Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[viper37]

Jos, fyi, 33% of women and 26% of men have a university degree in Quebec.

I figure it's similar in other OECD countries, give or take a few percent.

And you don't do much with a simple bachelor degree because it's too common.

[Barrister]

So of course I note you snipped the one part where I was complementary of you.  Your choice.

I don't think there's much point to continuing this discussion much further, so just a couple of points:

I've never heard of this podcast before. I had no idea it was right wing and just took it at face value.

Not trying to trick you into anything here.  Jonah Goldberg was previously with National Review (a perhaps famously right-wing magazine founded by William F Buckley).  He quit/was forced out over opposition to Trump, founded his own news site (The Dispatch).  So like I said - right-ish.  And I thought the conversation was interesting not just to right-wingers.

Even completely ignoring my background I am far closer to those on minimum wage than those who actually have the power.

That's the thing - you really, really aren't.  Even accepting your assertion you're in the top third of income - that still makes you closer to the top than the bottom.

I'm not saying you're out lighting cigars with $100 bills (or 100 pound bills) but you're pretty far from working minimum wage jobs.

But solve housing problems, the cost of living, job opportunities, etc... Then immigration becomes quite the minor fringe issue with most who previously reported it as a key issue no longer seeing it the same way.
You can join the fight for how to share the pie... Or you can make more pie.

Poor people have agency.  Poor people have the right to their public policy preferences.

Henry Ford was a businessman.  Of course he makes money by trying to predict what people will want tomorrow, not what they want today.  Steve Jobs made similar comments.

But the role of a politician is different than a businessman.

I just find it incredibly condescending to hear you say "people are complaining about immigration.  Well I happen to know that what they're actually upset about is housing."

Which, to loop around back to the podcast, is probably an issue that you are actually concerned about, but are going to claim that you're only concerned because of the lower classes.

[Razgovory]

This is something that Democrats have had a real problem with.  Pollsters have tried to interpret people being concerned with illegal immigration as concern for something else and to the extent we will lose some votes we will more than make up for it by picking up Hispanic votes.  Turns out that no, people really are concerned about illegal immigrants, including Hispanics.  Trump picked up about 40% of the Hispanic vote.  Instead of telling people what they want, or trying to teach them to want the right things we need to listen to what people say they want.

[Tamas]

This is something that Democrats have had a real problem with.  Pollsters have tried to interpret people being concerned with illegal immigration as concern for something else and to the extent we will lose some votes we will more than make up for it by picking up Hispanic votes.  Turns out that no, people really are concerned about illegal immigrants, including Hispanics.  Trump picked up about 40% of the Hispanic vote.  Instead of telling people what they want, or trying to teach them to want the right things we need to listen to what people say they want.

Up to a degree, yes.

[Josquius]

This is something that Democrats have had a real problem with.  Pollsters have tried to interpret people being concerned with illegal immigration as concern for something else and to the extent we will lose some votes we will more than make up for it by picking up Hispanic votes.  Turns out that no, people really are concerned about illegal immigrants, including Hispanics.  Trump picked up about 40% of the Hispanic vote.  Instead of telling people what they want, or trying to teach them to want the right things we need to listen to what people say they want.

Or, radical idea, they could try actually acting on these core concerns.
It shouldn't be about just dodging talking about immigration. It should be about actually identifying a course of action.

So of course I note you snipped the one part where I was complementary of you.  Your choice.

I don't think there's much point to continuing this discussion much further, so just a couple of points:

Don't overthink it. I was on my phone and must have just cut that bit off with the quote of me.
There was no specific reply needed there.
Though worth noting it wasn't a particularly subtle backhanded complement...

That's the thing - you really, really aren't.  Even accepting your assertion you're in the top third of income - that still makes you closer to the top than the bottom.

I'm not saying you're out lighting cigars with $100 bills (or 100 pound bills) but you're pretty far from working minimum wage jobs.

This is the old trick the hard right have long used predating Trump even. The man who took the whole plate full of cookies telling the man with one cookie "Watch out for the guy with two, he wants to steal your cookie"

People on 20, 30, 50, even 100k a year... they are far more alike than any of them are to the people bringing in millions.
They went to the same schools, they live in the same streets, their kids go to the same schools, very often they even live together.

Its definitely true that this belief exists amongst a chunk of the people scraping by on zero hour contracts. Much like to a 10 year old kid £1000 is an unfathomably immense sum of money.
But it isn't the reality.
As much as folk like Trump and his predecessors are keen to fan these flames and build up a crabs in bucket zero sum worldview.

Poor people have agency.  Poor people have the right to their public policy preferences.

Where are you getting the idea that poor people don't have agency?
Of course they do. Everyone does.
However some people have a lot more of this than others do. The poor person technically has the right to seek out private healthcare if they're sick and aren't getting anywhere with the NHS, but in reality their economic situation means they don't have that agency.
A randomer who read an article online is perfectly free to believe vaccines are all a conspiracy by the new world order... but its clear he has been failed very badly to get to this point. And do we really value his views over those of top doctors?

Henry Ford was a businessman.  Of course he makes money by trying to predict what people will want tomorrow, not what they want today.  Steve Jobs made similar comments.

But the role of a politician is different than a businessman.

Curious you say that here but in many other contexts right wingers are always going on about how the country should be ran like a business....

The role of a politician is different to that of a businessman absolutely. But a lot of the same principles apply.
The basic idea of doing your research is core to this.

I just find it incredibly condescending to hear you say "people are complaining about immigration.  Well I happen to know that what they're actually upset about is housing."

Which, to loop around back to the podcast, is probably an issue that you are actually concerned about, but are going to claim that you're only concerned because of the lower classes.

This all sounds very familiar. Typical rightist strategy to avoid engaging with the point and try to smear anyone putting an ounce of brain power into an issue as condescending and with some sort of sinister ulterior motive.

So people are complaining about immigration.
What is it they're actually complaining about here then in your book?
Just...immigration? Even if there was plentiful housing, zero issues with the cost of living, plentiful good jobs, etc.... they'd still be saying the same thing? Every single person who puts down immigration as an issue doesn't like immigration just because? Nothing led to this belief. It just is?
You're a barrister, you should know better than that. Rarely does somebody commit a crime just because they wanted to commit a crime. There's always a plethora of motives feeding into this.

[Razgovory]

People say they are anti-racism, but let's do some research and find out what they really want.  If we change X, Y, Z, are they still anti-racist?

[Josquius]

People say they are anti-racism, but let's do some research and find out what they really want.  If we change X, Y, Z, are they still anti-racist?

You think you've found a gotcha but nope.
You're going to need a better hypothesis than this.
What is your X, Y, Z?
What do people mean by racism?
How anti are they? - like will they actively speak up against it or they'd just rather not hear it?

Pretty sure this is a line of inquiry that the far right's researchers have delved into to find their wedges.

[Razgovory]

My point is you can dismantle anyone's ideas into something else, something more palatable to your own.  Every time you get a little perturbed you start ranting on about the right and far-right.  You really need to stop.

 When I say "anti-racist" I'm talking about leftist protesters in the US who want to over turn statues and rename buildings and other things.  But what do they really want?  The people who do this are typically elite aspirants, who desire status that they can leverage to get better jobs.  By showing that they are anti-racist they prove that they are worthy of power and wealth, moreso than the older generation they are chaffing to replace.

[crazy canuck]

My point is you can dismantle anyone's ideas into something else, something more palatable to your own.  Every time you get a little perturbed you start ranting on about the right and far-right.  You really need to stop.

 When I say "anti-racist" I'm talking about leftist protesters in the US who want to over turn statues and rename buildings and other things.  But what do they really want?  The people who do this are typically elite aspirants, who desire status that they can leverage to get better jobs.  By showing that they are anti-racist they prove that they are worthy of power and wealth, moreso than the older generation they are chaffing to replace.

It kind of reminds of a question I got during a lecture I gave on University governance.  "What would be a best practise for the University's endowment fund to divest itself from anything to do with supporting Israel's war effort?"  I explained that the people who administer the endowment fund have a fiduciary duty to ensure the viability of the fund, not to pursue the political objectives of individual members of the university community.  I also explained the University's statutory objection of institutional neutrality.


The questioner was taken aback, surprised that their assumptions had been challenged, and I was a bit surprised I had to explain such a basic principle to the sort of audience I was addressing.  But I am becoming less and less surprised when this sort of thing happens.

[Josquius]

My point is you can dismantle anyone's ideas into something else, something more palatable to your own. 

Yes. This is a key part of the point. Not some sneaky hidden flaw.

A left wing party shouldn't be trying to out racist the racists.
They should instead be seeing what is leading to non racist people backing this stuff and seeking to tackle it.

Likewise the far right learned some time ago directly selling racism to normies doesn't usually work. They have to be a lot more subtle about it.

Every time you get a little perturbed you start ranting on about the right and far-right.  You really need to stop.

We are talking about modern politics and the challenge to the left of far right populists. How the hell do you do that without mentioning the far right?
Youre throwing a fit at someone actually assessing the point.

When I say "anti-racist" I'm talking about leftist protesters in the US who want to over turn statues and rename buildings and other things.  But what do they really want?  The people who do this are typically elite aspirants, who desire status that they can leverage to get better jobs.  By showing that they are anti-racist they prove that they are worthy of power and wealth, moreso than the older generation they are chaffing to replace.

Again you're parsing left wing thinking through a right wing lens.
Assuming there must always be some cynical directly self serving motivation behind everything.

But it would be 100% valid to research what leads supporters of renaming a confederate street to supporting this.
There probably are other more important factors at play that show themselves in this way. I'd guess black people pissed off about how shit they have things in the modern day seeing this highly visible and easy to fix embodiment of inequality for instance - underlying factors being the general shit for black folk today.

The difference there vs immigration though is the surface demand of "rename jefferson davis avenue" is pretty easy to meet, doesn't really cause much harm, and any actual improvements it has in black people's lives are very abstract and hard to measure. Really long term changing mindsets sort of stuff.

On the other hand the surface demand of "stop all immigration" is impossibly difficult and stupid as fuck, bound to cause enormous damage. The underlying problems that feed into people holding this view often are easier to tackle than their surface demand.