. In practice he's been more consistently liberal than Obama.

(And yes, he has a big damn blind spot about Israel. Still a better choice than the fascist who wants to deport protestors.)

Also, talking about "idpol" is like complaining about "wokeism". It's generally either center-right or far-left strawmanning about issues the complainers cannot bear addressing. If you can't stand the idea of a socialist revolution being feminist and anti-racist, that's a you problem.

I have given an example of what I'm talking about. I have given many more examples in the past.

The enforcement of traditional values is not emancipation. I support feminism, anti-racism and decolonialism as long as they're actually emancipatory movements. Compare the rise of girlboss fascism, decolonial Islamism, etc. Many indigenous movements don't even identify as "leftist" anymore.

I don't know what "girlboss fascism" is. As it happens I just read a book by a dude (Ed Husain) who was taken by centrist Islamism, on the grounds that they reminded him of the Tories. I mean, I liked his insistence that Islam doesn't have to be fascist and Wahhabi, but I'd also take that as confirmation that Islamism has nothing to do with leftism.

[Ares Land]

The thing is, if an idpol movement is actually emancipatory, then it subsumes the interests of that identity to a broader social struggle.

That is an excellent way to make sure neither the broader social struggle, nor the identity interests get statisfied.

I don't know, let's consider feminism for instance. Why should feminists be satisfied with the usual idea that their complaints will be adressed after the proletarian revolution?
Then the proletarian revolution never actually comes, and male Marxists turn out to be as patriarchal as male bourgeois.

OTOH the current wave of feminism did popularize socialist ideas.

What is "girlboss fascism"?

For example, the tendency of white feminists to broadly assume all Arabs(/Muslims/poors) are misogynistic. Recent example: https://youtu.be/9a7LrWo47I0

I see what you mean; plenty of conservatives call themselves feminists. In fact these days plenty of conservatives call themselves Marxists.

This doesn't discredit either socialism or feminism.

[Raphael]

One proven solution is to let the bad guys have their way, and when they inevitably fuck everything up badly, a more rational path can be chosen. So, the US had to be divided in half and have a war before slavery was abolished; capitalists had drive the world into a huge depression before the US got a social safety net; Germany had to lose WWII before fascism could be beaten back.

Problem is, we live in a world in which the next disaster might well be the final one.

Another way of putting it though: don't we want the middle class to grow?

I do; I just wish it wouldn't lead to people moving to the right or even the far right.

do we prefer revolutions?

Right now, one of the main problems with the idea of revolution is that in large parts of the world, for now, the most likely "revolution" (for lack of a better word) would be a far-right one.

The overall liberal idea, which also has history behind it, is that people forget historical quarrels when their life is improving. A lot of the divisions that once seemed dire and eternal, and led to wars and very nasty politics, are now remembered only by scholars.

This is why I've made such a big deal about the US turn toward plutocracy since 1980. For nearly 50 years everybody's life was getting better-- all classes, all races, all sexes. Now only the 10% get better off. It's not just a bad deal in economic terms: it turns out that under those circumstances, the majority knowing that they are not getting the fruits of prosperity and not understanding why, that right-wing authoritarianism flourishes.

Thing is, the other side of that coin is that, the worse things get, the more people will support right-wingers, and the more people support right-wingers, the worse things get.

[zompist]

Right now, one of the main problems with the idea of revolution is that in large parts of the world, for now, the most likely "revolution" (for lack of a better word) would be a far-right one.

Yes, this is a very possible disaster mode. Bear this in mind for the rest of this post...

The overall liberal idea, which also has history behind it, is that people forget historical quarrels when their life is improving. A lot of the divisions that once seemed dire and eternal, and led to wars and very nasty politics, are now remembered only by scholars.

This is why I've made such a big deal about the US turn toward plutocracy since 1980. For nearly 50 years everybody's life was getting better-- all classes, all races, all sexes. Now only the 10% get better off. It's not just a bad deal in economic terms: it turns out that under those circumstances, the majority knowing that they are not getting the fruits of prosperity and not understanding why, that right-wing authoritarianism flourishes.

Thing is, the other side of that coin is that, the worse things get, the more people will support right-wingers, and the more people support right-wingers, the worse things get.

But this is a fallacy, the fallacy of extrapolation. Because a trend exists, it does not mean the trend goes on forever. In social and biological situations, a trend usually gets balanced by a counter-trend.

Or to put it more politically: the more people support right-wingers, the more people support left-wingers. I mean, think of 19th century Europe: inequality plus reactionary regimes led to socialist agitation and, in some areas, revolution. In the current US, the younger generation has more interest in socialism than people have had for a century. It was by no means evident in the 1990s that this might happen!

[masako]

People aren't obligated to vote at all, so what's your real point? What is your actual substantive goal?

So why do people here criticize me when I remind people of that fact, and suggest that Democrats should improve their platform to garner more votes so they can win more?

You're suggesting that you know better than this political machine? Have you run any successful campaigns? Do you have any degrees in political science, communications, psychology? What qualifies you to know how a political party should behave? Serious question, not sarcasm.

Anyways, my point is that Democrats would benefit (AKA gain votes) from adopting more policies that support uneducated blue-collar workers.

Like tax cuts for folks in the 0.01%? Like that?

You talk about political parties as if they are monolithic...hell, even the GOP isn't completely unified in its support of the now convicted felon. It may appear that way to Faux News viewers, but it's clearly not given the number of votes Haley has received in closed primaries...but go on about how each party should or shouldn't behave, rather than the individual politicians that move significant portions of their respective parties in one direction or another. That's just weird.

Seriously, your both-sides-ism crap is tiresome, and as many other have already responded to you in a manner more civilized than I believe your rhetoric deserves, I'll just say that your notions of how Dems should operate sound a whole hell of a lot like they should just do what the GOP does. No. Stop that. That's dumb.

Sorry my reply is late, I was on vacation.

[Torco]

Vote for whoever he tells them to vote for?

I kinda feel this is correct. I can even imagine the narrative.

But you are the one who is saying "support Trump because it will weaken the US etc. and make the world a better place as a result", when anyone who doesn't vote for Biden due to the whole Israel-Gaza war is an absolute fool because Trump will support Netanyahu whole-heartedly here, unlike Biden.

oh, I don't know that I'd go so far as to prescribe it. I'd rather he wins, for the weakening of the empire but also cause I think the democrats would probably sell out less if they lived in a world where selling out too much costs them elections etcetera, but I think if i lived there and could vote... honestly I think I could stomach no more than abstention. can you believe actually voting *for* trump?

rotting is on point here. the right *says* our stuff is idpol, but in reality, left wing issues are either universalist or else some corruption of universalist left wing values: this is mostly because where conservatives tend to view identity as given, we know that it is socially constructed: and even when it's not (and if it's not, it's simply cause of force of social fact), then we're countering actual idpol: the policy of keeping a race down, for example. idpol is, for us, choicepol, and intersectionality without class is too vulnerable to the nobles coopting it.


but you know what really limits people's choices? spending two thirds of their income on rent in a world where access to all of the social goods is mediated, as a matter of how society functions, by the spending of said income (hence why we leftos want free shit (education housing blabla), or anyways cheaper shit: but hopefull free). and poors, rightly so, are concerned that left-of-center politicians may be using those issues as a way to, economically, do basically the same that right wingers would do, just slower. politics being entirely about the culture war stuff -not that it's not important, it often is- permits nobles and politicians to just do whatever is in their class interest. intersectionality either includes class or can be veeery easily coopted by the them to do noble stuff (noble here means burgeois, or "in the interest of rich people", of course). politicians, lets remember, very often are nobles themselves: their kids go to the same fancy schools the sons of CEOs and big shareholders go to, and a lot of em end up being all three.

(edit: damn, i read two threads and responded in one, moving)

[Travis B.]

Abstention is voting for Trump.

[masako]

Abstention is voting for Trump.

It's one of 3 ways to vote for a convicted felon.

The other two would actually selecting his name on the ballot, or a vote for RFK Jr.

[Torco]

abstention increases the odds of trump winning more than voting for biden, sure, but rallying cries aside, they're not the same thing: if they were, why is abstention not a vote for biden? what's the asymmetry? is trump the default? is abstention both? the us system is wack, but it's not that wack... that reminds me of an electoral myth from here, though: it is said that "blank (or null) votes are added to the majority"

[zompist]

abstention increases the odds of trump winning more than voting for biden, sure, but rallying cries aside, they're not the same thing: if they were, why is abstention not a vote for biden?

Abstention is a vote for the worse alternative.

If your friends are voting for pizza toppings, and you have no strong feelings except for hating anchovies, then not voting is a vote for anchovies.

US elections are winner-takes-all, so of course the logic may be different in e.g. proportional representation.

[hwhatting]

[Oh shit. I never thought about it this way, but you make a really good case for what you're saying. If only anyone had a good idea for how to solve this problem...

If it was easy everyone would know how to do it. But we can approach this from a jaded cynical perspective, or a more hopeful one.

One proven solution is to let the bad guys have their way, and when they inevitably fuck everything up badly, a more rational path can be chosen. So, the US had to be divided in half and have a war before slavery was abolished; capitalists had drive the world into a huge depression before the US got a social safety net; Germany had to lose WWII before fascism could be beaten back.

Obviously this 'strategy' is a bit risky. On the other hand, it can be said to have worked in minor cases: e.g. Trump just had one term (and just 2 years of legislative majority), Bolsonaro got kicked out; the UK Tories are very likely to be sent packing.

Well, "a bit risky" is putting it mildly. If we can be quite sure that the reactionaries won't be able to break democracy and can be voted out, the risk is preferable to denying people the right to vote for them; but if the risk is dictatorship and concentration camps? Or the kind of managed democracy with ever declining chances for the opposition and suppression of dissent and minorities we see in Turkey or Hungary? I don't have an answer, but the risk is real.

Another way of putting it though: don't we want the middle class to grow? do we prefer revolutions?

The overall liberal idea, which also has history behind it, is that people forget historical quarrels when their life is improving. A lot of the divisions that once seemed dire and eternal, and led to wars and very nasty politics, are now remembered only by scholars.

Agreed. And while communist / socialist revolutions are improbable in societies with a substantial middle class, progressive politics are possible, even if they're currently at a low point of the ebb and flow of political fashion.

This is why I've made such a big deal about the US turn toward plutocracy since 1980. For nearly 50 years everybody's life was getting better-- all classes, all races, all sexes. Now only the 10% get better off. It's not just a bad deal in economic terms: it turns out that under those circumstances, the majority knowing that they are not getting the fruits of prosperity and not understanding why, that right-wing authoritarianism flourishes.

Yep. But that alone doesn't help; first, the ground must be prepared to make the policies that will improve everybody's life possible. And that's difficult - on one hand, the stress on the middles classes needs to be reduced to make them more open for higher taxes, re-distribution, and reforms that will increase growth, but on the other hand we have challenges (climate change, the rise of authoritarian regimes that are willing to use force to change the status quo, aging societies soon almost everyhwere) that increase the stress. I'm comfortably middle class; I'm in my late fifties, and most of the people in my social circle just want to be left alone - they don't want the hassle of exchanging their oil or gas heatings for solar panels or heat pumps, they want to continue using their combustion engine cars, they don't want their retirement age to increase constantly; they don't want higher taxes; they'd rather prefer the war in Ukraine or climate change to just go away; they don't want to learn new pronouns or change the way they have to speak based on the latest woke memo. Many of them are ready to accomodate some of the things that are necessary, but now it looks to them like it's one damn thing after another. And one won't get their support by hectoring them or calling them reactionaries or fascists; one needs to make them comfortable and find ways to get the necessary things done that don't feel like a constant flood of impositions. It's a difficult needle to thread, and our current (mostly) progressive government is making a dog's breakfast out of it. I still voted for the Greens at the European election, but 16% went for the hard right...

[zompist]

This is why I've made such a big deal about the US turn toward plutocracy since 1980. For nearly 50 years everybody's life was getting better-- all classes, all races, all sexes. Now only the 10% get better off. It's not just a bad deal in economic terms: it turns out that under those circumstances, the majority knowing that they are not getting the fruits of prosperity and not understanding why, that right-wing authoritarianism flourishes.

Yep. But that alone doesn't help; first, the ground must be prepared to make the policies that will improve everybody's life possible. And that's difficult - on one hand, the stress on the middles classes needs to be reduced to make them more open for higher taxes, re-distribution, and reforms that will increase growth, but on the other hand we have challenges (climate change, the rise of authoritarian regimes that are willing to use force to change the status quo, aging societies soon almost everyhwere) that increase the stress. I'm comfortably middle class; I'm in my late fifties, and most of the people in my social circle just want to be left alone - they don't want the hassle of exchanging their oil or gas heatings for solar panels or heat pumps, they want to continue using their combustion engine cars, they don't want their retirement age to increase constantly; they don't want higher taxes; they'd rather prefer the war in Ukraine or climate change to just go away; they don't want to learn new pronouns or change the way they have to speak based on the latest woke memo. Many of them are ready to accomodate some of the things that are necessary, but now it looks to them like it's one damn thing after another. And one won't get their support by hectoring them or calling them reactionaries or fascists; one needs to make them comfortable and find ways to get the necessary things done that don't feel like a constant flood of impositions. It's a difficult needle to thread, and our current (mostly) progressive government is making a dog's breakfast out of it. I still voted for the Greens at the European election, but 16% went for the hard right...

I have complicated feelings about all this. I think you've diagnosed the problem well, but then that just raises more questions, like "why do middle-aged people become fuddy-duddies?" and "why don't they get equally upset over right-wing outrages?"

On the first, there was a very interesting data analysis, which I've tried to find again but couldn't, that says that people don't become more conservative as they age; in fact they become decidedly more liberal. But society becomes more liberal faster than they do. So by the time they're old, they fit into right-wing parties better than left-wing ones.

We do become more resistant to change, I think... especially change for its own sake. (I particularly felt this as a computer programmer: I was excited by new languages and paradigms in my 20s, sick of them in my 50s.) At the same time, all that repressiveness and closed-mindedness we sensed in our 20s, the intense frustration that the world can't be made better... well, where does it come from except from middle-aged crankiness? The biggest crisis facing the world is climate change, and "doing things as we've always done" is precisely what caused the crisis and makes scientists despair. One guy who doesn't want solar panels, who cares, but 100 million of them, then we don't meet our agreements on carbon emission.

I don't know how it is in Germany, but in the US the media have to take a lot of the blame. A constant rattle of change has been part of life for 150 years; but the media turn it into a deafening roar. Middle-aged and elderly people here start to watch Fox News and turn into reactionaries. The UK press seems even worse— there seem to be no left-wing tabloids.

Finally, I'd note that too much fiscal responsibility is— paradoxically— a terrible idea. Nations are not households... and even if they were, it's routine for households to get into debt, we often call it "buying a house". Here, the right scolds the left about deficits, the left abashedly reduces the deficit (taking the hit in popularity), the right then balloons the deficit. Nations do not become prosperous by austerity programs— quite the reverse.

[Ares Land]

A few thoughts on this:

• I don't know about the US or Germany, but the usual idea of young people being more left-wing and shifting right as they age just isn't true anymore here. We have a lot of conservative or far-right young people. It goes against conventional wisdom, but there we are.
• I think the people you describe, H-W, are just... y'know, conservatives, right-wingers. And I mean, it's perfectly within their right! But why bother cuddling them, or get them comfortable? That's just giving up on necessary changes, plus you won't get their support no matter what -- conservatives just won't vote for the Greens.
• Far-right voters are another matter. I do think we should address the problems they face when they are legitimate, but at some point it would be nice to go back to the policy that worked: treat far-right ideas as beyond the pale, and call their voters what they are: ignorant and/or stupid and/or fascists. I don't think we got rid of the Nazis or fascists or Pétainists by being extra nice and understadning.
• One problem is that right-wing ideas and policies are by nature seen as right and legitimate, and left-wing ideas are always stupid and dangerous. There are probably many factors to explain this, but the chief one is that most of the media are owned by the rich, who have, of course, little sympathy for left-wing ideas.
• A huge bit of the problem is the 'neoliberal' (for lack of a better word) view of climate change as a matter of personal choice and responsability, that must be solved by individual efforts. That just won't work. You won't get people to switch to electric cars when they're out of the middle class' price range. You won't get people to take public transportation where it doesn't exist. Heat pumps are very nice, but people either rent or can't afford them.

[xxx]

[*]I don't know about the US or Germany, but the usual idea of young people being more left-wing and shifting right as they age just isn't true anymore here. We have a lot of conservative or far-right young people. It goes against conventional wisdom, but there we are.

for sure, young people also suffer from the downgrading of the middle classes, as their studies are more expensive and take longer, and they have to go into debt if their parents are not wealthy or on welfare, that's not an ideological problem...

[*]I think the people you describe, H-W, are just... y'know, conservatives, right-wingers. And I mean, it's perfectly within their right! But why bother cuddling them, or get them comfortable? That's just giving up on necessary changes, plus you won't get their support no matter what -- conservatives just won't vote for the Greens.

punitive ecology isn't a good choice, especially when it's only imposed on certain people only, that's not an ideological problem...

[*]Far-right voters are another matter. I do think we should address the problems they face when they are legitimate, but at some point it would be nice to go back to the policy that worked: treat far-right ideas as beyond the pale, and call their voters what they are: ignorant and/or stupid and/or fascists. I don't think we got rid of the Nazis or fascists or Pétainists by being extra nice and understadning.

I think that not wanting to take into account a part of the people who vote is not recognizing democracy , that's an ideological problem...

[*]One problem is that right-wing ideas and policies are by nature seen as right and legitimate, and left-wing ideas are always stupid and dangerous. There are probably many factors to explain this, but the chief one is that most of the media are owned by the rich, who have, of course, little sympathy for left-wing ideas.

it's not true, the left wing tells the truth on the channels, to the point of caricature, that's an ideological problem...

[*]A huge bit of the problem is the 'neoliberal' (for lack of a better word) view of climate change as a matter of personal choice and responsability, that must be solved by individual efforts. That just won't work. You won't get people to switch to electric cars when they're out of the middle class' price range. You won't get people to take public transportation where it doesn't exist. Heat pumps are very nice, but people either rent or can't afford them.

the problem is money, and lobbying to make more of it. If we want to continue in a globalized consumer society, there's no way out, that's an ideological problem...

[Ares Land]

for sure, young people also suffer from the downgrading of the middle classes, as their studies are more expensive and take longer, and they have to go into debt if their parents are not wealthy or on welfare, that's not an ideological problem...

Yes, and they're blaming this on foreigners, minorities, you name it. Morally, that's pretty ugly.

punitive ecology isn't a good choice, especially when it's only imposed on certain people only, that's not an ideological problem...

Are you being punished? I know I'm not. I can't even think of an environmental measure that really affects me personally.

I think that not wanting to take into account a part of the people who vote is not recognizing democracy , that's an ideological problem..

We've been listening to them for more than 20 years now... Trying to explain them, understand them; where did that get us?

it's not true, the left wing tells the truth on the channels, to the point of caricature, that's an ideological problem...

I guess from a far-right perspective, just about anything sounds borderline communist; but for the rest of us, no it's not really the case.

the problem is money, and lobbying to make more of it. If we want to continue in a globalized consumer society, there's no way out, that's an ideological problem...

And, again, is the far right going to do anything about it?

[xxx]

I do not define myself as right-wing,
my purchasing power has collapsed,
my student children are in debt,
despite that I am obliged to use my overtaxed cars, one of which is electric,
and change my means of heating,
I deplore the ideological blindness which pushes towards extremes ,
I deplore the barrage of propaganda on the media and in schools that speak Newspeak,
the power of words is not enough,
I would like ALL parties to take into account the untreated problems
and not leave them to the extremists...
how can you be so blinded...

[Ares Land]

I do not define myself as right-wing,
my purchasing power has collapsed,
my student children are in debt,
despite that I am obliged to use my overtaxed cars, one of which is electric,
and change my means of heating,

How is any of that the immigrant's fault?

You're basically turning your country over to the dogs, exposing all minorities to god knows what bullshit the RN will come up with, all because of your fucking heat bills?
You should be ashamed of yourself.