I’m only beginning to roust myself from a deep depression over the election results, and I’m doing my best to interpret what it all means. What just happened? Why, using the widest possible angle lens, did it happen? And now what?
There’s been a lot of discussion about how happy Kamala became fear-mongering Kamala, about how the right spe…
I’m only beginning to roust myself from a deep depression over the election results, and I’m doing my best to interpret what it all means. What just happened? Why, using the widest possible angle lens, did it happen? And now what?
There’s been a lot of discussion about how happy Kamala became fear-mongering Kamala, about how the right spews non-stop inflammatory falsehoods, about sane-washing and news editors not rising to the moment, about the consequences of Biden’s tardy departure, and about various other possible contributory explanations of Harris’ loss. One could speculate, perhaps rightly, that if the Right had been more righteous, or the left had better executed, Kamala would have won. Perhaps so. But the GOP had its own boat anchor, too: it had to convince a plurality of our generally decent, well-intentioned electorate to vote for Trump, despite Trump being possibly the most ethically and personally flawed candidate either major party has ever nominated. This, despite there being no possibility whatsoever that the electorate was somehow hoodwinked. As you said, we knew exactly who we were getting.
So I think the center/left needs to look past oppositional messaging, campaign execution, and the weather reports of the day, and take a sober look at what exactly the donkey party is selling, and how it competes in the marketplace of ideas with what the elephant guys have for sale. My conclusion is that the People have given the left a thumbs-down, and no amount of post-campaign finger-pointing will change that. It is arrogant of those of us who consider ourselves well-educated, well-read, and, well, smart, to think half the country has somehow been induced to vote in a way not in their best interests. The reason the GOP won is, IMO, because they claimed the populist agenda that the left abandoned. What we care the most about - say, Trump’s threat to democracy - just isn’t what most of America cares about - such as, perhaps, how much more a dozen eggs costs than it did a year ago.
Democrats won when they stood for good jobs, dignity, and safety. They won when their leaders’ messages of “we know you, and we care about you” were strong and genuine enough that they couldn’t be drowned out by party definition projection from the right. They lost when voters felt that they’ve been talked down to by “arrogant liberals” with whom they have nothing in common (like Clinton), when they don’t trust the candidate is genuine (like Harris), when the candidate can’t or won’t prosecute their otherwise viable case vigorously enough to shape the national discourse (as was Biden’s trajectory).
My notion is that the Democratic Party needs to stop blaming the voters and blaming the Republicans, and start listening very closely for who the American people really are. And then select leaders who are of that, understand that, and can communicate that. Rather than embracing self-congratulatory identity politics so strongly. I don’t think the GOP has necessarily permanently co-opted the Democrats’ historical populism, because I think their version is calculated and not genuine. Trump cares about nobody but himself, and his political acolytes care about nothing but leveraging Trump’s popularity. Add decency to a genuine, vigorous, of-the-people leader, and you’ve got the basis for another swing of the pendulum.
"It is arrogant of those of us who consider ourselves well-educated, well-read, and, well, smart, to think half the country has somehow been induced to vote in a way not in their best interests."
Arrogant perhaps, but still true. I suspect that we've all made shoot from the hip bad decisions. Been mislead. And had buyer's remorse after the act realizing I should taken a beat and thought this through. Many have been seduced into voting against their self interests. Happens all the time in every election because mostly people vote their feelings not their interests.
Christopher - you make a good point. Allow me to reframe. We all form opinions and make decisions based on our own unique perspectives. When we conjecture that others are making decisions not in their best interests, that conjecture is made far more convincingly through our own frames of reference than theirs. The arrogance is in not understanding that the different frames of reference exist.
But I think the point is moot. We live in a democracy, and fools, if that's what they are, still have the right to vote. Whatever Team Red said won, and whatever Team Blue said lost, in a free and fair election. Voters made their decisions however they made them, whether we agree with their decision making processes or not. But this shouldn't have even been a close election, because Trump is SUCH an awful person and the populist aspects of the GOP platform are SO ingenuine. But for all that, it still resonated more strongly with America than did the Democratic Party's platform. We're complaining that they're being duped by Republican messaging when we don't understand why that messaging resonates, much less offering our own messaging that is better. Which leads once again to my thesis: the Democratic Party needs to ground itself. Less Elizabeth Warren, and more, I dunno, Sherrod Brown.
In addition to modifying the message - less school yard spat more George Orwell Politics and the English Language, less ideological rigidity more common man sense - Democratic candidates need to speak more frequently and effectively in today's information spaces.
The legacy media, whose economic model has collapsed and from which I suspect this audience draws most of its information, just doesn't reach enough people including voters to win elections.
I think the Harris campaign knew this. But starting from scratch and as a newbie they didn't have enough time to 'play' in those social media and pod cast channels.
All I have to add is: As you suggest at the end, it's one thing to think / argue / imagine / recommend what a party "should" do. How it should present itself, what it should stand for. But in reality (as you know) whether that works usually comes down to finding or happening upon a *specific person* who via bearing, record, explanatory power, etc etc represents those different values.
All of these tasks are hard. Finding the right person is the hardest, and most luck-dependant.
I’m only beginning to roust myself from a deep depression over the election results, and I’m doing my best to interpret what it all means. What just happened? Why, using the widest possible angle lens, did it happen? And now what?
There’s been a lot of discussion about how happy Kamala became fear-mongering Kamala, about how the right spews non-stop inflammatory falsehoods, about sane-washing and news editors not rising to the moment, about the consequences of Biden’s tardy departure, and about various other possible contributory explanations of Harris’ loss. One could speculate, perhaps rightly, that if the Right had been more righteous, or the left had better executed, Kamala would have won. Perhaps so. But the GOP had its own boat anchor, too: it had to convince a plurality of our generally decent, well-intentioned electorate to vote for Trump, despite Trump being possibly the most ethically and personally flawed candidate either major party has ever nominated. This, despite there being no possibility whatsoever that the electorate was somehow hoodwinked. As you said, we knew exactly who we were getting.
So I think the center/left needs to look past oppositional messaging, campaign execution, and the weather reports of the day, and take a sober look at what exactly the donkey party is selling, and how it competes in the marketplace of ideas with what the elephant guys have for sale. My conclusion is that the People have given the left a thumbs-down, and no amount of post-campaign finger-pointing will change that. It is arrogant of those of us who consider ourselves well-educated, well-read, and, well, smart, to think half the country has somehow been induced to vote in a way not in their best interests. The reason the GOP won is, IMO, because they claimed the populist agenda that the left abandoned. What we care the most about - say, Trump’s threat to democracy - just isn’t what most of America cares about - such as, perhaps, how much more a dozen eggs costs than it did a year ago.
Democrats won when they stood for good jobs, dignity, and safety. They won when their leaders’ messages of “we know you, and we care about you” were strong and genuine enough that they couldn’t be drowned out by party definition projection from the right. They lost when voters felt that they’ve been talked down to by “arrogant liberals” with whom they have nothing in common (like Clinton), when they don’t trust the candidate is genuine (like Harris), when the candidate can’t or won’t prosecute their otherwise viable case vigorously enough to shape the national discourse (as was Biden’s trajectory).
My notion is that the Democratic Party needs to stop blaming the voters and blaming the Republicans, and start listening very closely for who the American people really are. And then select leaders who are of that, understand that, and can communicate that. Rather than embracing self-congratulatory identity politics so strongly. I don’t think the GOP has necessarily permanently co-opted the Democrats’ historical populism, because I think their version is calculated and not genuine. Trump cares about nobody but himself, and his political acolytes care about nothing but leveraging Trump’s popularity. Add decency to a genuine, vigorous, of-the-people leader, and you’ve got the basis for another swing of the pendulum.
"It is arrogant of those of us who consider ourselves well-educated, well-read, and, well, smart, to think half the country has somehow been induced to vote in a way not in their best interests."
Arrogant perhaps, but still true. I suspect that we've all made shoot from the hip bad decisions. Been mislead. And had buyer's remorse after the act realizing I should taken a beat and thought this through. Many have been seduced into voting against their self interests. Happens all the time in every election because mostly people vote their feelings not their interests.
Christopher - you make a good point. Allow me to reframe. We all form opinions and make decisions based on our own unique perspectives. When we conjecture that others are making decisions not in their best interests, that conjecture is made far more convincingly through our own frames of reference than theirs. The arrogance is in not understanding that the different frames of reference exist.
But I think the point is moot. We live in a democracy, and fools, if that's what they are, still have the right to vote. Whatever Team Red said won, and whatever Team Blue said lost, in a free and fair election. Voters made their decisions however they made them, whether we agree with their decision making processes or not. But this shouldn't have even been a close election, because Trump is SUCH an awful person and the populist aspects of the GOP platform are SO ingenuine. But for all that, it still resonated more strongly with America than did the Democratic Party's platform. We're complaining that they're being duped by Republican messaging when we don't understand why that messaging resonates, much less offering our own messaging that is better. Which leads once again to my thesis: the Democratic Party needs to ground itself. Less Elizabeth Warren, and more, I dunno, Sherrod Brown.
Well and persuasively reframed.
In addition to modifying the message - less school yard spat more George Orwell Politics and the English Language, less ideological rigidity more common man sense - Democratic candidates need to speak more frequently and effectively in today's information spaces.
The legacy media, whose economic model has collapsed and from which I suspect this audience draws most of its information, just doesn't reach enough people including voters to win elections.
I think the Harris campaign knew this. But starting from scratch and as a newbie they didn't have enough time to 'play' in those social media and pod cast channels.
Again very well put.
All I have to add is: As you suggest at the end, it's one thing to think / argue / imagine / recommend what a party "should" do. How it should present itself, what it should stand for. But in reality (as you know) whether that works usually comes down to finding or happening upon a *specific person* who via bearing, record, explanatory power, etc etc represents those different values.
All of these tasks are hard. Finding the right person is the hardest, and most luck-dependant.