There has only been one major period in the last hundred plus years when the United States was governed openly from the left, leading to substantial progressive changes that benefited all of society: the FDR presidency (I'm not counting LBJ's brief time, which was the result of the stars aligning rather than the product of a strategy that could be replicated today). Progressives might consider this a dirty secret: FDR won every single state of the old Confederacy every single time he ran for President. He routinely won around 80% of the vote in Texas, while remaining largely beloved by urban liberals. The New Deal programs we benefit from today were only brought forth because FDR was willing to forge a coalition between groups of people with extremely different backgrounds and values.
I'm bothered that the modern left has turned into something of a purity cult, where correct thoughts are more important than one's actions, and stated intentions are more important than the results of what one does. If the same insular, closed attitude so pervasive nowadays had existed back in the 30's, we probably wouldn't have Social Security today. FDR would've been driven out of the party for having the gall to forge political alliances with untouchables.
So, modern liberals, whether you like rednecks or not, or whether your views on trendy social issues are the same as theirs isn't the question. Are you willing to hold your nose and reach out to people whose views on BLM and gay marriage differ from yours (and perhaps, you know, take the opportunity to convince them on these issues as you work with them on common ground), or do you prefer to ostracize everyone whose values differ from yours as inherently beneath you? If you want a green new deal, it's not happening without some sort of broad-based, working class coalition, including those Hillary Clinton derided as deplorables.
I will certainly admit that a large portion of Trumps base cannot be convinced, with so many of them so deeply mired in his cult of personality. But some can be. If you peel off even 10% of the Trump coalition in the middle of the country and the south, you will have a large enough majority to transform the United States as FDR did.
The trouble is, I think most modern liberals prefer to maintain their purity cult, and allow the corporate/Pentagon wing of the Democratic Party to govern them, while looking down their noses at the rest of the country for being behind the curve on trans rights. I think they would rather be morally correct and self-righteous than actually govern.
I am bad at timely replies—but in cases like this, I guess it seems less pressing when I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. Team Blue is just plain terrible at politics, and they'd be doing a whole lot worse if Team Red wasn't so obviously stupid and crazy. "Demographics is destiny" isn't panning out as hoped, and doubling down on the interests and cultural preoccupations of educated professionals is a shaky strategy in a country where fewer than 40% of people have a college degree.
Probably the Democrats aren't going to figure this out until they're in the splash zone of a really big and ugly reactionary wave. For the time being I still think it's a matter of "if" than of "when" (given how unpalatable the GOP makes itself to any number of nonwhite & non-Evangelical demographics), but I don't relish the thought of what might happen during the next serious and lasting economic disaster.
Pretty good. I wonder what you'd think of books like Thomas Frank's...which I only know about from Matt Taibbi's reviews. But I suppose I have much less reason to think about the denizens of Appalachia than Tafilah or Thornaby. Still, I have the same relationship to them. It's strange that I recognise this, but put little thought towards correcting it.
There has only been one major period in the last hundred plus years when the United States was governed openly from the left, leading to substantial progressive changes that benefited all of society: the FDR presidency (I'm not counting LBJ's brief time, which was the result of the stars aligning rather than the product of a strategy that could be replicated today). Progressives might consider this a dirty secret: FDR won every single state of the old Confederacy every single time he ran for President. He routinely won around 80% of the vote in Texas, while remaining largely beloved by urban liberals. The New Deal programs we benefit from today were only brought forth because FDR was willing to forge a coalition between groups of people with extremely different backgrounds and values.
I'm bothered that the modern left has turned into something of a purity cult, where correct thoughts are more important than one's actions, and stated intentions are more important than the results of what one does. If the same insular, closed attitude so pervasive nowadays had existed back in the 30's, we probably wouldn't have Social Security today. FDR would've been driven out of the party for having the gall to forge political alliances with untouchables.
So, modern liberals, whether you like rednecks or not, or whether your views on trendy social issues are the same as theirs isn't the question. Are you willing to hold your nose and reach out to people whose views on BLM and gay marriage differ from yours (and perhaps, you know, take the opportunity to convince them on these issues as you work with them on common ground), or do you prefer to ostracize everyone whose values differ from yours as inherently beneath you? If you want a green new deal, it's not happening without some sort of broad-based, working class coalition, including those Hillary Clinton derided as deplorables.
I will certainly admit that a large portion of Trumps base cannot be convinced, with so many of them so deeply mired in his cult of personality. But some can be. If you peel off even 10% of the Trump coalition in the middle of the country and the south, you will have a large enough majority to transform the United States as FDR did.
The trouble is, I think most modern liberals prefer to maintain their purity cult, and allow the corporate/Pentagon wing of the Democratic Party to govern them, while looking down their noses at the rest of the country for being behind the curve on trans rights. I think they would rather be morally correct and self-righteous than actually govern.
I am bad at timely replies—but in cases like this, I guess it seems less pressing when I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. Team Blue is just plain terrible at politics, and they'd be doing a whole lot worse if Team Red wasn't so obviously stupid and crazy. "Demographics is destiny" isn't panning out as hoped, and doubling down on the interests and cultural preoccupations of educated professionals is a shaky strategy in a country where fewer than 40% of people have a college degree.
Probably the Democrats aren't going to figure this out until they're in the splash zone of a really big and ugly reactionary wave. For the time being I still think it's a matter of "if" than of "when" (given how unpalatable the GOP makes itself to any number of nonwhite & non-Evangelical demographics), but I don't relish the thought of what might happen during the next serious and lasting economic disaster.
Pretty good. I wonder what you'd think of books like Thomas Frank's...which I only know about from Matt Taibbi's reviews. But I suppose I have much less reason to think about the denizens of Appalachia than Tafilah or Thornaby. Still, I have the same relationship to them. It's strange that I recognise this, but put little thought towards correcting it.