Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Sheilbh]

I am aware of other kinds of politics, royal court and one party state jockeying for power for example.  And of course Clauswitz claimed that war was an extension of politics.

Fairly sure it's not what Oex is meaning, but don't forget office politics.

[Sheilbh]

I don't disagree with any of this.

My point was mostly that often, when people ask for an "effective leader", they mean someone whose views are those which, they think, align with already existing preferences in the electorate, and are able to "sell them".

To me this has always been a reductive view of politics, and I think one that leaves us defenseless when what you need to defend is less "views" than principles of a democratic polity.

Totally agree.

I think there's at least a couple of levels of politics. My view of maybe capital P politics or perhaps politics as technique (at which you can be effective) is that it's basically about creating the conditions for delivering what you want - that can be at any level from the office or local church, up to nation states and beyond. This is why I wouldn't actually draw distinctions between a royal court or one party state from a democratic society - the form and how you do it will be shaped by your context but it's fundamentally the same. And I think that's where Clausewitz comes in that war is (or should be) merely a tool to achieve political ends and is within the scope of politics - if war is for its own ends then you're already screwed. I think there's differences around the edges from cultural context, or the structures involved but fundamentally this type of politics is the same everywhere.

That's very different from maybe the lower case politics of what society you want - what's the purpose behind it - and what your rights and duties and obligations are as a citizen, especially in a democratic society. I think this is where the big difference is with an absolutist royal or a one party state because I think they very often (though not always) narrow the scope of this politics - and we should, in a democratic society, be looking to expand it. But I think we're in a time when many things, issues, institutions etc have been de-politicised - they're beyond (or have been put beyond) our debate, ownership, rights, obligations. Obviously I would say this but I think very often we have been reduced to users or consumers. We need more politics of that type not just because I think it's how we defend the principles of a democratic society but because it's the stuff of a democratic society - not to get too philosophical but I think it's how we interact with and experience each other (as others) in a democratic society.

[The Minsky Moment]

Are Liberals to Blame for the New McCarthyism?


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/are-liberals-to-blame-for-the-new-mccarthyism/ar-AA1GwJfW?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=f3fcf83764964076a135e7046e656717&ei=8

No, but the author of this article is to be blamed for erecting a truly epic strawman argument.

However, liberals (and I count myself among them) are to blame for indulging in the self-important delusion that the key to changing political outcomes is the precision with which they calibrate their criticism of their left flank.  Their opponents on the right couldn't give a crap; liberal, socialist, communist, antifa, "radical left" is all the same.

[Razgovory]

Are Liberals to Blame for the New McCarthyism?


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/are-liberals-to-blame-for-the-new-mccarthyism/ar-AA1GwJfW?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=f3fcf83764964076a135e7046e656717&ei=8

No, but the author of this article is to be blamed for erecting a truly epic strawman argument.

However, liberals (and I count myself among them) are to blame for indulging in the self-important delusion that the key to changing political outcomes is the precision with which they calibrate their criticism of their left flank.  Their opponents on the right couldn't give a crap; liberal, socialist, communist, antifa, "radical left" is all the same.

So we shouldn't criticize the burning of cars by the "Hamas Marxist Army"?  We may as well give into the worst impulses of the left?

[Valmy]

You shouldn't burn cars. Protests need to be peaceful.

There we go Raz.

[Solmyr]

And I think this ties to a point you've often made more on the "woke" side of things - I saw this from a recent European research paper on US attitudes:

Each dot is a survey answer option, not a person. All eight questions were phrased from a conservative angle, so any agreement clusters red; only "strongly disagree" shows blue. The graphic only illustrates how answers co-occur & predict party ID.
Lüders et al 2023
https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12665

According to the authors :"The pattern does not imply that Republicans are more tolerant than Democrats".

They suggest that while sharing a set of ideas is essential to be a Democrat, Republicans tend to coalesce around a shared identity (e.g., Being white and/or Christian).

[Zoupa]

You shouldn't burn cars. Protests need to be peaceful.

There we go Raz.

The only cars I saw burning were those waymo things. I'm fine with it.

[Syt]

Protests should be done in a peaceful and orderly manner, like these fine gentlemen in NYC.

[Razgovory]

You shouldn't burn cars. Protests need to be peaceful.

There we go Raz.

The only cars I saw burning were those waymo things. I'm fine with it.

Well, yeah.  You are the one who wants violence.

[Admiral Yi]

The only cars I saw burning were those waymo things. I'm fine with it.

Where is your line?

[Sheilbh]

Each dot is a survey answer option, not a person. All eight questions were phrased from a conservative angle, so any agreement clusters red; only "strongly disagree" shows blue. The graphic only illustrates how answers co-occur & predict party ID.
Lüders et al 2023
https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12665

According to the authors :"The pattern does not imply that Republicans are more tolerant than Democrats".

They suggest that while sharing a set of ideas is essential to be a Democrat, Republicans tend to coalesce around a shared identity (e.g., Being white and/or Christian).

Yeah I thought I'd slightly touched on that on my next paragraph.

So I think there's two sides one is that I explicitly think Democrats should go back to being a party coalition of shared identities.

I think part of it on the GOP side may be the way the modern Republican party emerges - the whole three-legged stool/fusionism stuff of binding together libertarians, evangelical Christians and basically neocons (or foreign policy conservatives). There is an argument that was through a few principles etc etc - I don't buy that. I think if you boil it down the glue was anti-communism (which is why the GOP has subsequently slightly bounced back and forth on different ideas since the Cold War) - I also think the key political project was judges and entrenching counter-majoritarian/blocking power.

My theory of part of what's happening on the GOP now is a new fusionism of libertarians (tech bros), evangelical Christians and paleocons/populists/nationalists. I think the core binding agent is basically "anti-woke" (this is not total or true and BB has pointed out some issues, but I still think there's something to it). In terms of their political project - I think they aspire to being a majority.

This is why I say I think Democrats need to focus on party building in every state, in all communities and particularly with working people. Because if you think about the importance of being white or the whitelash theory of the Republicans at the minute - we also need an explanation for why the GOP have done better with non-white voters in every election since 2016 and that, I believe, 2024 was their best result with those voters ever (and, conversely, the Democrats worst). Paradox might be too strong but I think it's a tension that needs to be thought through. I think part of the problem has been that they have that tightly bound attitude around specific beliefs or issues - basically an enforced consensus - and if you're wrong on x issue you are out of the group because you're beyond the pale of our shared consensus. That's why I think they should be trying to work on every state where there may be many people who disagree with one or more bits of the consensus but you use the common interest to build a bigger political argument.

I'd also suggest that those tightly bound attitudes and beliefs are not identity neutral. They reflect the views of one social group in particular which is the only group the Democrats have consistently improved their performance with over the last eight years: the college educated. I think that is a problem. If I was being more of a thorough-going Marxist on this I'd note that the issues that have increased in salience for Democrats and progressives in especially elite universities broadly avoid issues that actually affect the rich or the financialised and often slightly predatory business model of those universities. And, to go full Marx, they're a controlled opposition which is also reproducing the ideology of the current regime: you can have liberal, radical, progressive ideas which distract from and legitimate a very conservative, exploitative financial and economic model. Just like you can pump out students with a knowledge of Frantz Fanon with exciting careers in McKinsey ahead of them.

It's why I think Democrats should focus on party building in all states and communities. They should prioritise working people again to break out of the epistemic trap they've ended up in through a more tightly bound consensus that often reflects only one specific identity. I think this is also reflected in the shibboleths, neologisms or focus on "discourse" - I bang on about it and it's in the UK but a huge number of people think there's racial discrimination and advantage, that number halves when you talk about "privilege" because most people don't know what it means. I think that reflects the identity of the people you are used to talking to (as does "do the reading", frankly). So I think they need to go and encounter others looking for connection in every state, particularly workers. But I think it's similar with the young men issue of getting company going to and being in the spaces where young men are (online) and looking for points of contact. Then hopefully build parties in and of those communities.

FWIW I think the two Democrats I see regularly who I think are actually really good at this are Buttigieg and Sanders - and I can't help but wonder if part of it is that I get a sense that they kind of know who they are and what they think. There's less sense of them quickly mentally checking where we are on x issue today and making sure they're appropriately triangulated.

Edit: And I'd add I think that is why universities - and especially the humanities - have become a focus of attack for the right and for this administration. on all sorts of fronts. I do think, in part, especially elite American universities have helped dig their own graves in the move from I think traditions of academic self-management and a focus on research and higher education to becoming endowments and property companies and debt peddlers with some professors attached.

[Admiral Yi]

Fairly sure it's not what Oex is meaning, but don't forget office politics.

Band politics, family politics, club politics, really any group of people interacting.  Languish politics.

[Admiral Yi]

I have no idea how to read that graphic.

[The Minsky Moment]

So we shouldn't criticize the burning of cars by the "Hamas Marxist Army"?  We may as well give into the worst impulses of the left?

Respectfully Raz you missed the point.  We should all treat the "Hamas Marxist Army" like the gang of violent loons that they are, all three of them.  Along with the Marxist Army of Hamas, the Army of Hamas Marxists, and the Popular People's Front of Hamas Marxists.  But liberals need to break with the solipsistic delusion that the entire future of American politics turns on the precise tone they use when criticizing some fringe group on the left.  The reality is that almost no-one cares or is even listening other than a handful of other liberals.

[The Minsky Moment]

BTW there is no surprise that diversity of opinion seems to increase as you get to the far right, because it's shot through with nutball conspiracy theories.  You can't expect the Qanon, the Black Nazis, the flat earthers, the Tech Bro sea-steaders, the Bannonite Rohm wing to all get along nicely in the ideological sandbox.  The Brownian motion of weird ideas rattling around in Taylor-Greene's head alone are sufficient to account for half those data points.