In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On December 03 2016 01:16 Logo wrote: I don't understand how people can keep making big huge sweeping statements about America and what America wants given the actual election result, how close the election was, various complicating factors (voter ID laws in Wisconsin quite notably). You're talking literally about <80k votes out of >120 million cast when the losing candidate had a lot of flaws that has nothing to do with any sort of identity agenda and way more to do with specific campaign detail blunders. Comparing Trump to 'generic republican' Mitt Romney this huge anti-establishment/anti-identity mandate/shift is a difference of Trump getting 3% (~1.7 million) more votes (which is less than 1.5% of the total votes cast).
Like the election should have been a blowout for the dems and it wasn't and that matters a lot, but stop pretending like the results means some huge shift that justifies your agenda. Most people, by quite a lot, still clearly agree with the general gist of the democratic idea. The voters just want a different candidate to represent it (and yes some different policies in some areas).
But again that's also not a pass for the dems, they need to be way more about people over corporate interests and do way more for working people. It's just also not a refutation of the other parts of their platform. But these are complaints that apply regardless of if Clinton had won or not and people have been pushing for them for a long time.
It's so painful to read all these takes on the election given how much people want to pretend that there's some huge mandate from the result as if the election was a huge massive blowout instead of a narrow loss in an election that should have been a pretty solid win. Yes the difference between the expectation and result is bad, but the result is still not a blowout (or landslide, or whatever else you want to use).
I'd like to take the article in its entirety despite how willing you are to dodge the discussion because you think/want us to think there's no reason to have the discussion. Hillary directly appealed to various identity groups and it runs counter to a broad message of liberalism. But wait, you say, we don't need a broad message of liberalism because identity politics has nothing to do with our loss! Numbers! Romney! "Should have been a blowout," but for the love of god don't ask why, just sweep it under the rug of Hillary unlikeable end of story. You're fighting with yourself. Why do you propose "corporate interests" over people, after rejecting without discussion the American people over people? Why are you pretending a narrow election win that should've been a blowout can be reduced to the one reason you're ideologically inclined to favor? Please, give it another read if you want to discuss the argument and not dismiss the argument from the first word given. It's frankly better to honestly talk about what you want to talk about regarding the election than only pay lip service with an eye roll to someone that disagrees.
I'm not responding specifically too the article you linked (though it's semi-relevant my complaints against the article would be different), hence why I didn't quote it or you. There's been a lot of takes over the month along these lines.
Either way this stuff is not on a spectrum nor is it a fixed sized pie that you're dividing up. The existing platforms around promoting diversity are not mutually exclusive with the shortcomings of the Clinton campaign around appealing to working class voters, pushing better less corporate interest agendas, and pushing more favorable things like better foreign policy. Identity politics has nothing to do with lax campaigning efforts in Michigan and Wisconsin, Clinton's blunt assessment of the coal mining industry, or her evasiveness on small things (like her pneumonia) eroding trust.
Losing voters by focusing too much on one aspect of the platform is not a refutation by the voters of that part of the platform; it's an acknowledgement or calling out of improperly conveying your message. "You didn't address this so I won't vote for you" is different from "I don't like this".
I'm not claiming there's one reason to pin an election on, I'm stating that a big loss for the democratic platform is not the same as a big ideologic win for the republicans/Trumpism across all issues. There's some shift for sure, notably around trade and manufacturing jobs, but that's one issue you can build a notable shift for. Do you have any evidence of identity and diversity actually changing people's votes in large scale & meaningful way? Yes the alt-right has gotten a lot louder and gained power, but is that power an actual shift in voters vs a small group (possibly of mostly republicans) getting much much louder?
People, of all sorts, are drawing conclusions of the election that don't seem based well in the outcome and it always seems to me like they're talking about a completely different election to the one I took part in, and yes this is both sides there are plenty of left leaning articles that are the same way (especially around minimizing the blunders of the democrats). If there's widespread evidence of voters actually flipping in meaningful numbers in meaningful places because of a dislike for some of these specific platforms & policies vs the result of some specific other policies (notably around trade/outsourcing and jobs) I'd love to see the information on that.
On December 02 2016 23:24 Danglars wrote: "Finally, the whitelash thesis is convenient because is absolves liberals of not recognizing how their own obsession with diversity has encouraged white, rural, religious Americans to think of themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity is being threatened or ignored ... Liberals should bear in mind that the first identity movement in American politics was the Ku Klux Klan, which still exists."
It's amazing how much commentary is either ignorant of American history or doesn't even try to get American history correct. I'm not sure if it's trying to oversimplify the situation to dumb audience or attempts to continue the denial and delusion.
The first identity prominent movement in national political scene was the "Know Nothings" AKA "American Native" AKA "American" party, which was a response to Catholic immigration - read Irish not Marylander - by WASPs. Part of this movement actually broke away into the Anti-Slavery Republican Party of Lincoln.
Speaking of this identity politics, i found one of lecture about Nationalism and National identity that might make sense of the situation.
100 minute if you can spare it, covering the topic as fast as possible.
As usual just a starting point.
Identity groups in its modern conception means skin color/race, gender identity, sexual preference. Liberals made it so. Trump took it to it's pitiful end. It would do you well to respond with reading the article rather than discuss two sentences I pulled in service of the expounding on its conclusions. You're better than this. Reactionary groups to religious affiliations follows very different lines, and if you showed promise of entertaining a varied argument about religious clashes throughout history, we might go there. I am a little astounded at your ignorance of American history on this point. I'm not sure if you're "trying to oversimplify the situation to a dumb audience" or just given to generalize groups in service of your preferred conclusion. I did not link an article that takes a hundred minutes to read, any more than I linked an article dealing with national identity besides identity group character. The conflict between cultural liberalism and identity group politics was very much on display in this election. I'm starting to lean towards thinking the damage control strategy is to pretend it never happened and just follow Trump's latest gaffe like salivating dogs.
Speaking of ignorance, I think several posters here need to revisit a handful of Clinton's speeches to gain a fresher understanding of what it means to undertake a minorities+women campaign.
Mind sourcing that? I've never seen any definition or explanation of identity groups/identity politics that is restricted to those 3 categorizations and doesn't include at the very least religion, nationality and language as well . From that post alone it looks like a half assed attempt to exclude the practice of identity politics from applying to GOP, things like whining about 'war on christmas' which is 100% identity politics. But even if I accepted your definition despite language not working the way you want it, they still wouldn't be in the clear since they do engage in sexual orientation identity politics. You know, the whole "only natural/normal families (hint, hint like you and me) should be able to marry/adopt". Do you not see that as identity politics?
On December 02 2016 23:24 Danglars wrote: "Finally, the whitelash thesis is convenient because is absolves liberals of not recognizing how their own obsession with diversity has encouraged white, rural, religious Americans to think of themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity is being threatened or ignored ... Liberals should bear in mind that the first identity movement in American politics was the Ku Klux Klan, which still exists."
It's amazing how much commentary is either ignorant of American history or doesn't even try to get American history correct. I'm not sure if it's trying to oversimplify the situation to dumb audience or attempts to continue the denial and delusion.
The first identity prominent movement in national political scene was the "Know Nothings" AKA "American Native" AKA "American" party, which was a response to Catholic immigration - read Irish not Marylander - by WASPs. Part of this movement actually broke away into the Anti-Slavery Republican Party of Lincoln.
Speaking of this identity politics, i found one of lecture about Nationalism and National identity that might make sense of the situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90O889YOTV4 100 minute if you can spare it, covering the topic as fast as possible.
As usual just a starting point.
Identity groups in its modern conception means skin color/race, gender identity, sexual preference. Liberals made it so. Trump took it to it's pitiful end. It would do you well to respond with reading the article rather than discuss two sentences I pulled in service of the expounding on its conclusions. You're better than this. Reactionary groups to religious affiliations follows very different lines, and if you showed promise of entertaining a varied argument about religious clashes throughout history, we might go there. I am a little astounded at your ignorance of American history on this point. I'm not sure if you're "trying to oversimplify the situation to a dumb audience" or just given to generalize groups in service of your preferred conclusion. I did not link an article that takes a hundred minutes to read, any more than I linked an article dealing with national identity besides identity group character. The conflict between cultural liberalism and identity group politics was very much on display in this election. I'm starting to lean towards thinking the damage control strategy is to pretend it never happened and just follow Trump's latest gaffe like salivating dogs.
Speaking of ignorance, I think several posters here need to revisit a handful of Clinton's speeches to gain a fresher understanding of what it means to undertake a minorities+women campaign.
I took the article at its face on ethnic groups and religion.
It is a truism that America has become a more diverse country. It is also a beautiful thing to watch. Visitors from other countries, particularly those having trouble incorporating different ethnic groups and faiths, are amazed that we manage to pull it off. Not perfectly, of course, but certainly better than any European or Asian nation today. It’s an extraordinary success story.
I'm not going to follow you on your framing its "modern conception" as limiting the distinction to skin color. If the politic wants to parse minute difference beyond skin color, they can easily parse it beyond skin color and be extremely divisive about it like people of the former Yugoslavia did.
When the article talks about healthy periods, what is actually being said is "promote nationalism of the nation-building ilk":
National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality. And it will be dominated by whoever best captures Americans’ imaginations about our shared destiny.
If applying the Yugoslavia model, this is exemplified when Tito suppressed the ethnic nationalism of his people for Yugoslavia unity. But at its core, this is still a form of nationalism, a common unifying identity rather than a divisive one.
On December 03 2016 01:16 Logo wrote: I don't understand how people can keep making big huge sweeping statements about America and what America wants given the actual election result, how close the election was, various complicating factors (voter ID laws in Wisconsin quite notably). You're talking literally about <80k votes out of >120 million cast when the losing candidate had a lot of flaws that has nothing to do with any sort of identity agenda and way more to do with specific campaign detail blunders. Comparing Trump to 'generic republican' Mitt Romney this huge anti-establishment/anti-identity mandate/shift is a difference of Trump getting 3% (~1.7 million) more votes (which is less than 1.5% of the total votes cast).
Like the election should have been a blowout for the dems and it wasn't and that matters a lot, but stop pretending like the results means some huge shift that justifies your agenda. Most people, by quite a lot, still clearly agree with the general gist of the democratic idea. The voters just want a different candidate to represent it (and yes some different policies in some areas).
But again that's also not a pass for the dems, they need to be way more about people over corporate interests and do way more for working people. It's just also not a refutation of the other parts of their platform. But these are complaints that apply regardless of if Clinton had won or not and people have been pushing for them for a long time.
It's so painful to read all these takes on the election given how much people want to pretend that there's some huge mandate from the result as if the election was a huge massive blowout instead of a narrow loss in an election that should have been a pretty solid win. Yes the difference between the expectation and result is bad, but the result is still not a blowout (or landslide, or whatever else you want to use).
It's absolutely too simple to say that this is a rejection of the Democratic Party and an embrace of Trump. It wasn't a blowout, when it should have been, but it was a rejection of establishment Republicans as much as it was a rejection of Democrats. Specifically, it was a rejection of Hillary Clinton, the policies she supported most significantly (probably, most notably, trade), and everything she represented. The identity politics, the establishment connections, the Bernie issue, the emails issue, and so on. It is notable that she won the popular vote, which shows that Trump does piss off a lot of people. But she also lost the votes where she needed them, from both the working class and from the leftists who didn't ultimately buy into her idea that it's better to vote for her than let Trump be elected.
It's not exactly a rightward shift, it's an anti-establishment message from the people who were fucked over by the progression of many events, one of the most notable of which is globalization.
I'd disagree that you can call it a rejection of hillary's policies, given how few actually knew what her policy proposals were and how little policy was discussed in general. That's the only point I want to directly dispute, some I may quibble with, but nothing worth going over.
I agree that there's a strong anti-establishment message (whether it's justified or not is another question).
On December 03 2016 03:38 zlefin wrote: I'd disagree that you can call it a rejection of hillary's policies, given how few actually knew what her policy proposals were and how little policy was discussed in general. That's the only point I want to directly dispute, some I may quibble with, but nothing worth going over.
I agree that there's a strong anti-establishment message (whether it's justified or not is another question).
Yeah, I agree with both you and LegalLord here.
I guess the point I'm trying to drive in at is while there's an anti-establishment message and a message of concern over globalization, I really don't see the results as much of a pushback against a lot of Clinton's/dem underlying policies like a push for more clean energy, better equality laws & protections, and that sort of thing. Nor do I see it as justification or mandate for Republican platforms like mass deregulation.
In part the reason it matters to me is because it's why I think the Democratic party should move more towards the Bernie wing of the party which embraces both the Clinton ideals & the ideals that gave Trump's campaign legs with a lot of working white voters. And at the same time why I don't think we have to make any sort of concession that the American population as a whole is pushing for a lot of the Republican or Trumpican policies outside of the issues that identifiably drove a change in votes (globalization concerns); the way people voted indicated that by and large they aren't necessarily on board with those ideas any more than they were before.
On December 02 2016 13:32 ticklishmusic wrote: danglars, did you bother reading the article for the bit where he thoroughly cut ties with the nation of islam explicitly citing their anti semitic ideas a decade ago?
Were you here when the line was to deny the ties were deep or damaging? These are not the kind of patterns of behavior and lifestyle that you wake up one day considering congressional office and say, "Just Kidding!" (although with the media, you have some expectation for the story to die quicker than a Republican). So tell me, you invite some wacko that thinks Jews helped out the Nazis, and claim your professors just don't want to open a dialogue on Zionism. Do this double-speak for over a decade. Then come back and expect leadership positions because you've had a change of heart. It's a very politically appropriate one. Did you read the article?
On December 02 2016 13:25 Danglars wrote: Mattis is definitely the right direction. Now I can feel better about all these bad names being floated around for SoS.
Better late than never, CNN picks up on Ellison's radical past ... "Rep. Keith Ellison faces renewed scrutiny over past ties to Nation of Islam, defense of anti-Semitic figures"
In one scathing column from 1990 unearthed by CNN's KFile, Ellison accused the university's president of chilling the free expression of black students by openly criticizing a controversial speaker invited to speak on campus by the Africana Student Cultural Center. That speaker, Kwame Ture (also known as Stokely Carmichael), had publicly claimed that Zionists had collaborated with the Nazis in World War II and has been quoted as saying "Zionism must be destroyed."
University of Minnesota President Nils Hasselmo said he "personally found the statements in Ture's speech concerning alleged Zionist collaboration with the Nazis deeply offensive." Ellison, writing under the name "Keith E. Hakim" for the Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper at the University of Minnesota where Ellison attended law school, argued that Hasselmo "denounced Ture's comment without offering any factual refutation of it," and defended Ture's right to speak on campus and to question Zionism.
Surely dems can do better. I mean, in the house you don't have the face of the future, you have a septuagenarian from San Francisco. Senate not much better. New York and California are the faces of liberalism today that has left middle America behind. Surely GH's boys can find another to rally behind?
Dude, you may have missed it, but your party just elected a man who associates with people who supposedly have ties to groups who say things just as controversial. Naturally, these associations will be characterized as extremely attenuated in the land of the enemies of Edmond Dantes, but there's no reason to think that Democrats can't utilize exactly the same tactic in their favor similarly.
If you're going to talk about ties and "just as controversial" I expect you to cite or detail the charges. Writing articles in law school defending mass murderers, supporting the defense of cop killers, kidnappers, carrying on in this way for the duration of the 90s ... that's a seriously high bar. I'm a little stunned. I saw double standards on candidate scandals in this thread for a long duration. The country just elected a man that made liberals go crazy at thinking he had a chance to win it, and then couldn't believe they were all so wrong. Maybe around half the country recognized that the American left has lost the ability to disqualify people holding similar political views to them, resorting to clearly unreasonable and conflictory standards.
In other news, how did this NYT piece from last week slip by?
But how should this diversity shape our politics? The standard liberal answer for nearly a generation now has been that we should become aware of and “celebrate” our differences. Which is a splendid principle of moral pedagogy — but disastrous as a foundation for democratic politics in our ideological age. In recent years American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.
One of the many lessons of the recent presidential election campaign and its repugnant outcome is that the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end. Hillary Clinton was at her best and most uplifting when she spoke about American interests in world affairs and how they relate to our understanding of democracy. But when it came to life at home, she tended on the campaign trail to lose that large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop. This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don’t, those left out will notice and feel excluded. Which, as the data show, was exactly what happened with the white working class and those with strong religious convictions. Fully two-thirds of white voters without college degrees voted for Donald Trump, as did over 80 percent of white evangelicals. [...]
But the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life. At a very young age our children are being encouraged to talk about their individual identities, even before they have them. By the time they reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good. In large part this is because of high school history curriculums, which anachronistically project the identity politics of today back onto the past, creating a distorted picture of the major forces and individuals that shaped our country. (The achievements of women’s rights movements, for instance, were real and important, but you cannot understand them if you do not first understand the founding fathers’ achievement in establishing a system of government based on the guarantee of rights.)
When young people arrive at college they are encouraged to keep this focus on themselves by student groups, faculty members and also administrators whose full-time job is to deal with — and heighten the significance of — “diversity issues.” Fox News and other conservative media outlets make great sport of mocking the “campus craziness” that surrounds such issues, and more often than not they are right to. Which only plays into the hands of populist demagogues who want to delegitimize learning in the eyes of those who have never set foot on a campus. How to explain to the average voter the supposed moral urgency of giving college students the right to choose the designated gender pronouns to be used when addressing them? How not to laugh along with those voters at the story of a University of Michigan prankster who wrote in “His Majesty”?
This campus-diversity consciousness has over the years filtered into the liberal media, and not subtly. Affirmative action for women and minorities at America’s newspapers and broadcasters has been an extraordinary social achievement — and has even changed, quite literally, the face of right-wing media, as journalists like Megyn Kelly and Laura Ingraham have gained prominence. But it also appears to have encouraged the assumption, especially among younger journalists and editors, that simply by focusing on identity they have done their jobs.
Recently I performed a little experiment during a sabbatical in France: For a full year I read only European publications, not American ones. My thought was to try seeing the world as European readers did. But it was far more instructive to return home and realize how the lens of identity has transformed American reporting in recent years. How often, for example, the laziest story in American journalism — about the “first X to do Y” — is told and retold. Fascination with the identity drama has even affected foreign reporting, which is in distressingly short supply. However interesting it may be to read, say, about the fate of transgender people in Egypt, it contributes nothing to educating Americans about the powerful political and religious currents that will determine Egypt’s future, and indirectly, our own. No major news outlet in Europe would think of adopting such a focus.
That's two excerpts, the whole article sets up the main contention quite well. Post-identity liberalism would attract back alienated voices that don't fit the right slate of victim groups. Mark Lilla remembers the ideals of liberals. The NYT does quite well to let him analyze the result. "Finally, the whitelash thesis is convenient because is absolves liberals of not recognizing how their own obsession with diversity has encouraged white, rural, religious Americans to think of themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity is being threatened or ignored ... Liberals should bear in mind that the first identity movement in American politics was the Ku Klux Klan, which still exists."
I'm personally content to see the opposing party wander in the cultural outrage morass. It might mean stopping an agenda I oppose for another midterm election, even though I'm expecting lost seats as nationalist-populist rhetoric falls flat. But it's even better to honestly debate conflicting visions for lawmaking in America to let the American people decide. The frequent attack is that the voting base is too dumb to see the truth. From reading this article, I'm wishing for a willingness to report on Washington like adults were reading it and able to decide what's racist or unworkable for themselves.
Any push for a "revival" of Western culture is the pinnacle of identity politics, and in that case it's not a reaction to liberal identity politics.
On December 03 2016 04:01 ticklishmusic wrote: "identity politics" is a way to make civil rights sound like some sort of a bad thing.
Or a way to say that "women go to hell if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton" and "I'm the first woman running for president and that's why you should vote for me" and "anyone who opposes our team is a racist sexist xenophobe" really isn't ok.
On December 03 2016 04:01 ticklishmusic wrote: "identity politics" is a way to make civil rights sound like some sort of a bad thing.
Or a way to say that "women go to hell if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton" and "I'm the first woman running for president and that's why you should vote for me" and "anyone who opposes our team is a racist sexist xenophobe" really isn't ok.
pointing to the extremes, which i have noted that i disagree with numerous times, to discredit the fact there are very real problems facing minorities, LGBT people and so forth is a very disingenuous argument.
On December 03 2016 03:38 zlefin wrote: I'd disagree that you can call it a rejection of hillary's policies, given how few actually knew what her policy proposals were and how little policy was discussed in general. That's the only point I want to directly dispute, some I may quibble with, but nothing worth going over.
I agree that there's a strong anti-establishment message (whether it's justified or not is another question).
Yeah, I agree with both you and LegalLord here.
I guess the point I'm trying to drive in at is while there's an anti-establishment message and a message of concern over globalization, I really don't see the results as much of a pushback against a lot of Clinton's/dem underlying policies like a push for more clean energy, better equality laws & protections, and that sort of thing. Nor do I see it as justification or mandate for Republican platforms like mass deregulation.
In part the reason it matters to me is because it's why I think the Democratic party should move more towards the Bernie wing of the party which embraces both the Clinton ideals & the ideals that gave Trump's campaign legs with a lot of working white voters. And at the same time why I don't think we have to make any sort of concession that the American population as a whole is pushing for a lot of the Republican or Trumpican policies outside of the issues that identifiably drove a change in votes (globalization concerns); the way people voted indicated that by and large they aren't necessarily on board with those ideas any more than they were before.
That's not what is being pushed back against. It's the idea that simply supporting a few policies like that while paying lip service to the concerns on other issues (trade, interventionism, dirty backroom dealings, corporations) means that everyone should fall in line with the Clinton camp. It's like saying "you'll get 40% from the other guy, and I'll give you 65% if you shut up and let me fuck you over on the other 35%." It's not surprising that a lot of people will take a "go fuck yourself, I'm not giving you my vote, even if I can't in good conscience vote for the other guy either" approach.
On December 03 2016 04:01 ticklishmusic wrote: "identity politics" is a way to make civil rights sound like some sort of a bad thing.
Or a way to say that "women go to hell if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton" and "I'm the first woman running for president and that's why you should vote for me" and "anyone who opposes our team is a racist sexist xenophobe" really isn't ok.
pointing to the extremes, which i have noted that i disagree with numerous times, to discredit the fact there are very real problems facing minorities, LGBT people and so forth is a very disingenuous argument.
It's the extremities and their proliferation to the point that it becomes a game of dividing people against each other that I'm opposed to. I support most of the more reasonable social policy proposals, even if I might not put as much weight on the importance of those issues as some others might.
the term "identity politics" is used as a divider, not a uniter. it's used by those who are too far on the other side to be of genuine use to a sensible middle discourse. It does not serve as a useful pushback mechanism.
On December 03 2016 04:47 zlefin wrote: the term "identity politics" is used as a divider, not a uniter. it's used by those who are too far on the other side to be of genuine use to a sensible middle discourse. It does not serve as a useful pushback mechanism.
Then have you got a substitute, some updated term to address the concept, that you approve of? Or will any alternative likewise turn to poison?
On December 03 2016 03:38 zlefin wrote: I'd disagree that you can call it a rejection of hillary's policies, given how few actually knew what her policy proposals were and how little policy was discussed in general. That's the only point I want to directly dispute, some I may quibble with, but nothing worth going over.
I agree that there's a strong anti-establishment message (whether it's justified or not is another question).
Yeah, I agree with both you and LegalLord here.
I guess the point I'm trying to drive in at is while there's an anti-establishment message and a message of concern over globalization, I really don't see the results as much of a pushback against a lot of Clinton's/dem underlying policies like a push for more clean energy, better equality laws & protections, and that sort of thing. Nor do I see it as justification or mandate for Republican platforms like mass deregulation.
In part the reason it matters to me is because it's why I think the Democratic party should move more towards the Bernie wing of the party which embraces both the Clinton ideals & the ideals that gave Trump's campaign legs with a lot of working white voters. And at the same time why I don't think we have to make any sort of concession that the American population as a whole is pushing for a lot of the Republican or Trumpican policies outside of the issues that identifiably drove a change in votes (globalization concerns); the way people voted indicated that by and large they aren't necessarily on board with those ideas any more than they were before.
That's not what is being pushed back against. It's the idea that simply supporting a few policies like that while paying lip service to the concerns on other issues (trade, interventionism, dirty backroom dealings, corporations) means that everyone should fall in line with the Clinton camp. It's like saying "you'll get 40% from the other guy, and I'll give you 65% if you shut up and let me fuck you over on the other 35%." It's not surprising that a lot of people will take a "go fuck yourself, I'm not giving you my vote, even if I can't in good conscience vote for the other guy either" approach.
That's what I'm agreeing with though. I find that things I keep reading that are related to the election tend to have an underlying theme of the election results somehow mattering in how America feels or what America believe in and it seems unwarranted to me. Obviously who we elect as president matters a lot, but there's just this sort of grandstanding put into the victory like it's suddenly changing how americans feel.
Efforts to have the presidential election vote reviewed in states where Donald Trump narrowly defeated Hillary Clinton came under attack on Friday, as Trump allies asked courts to stop recounts in three states.
Legal submissions were made to authorities in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by Republicans who argued that recounts requested by Jill Stein, the Green party candidate, should not be allowed.
Michigan’s attorney general, Bill Schuette, said in a lawsuit that Stein’s “dilatory and frivolous” recount would cost the public millions of dollars, and could result in the state being unable to cast its votes in the electoral college.
I don't understand how fighting the recount has any traction at all? Like 2 of the 4 major candidates *including the one that won and is now trying to block the recount* has claimed something that would indicate a recount is a worthwhile endeavor.
I'm going to be really disappointed if we don't get a recount in some of these states. Not that I think the data will change the election (though it could possibly flip WI on a very outside chance I guess?), but the data seems valuable especially with so many people doubting the accuracy of elections. It could be important insight into voter accuracy across different counties.
Plus like in WI one of the recounted wards already say a 2.5% change in total votes counted which is not insignificant (most of the change were 3rd party votes).
On December 03 2016 03:38 zlefin wrote: I'd disagree that you can call it a rejection of hillary's policies, given how few actually knew what her policy proposals were and how little policy was discussed in general. That's the only point I want to directly dispute, some I may quibble with, but nothing worth going over.
I agree that there's a strong anti-establishment message (whether it's justified or not is another question).
Yeah, I agree with both you and LegalLord here.
I guess the point I'm trying to drive in at is while there's an anti-establishment message and a message of concern over globalization, I really don't see the results as much of a pushback against a lot of Clinton's/dem underlying policies like a push for more clean energy, better equality laws & protections, and that sort of thing. Nor do I see it as justification or mandate for Republican platforms like mass deregulation.
In part the reason it matters to me is because it's why I think the Democratic party should move more towards the Bernie wing of the party which embraces both the Clinton ideals & the ideals that gave Trump's campaign legs with a lot of working white voters. And at the same time why I don't think we have to make any sort of concession that the American population as a whole is pushing for a lot of the Republican or Trumpican policies outside of the issues that identifiably drove a change in votes (globalization concerns); the way people voted indicated that by and large they aren't necessarily on board with those ideas any more than they were before.
That's not what is being pushed back against. It's the idea that simply supporting a few policies like that while paying lip service to the concerns on other issues (trade, interventionism, dirty backroom dealings, corporations) means that everyone should fall in line with the Clinton camp. It's like saying "you'll get 40% from the other guy, and I'll give you 65% if you shut up and let me fuck you over on the other 35%." It's not surprising that a lot of people will take a "go fuck yourself, I'm not giving you my vote, even if I can't in good conscience vote for the other guy either" approach.
That's what I'm agreeing with though. I find that things I keep reading that are related to the election tend to have an underlying theme of the election results somehow mattering in how America feels or what America believe in and it seems unwarranted to me. Obviously who we elect as president matters a lot, but there's just this sort of grandstanding put into the victory like it's suddenly changing how americans feel.
I mostly see a few things: 1. The winning side is playing the "I told you so" game about how bad Hillary Clinton is. 2. The Bernie left is playing the "I told you so" game about how bad Hillary Clinton is. 3. The Clinton left is trying to come to terms with the implications of the November 8 results. Some analyze genuinely, some are fearful (what happens when the person you were told is basically Hitler gets elected?), and some descend into delusion/finger-pointing. 4. People rediscovered the rural working class and how it's being hammered by globalization.
On December 03 2016 04:47 zlefin wrote: the term "identity politics" is used as a divider, not a uniter. it's used by those who are too far on the other side to be of genuine use to a sensible middle discourse. It does not serve as a useful pushback mechanism.
Then have you got a substitute, some updated term to address the concept, that you approve of? Or will any alternative likewise turn to poison?
I do not offhand; but I'm sure something could be come up with. The term could also simply be abandoned because it doesn't help anything. There is a risk that anything developed may become poison, due to the loudmouths getting more attention in discussions, and the extremes tend to try to apply terms like this to cases beyond what it was originally (and rightfully) meant for.
It reminds me of the issues and complaints from some about the BLM movement and messaging.
If the goal is truly to communicate with the other side rather than simply using it to express disdain of them, then I'd say get some grad students in marketing/english/communications to work on it and come up with a better term. That sounds like a worthwhile project if it could help improve the public discourse.
EPT
