My pushback is that now is not the time for both-sides-ism. It needs to be addressed but most voters are poorly informed or vote their emotions and that talking point needs to go in the back pocket for later, if there is one.
I get your point, and the other one stating that Democrats are not "the left", but they are the the least worst option that a 2 party system offers.
The game is rigged, but this quote nails it:
On Undecided Voter s: "To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I inter est you in the chick en? ” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broke n glass in it?”
To be undecided in this elect ion is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chick en is cooked.”
― David Sedaris
"My pushback is that now is not the time for both-sides-ism"
Of course, and that line of reasoning has consistently failed at the polls since it was deployed as a readguard attempt to bolster Clinton's failed presidential campaign. Like, how many times does the DNC have to stick a fork in this particular outlet before it becomes transparent that this line of rhetoric simply doesn't produce the desired results?
Not only is it absolutely time, it is well and truly past time to underline the functionally identical economic policies of both parties, how the economic turmoil this causes drives identity politics and political division in this country, with a clear eye towards bringing an end to all of that through any means available.
The Democratic party absolutely needs to be taken to task and none of their bullshit should be tolerated or defended, ever, except one small exception: election day, in the general election -- because we can't fix the government if it's no longer a democracy.
We are in violent agreement in all but this: I refuse to reward the Democratic party for putting a gun to my head. If they as a political organization are willing to literally risk our democracy when the alternative is assembling reforms that clearly address the imbalances in our society then we can all burn together because I refuse to continue to reward their brinksmanship.
Great! I engage to try and reach consensus, not dismiss. Sometimes it even works!
I want to point out that there were enough viable voters for Harris to win (but I am in the camp that believes there was actual election fraud done by Trump supporters).
The anger at blessing Harris without a proper primary, the genocide in Gaza, and the "everything's fine in the economy because the market is doing great!" -- none of that should be tolerated, and I recognize the anger leading to not voting for her because of that.
But by not voting in that unpalatable compromise we have an administration that is as evil, corrupt, and anti-democratic as could be. It's not clear if we can ever wrest control again. I'm frankly terrified.
We have to be strategic in our opposition, but that involves all of us reading from the same script -- a power that the Right excels at and the Left seems incapable of doing.
Case in point: "wokeness". It's been artfully weaponized by the Right and is the Achilles heel of the Left. It's the GOP's golden ticket to victory.
One of the superpowers of "wokeness" is that it's definition is never acknowledged on the Right other than "shrill libruls trying to boss everyone around and make everybody transgender and gay". That vagueness is intentional.
To the Right it's an opaque blob of hate that requires no thought, no reason, other than "I hate that shit".
As "woke" was really about becoming aware of the institutionalized racism of the US I would call myself "fully woke" in that regard. But as it's more of a amorphous entity now I'd call it "human decency".
That said, I believe the Dems need to bail on "woke" and follow the model of the Tea Party, where a subgroup can espouse the more "extreme" stuff, and the main party can say "oh those silly people, that's not us, we're the serious party of populist economics and foreign policy"; then once that is framed in the public's eye, to go "oops, the extremists made me do this".
Politics means 2 distinctly different things: tending to the rules of governance, and tribal warfare. It's the latter that makes people hate talking about it.
This is all a game, a very important game, and a very strategic game. The rules used to be more clear but now its Calvinball.
Our only viable choice is to play the game the best we can, and recognize and act on what will help us "win".
Disclaimer: while I shit on the GOP, I recognize the value of "conservatism" and would love to see a GOP that existed to be the check and balance of any follies that the Dems enage in. If we're stuck with a two-party system, that would be our best bet for the country to survive, let alone succeed.
Identity politics hasn't been a national debate topic... ever? Unless you count "the presidential candidate is a woman/black" as identity politics. Harris was quiet on trans issues in her campaign and Obama didn't talk much at all about gay marriage in 2008. Maybe he was more accommodating in 2012, but it didn't come up in his campaign.
If you read through any of the DNC talking points of any given campaign, you're not going to see much on social issues until you maybe get to Kennedy. It's just not really something that's a pressing issue for a presidential run.
And honestly, I can't think of any social policies in the last 50 years that was seriously pushed by a sitting president. They at best pay lip service by painting a rainbow on some building, often years after the actual legal and legislative battles were won.
----
Now, to directly answer your question: I'd rather not rely on deplorables to vote progressive. the nature of how they approach life simply won't allow that, even if they are otherwise in full agreement with every point. We need to energize the entire 3rd of the country that took one of the most important elections in the past 60 years and simply shrugged, staying home. We need to give them someone who will fight for them.
> will you give up identity politics for the deplorables vote?
That phrase gets used a lot, I'm curious what you mean by that.
If you mean "woke", then you're probably missing the irony of how that is actually used politically. Based on the phrasing of your question, I'm guessing you might have an irony deficiency. But please go on.
Political discussion here is frowned upon because it usually devolves into partisan name calling -- which justifies it not being tolerated.
But if you want to discuss policy or "hacking society", please do. I am of no political party and am more than happy to acknowledge the foibles of those I might associate with, as well as any of my own because everybody makes mistakes, no?
So, who in the US is actually using identity politics as a distraction?
I ask because as an outsider I overwhelmingly see US identity politics issues being raised by the new "Republicans" and to a lesser degree by the old Republicans.
> if you materially make peoples lives better they will vote for you.
This doesn't explain the last election in the slightest unless relaxed to "if you pinky promise to materially make peoples lives better..."
I agree with the former, and conceptually with latter. But we've seen people vote against their best interests because of the promise of destroying those who've they've been taught to hate. Contemporary US immigration "policy" is a case in point.
No, we haven't. People do not "vote against their interests", as much as commenters online love to claim that. What actually happens is that they believe what they vote for will advance their well-being, and you disagree with their assessment. That's a very, very different thing.
The idea that there are any significant number of people out there deliberately hurting themselves for hate's sake is a complete myth. People reach for it because it feels good to imagine that your opponents are hate-warped idiots, but there is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim. When you actually talk to people (and not just assume you know what's in their heads), you find out that they, like you, are just trying to do good in an imperfect world.
Non-US PoV - US identity politics as an actual threat to panic and pearl clutch about seems to be largely a creation of the US right.
Actual US identity expression "issues" (visible drag queens, actually trans people, sports questions) seem to be small number small beer problems that should fall under US principles of "We let Nazi's march, so why not Furries" ?
> an actual threat to panic and pearl clutch about seems to be largely a creation of the US right.
"woke" has been a goldmine for the Right. Who needs policy when fear, panic, and anger get the voters in those booths? After all, drag queens and trans people are scary -- think of the children!
My pushback is that now is not the time for both-sides-ism. It needs to be addressed but most voters are poorly informed or vote their emotions and that talking point needs to go in the back pocket for later, if there is one.
I get your point, and the other one stating that Democrats are not "the left", but they are the the least worst option that a 2 party system offers.
The game is rigged, but this quote nails it:
On Undecided Voter s: "To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I inter est you in the chick en? ” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broke n glass in it?”
To be undecided in this elect ion is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chick en is cooked.” ― David Sedaris