Now on to the comments. It's not surprising that the January 6th stuff is irrelevant to a populace who thinks we're in a recession. The truth is, voters are not persuadable in the sense that voters care about anything resembling a coherent worldview. That's not how people are. Most voters decide who to vote for in the final…
Now on to the comments. It's not surprising that the January 6th stuff is irrelevant to a populace who thinks we're in a recession. The truth is, voters are not persuadable in the sense that voters care about anything resembling a coherent worldview. That's not how people are. Most voters decide who to vote for in the final month of an election. Which means everything before and after is just noise.
The problematic reality is that for all the talk of 'persuadable' voters, there really aren't any. At least, not enough to swing elections. Independents are growing in number, but not ideologically. What's happening is that more people are bucking the label of a party in favor of saying they're independent, while voting along party lines all the time. Because a true 'independent' would have to lack anything resembling a coherent worldview politically in order to swing between such ideologically opposed parties.
What this means is that ultimately, a lot of energy is expended on both sides over voters they want to exist but don't. Voters who are 'independent' or 'swing' tend to be those whose entire political process is to look up in a haze, make a gut check about how they feel, and then vote based on that. And because American voters are always, always unhappy, that usually means they vote against the incumbent. It doesn't matter if it's 2006 or 2010 or 2014 or 2018. Voters tend to always be unhappy.
Ultimately, that's what makes a lot of highly educated and media types really unhappy: that most voters don't really care about democracy and don't see a difference between the parties. To people who have the time and energy to actually pay attention, it seems insane that voters look at Trump and Biden, or Pelosi and MTG and go 'basically the same' but they do. And that's a problem for political types, and not the voters. Because just like in business, the customer is always right, especially when they're wrong.
I think one other thing we need to talk about is that for Americans, 'Fascist' conjures up Nazis. But not all fascists are nazis. In fact most of them aren't. The Imperial Japanese in WW2, Franco's Spain, Mussolini, Peron, ect were all fascists. And the current American right is absolutely fascist in the same vein. They're not nazis. But they are absolutely fascists. They are blood and soil nationalists who fetishize violence against political others and wish to establish a stronger volk over the country. You have Claremont and Lincoln fellows talking about Americans as not being Americans. At some point you need to call a spade a spade.
The fact that so many people are worried about what to call the thing, and not the thing itself, is part of the issue. The other part is that not a lot of people are as uncomfortable as we might hope with this sort of thing.
The final bit is that, as I and other people have been saying for a long time, Trump is not the movement. He is the leader of it, but he was a figurehead who could channel the movement. The crazy existed before him, and it will exist after him. The danger was never Trump himself, who was a buffoon at the best of times, but that the people around him would be dangerous and capable enough to engineer success through him. The real danger is whoever takes up the mantle after him. Because Trump was a grifter himself, and he saw the movement as a way to raise his own profile. But true believers want their crazy straight. And they'll go further than Trump would because they won't care about their own self interest in the same way. Revolutionaries aren't concerned about their brand.
Ultimately, for a variety of reasons, people are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. This crosses the political spectrum and often has very little to do with how things objectively ARE. It is an artifact of perception and the response to that artifact is almost wholly an emotional and uncritical voting response--usually for whatever party is not in power (for those who actually qualify as "swing" voters).
Everyone else tends to vote along ideological lines, whether they recognize it or not. Which, again, is an artifact of perception.
Your last paragraph is particularly true and particularly scary.
1) The reality is that there are very few D's. I do not know many Americans who are actually members of political parties. Being registered as D or R or whatever doesn't mean membership. Do AMERICANS have an interest in putting country over a particular political party? Well, in an ideal world they should and do--but we don't live in one and human nature goes against that very thing.
2) Why would they? why is it the responsibility of the Ds to fix things? Why is it not the responsibility of people in general? We know the answer to that question (it is encapsulated in my #1 above). Raising the question about why group X isn't doing something is simply a dodge of the larger issue/problem.
3) Unlikely--again, because of human nature and the nature of political process/competition. Very little of this is rational or evidence-based. If a Cheney opponent was sufficiently disgusting, they MIGHT--but the usual response is to not bother to vote at all or to vote for who you know is a losing candidate, but who you are more in agreement with. It becomes an act of performative virtue/virtue signaling.
(1) I'm with you. All AMERICANS (Ds, Rs, and everyone in between) have a part in answering the call to put country over party. But that calling has been commonly associate with Rs, not Ds. It definitely applies to Ds as well. And I get it about human nature. It would take a massive sell job to persuade people to go against human nature--for Ds to vote for purple Rs and Rs to vote for purple Ds. More middle, less wings.
(2) In the context of polarization, Ds and Rs share the responsibility of fixing things. But both their human nature approaches have underperformed. For Ds, the country over party approach would require persuading D leadership to not run D candidates in certain safe R jurisdictions. Why? See (3). For Rs, the country over party approach would require Rs to follow Liz Cheney's lead.
(3) Let's chess out Liz Cheney's congressional race.
Human nature outcome: In the primary election, Ds would have their D candidate, and Rs would elect 45's candidate over Cheney. In the general election, 45's candidate would win.
Country over party outcome: In the primary election, no D candidate would be on the ballot. So, after a massive and effective sell job, and since Wyoming is a partially open primary state, Ds would request an R ballot and support Cheney. Cheney would win. In the general election, Cheney would win unopposed.
Welcome back!
Now on to the comments. It's not surprising that the January 6th stuff is irrelevant to a populace who thinks we're in a recession. The truth is, voters are not persuadable in the sense that voters care about anything resembling a coherent worldview. That's not how people are. Most voters decide who to vote for in the final month of an election. Which means everything before and after is just noise.
The problematic reality is that for all the talk of 'persuadable' voters, there really aren't any. At least, not enough to swing elections. Independents are growing in number, but not ideologically. What's happening is that more people are bucking the label of a party in favor of saying they're independent, while voting along party lines all the time. Because a true 'independent' would have to lack anything resembling a coherent worldview politically in order to swing between such ideologically opposed parties.
What this means is that ultimately, a lot of energy is expended on both sides over voters they want to exist but don't. Voters who are 'independent' or 'swing' tend to be those whose entire political process is to look up in a haze, make a gut check about how they feel, and then vote based on that. And because American voters are always, always unhappy, that usually means they vote against the incumbent. It doesn't matter if it's 2006 or 2010 or 2014 or 2018. Voters tend to always be unhappy.
Ultimately, that's what makes a lot of highly educated and media types really unhappy: that most voters don't really care about democracy and don't see a difference between the parties. To people who have the time and energy to actually pay attention, it seems insane that voters look at Trump and Biden, or Pelosi and MTG and go 'basically the same' but they do. And that's a problem for political types, and not the voters. Because just like in business, the customer is always right, especially when they're wrong.
I think one other thing we need to talk about is that for Americans, 'Fascist' conjures up Nazis. But not all fascists are nazis. In fact most of them aren't. The Imperial Japanese in WW2, Franco's Spain, Mussolini, Peron, ect were all fascists. And the current American right is absolutely fascist in the same vein. They're not nazis. But they are absolutely fascists. They are blood and soil nationalists who fetishize violence against political others and wish to establish a stronger volk over the country. You have Claremont and Lincoln fellows talking about Americans as not being Americans. At some point you need to call a spade a spade.
The fact that so many people are worried about what to call the thing, and not the thing itself, is part of the issue. The other part is that not a lot of people are as uncomfortable as we might hope with this sort of thing.
The final bit is that, as I and other people have been saying for a long time, Trump is not the movement. He is the leader of it, but he was a figurehead who could channel the movement. The crazy existed before him, and it will exist after him. The danger was never Trump himself, who was a buffoon at the best of times, but that the people around him would be dangerous and capable enough to engineer success through him. The real danger is whoever takes up the mantle after him. Because Trump was a grifter himself, and he saw the movement as a way to raise his own profile. But true believers want their crazy straight. And they'll go further than Trump would because they won't care about their own self interest in the same way. Revolutionaries aren't concerned about their brand.
Well said.
Ultimately, for a variety of reasons, people are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. This crosses the political spectrum and often has very little to do with how things objectively ARE. It is an artifact of perception and the response to that artifact is almost wholly an emotional and uncritical voting response--usually for whatever party is not in power (for those who actually qualify as "swing" voters).
Everyone else tends to vote along ideological lines, whether they recognize it or not. Which, again, is an artifact of perception.
Your last paragraph is particularly true and particularly scary.
Hi Shawn.
(1) Do Ds and Is have a part in answering the call to put country over party?
In generally safe R jurisdictions such as AK, AL05, GA14, OH04, WY, etc.:
(2) Do you think D leadership can be persuaded not to run D candidates?
(3) Do you think D leadership can mobilize and persuade D voters to support a purple R (e.g., Liz Cheney)?
1) The reality is that there are very few D's. I do not know many Americans who are actually members of political parties. Being registered as D or R or whatever doesn't mean membership. Do AMERICANS have an interest in putting country over a particular political party? Well, in an ideal world they should and do--but we don't live in one and human nature goes against that very thing.
2) Why would they? why is it the responsibility of the Ds to fix things? Why is it not the responsibility of people in general? We know the answer to that question (it is encapsulated in my #1 above). Raising the question about why group X isn't doing something is simply a dodge of the larger issue/problem.
3) Unlikely--again, because of human nature and the nature of political process/competition. Very little of this is rational or evidence-based. If a Cheney opponent was sufficiently disgusting, they MIGHT--but the usual response is to not bother to vote at all or to vote for who you know is a losing candidate, but who you are more in agreement with. It becomes an act of performative virtue/virtue signaling.
Thanks R Mercer.
(1) I'm with you. All AMERICANS (Ds, Rs, and everyone in between) have a part in answering the call to put country over party. But that calling has been commonly associate with Rs, not Ds. It definitely applies to Ds as well. And I get it about human nature. It would take a massive sell job to persuade people to go against human nature--for Ds to vote for purple Rs and Rs to vote for purple Ds. More middle, less wings.
(2) In the context of polarization, Ds and Rs share the responsibility of fixing things. But both their human nature approaches have underperformed. For Ds, the country over party approach would require persuading D leadership to not run D candidates in certain safe R jurisdictions. Why? See (3). For Rs, the country over party approach would require Rs to follow Liz Cheney's lead.
(3) Let's chess out Liz Cheney's congressional race.
Human nature outcome: In the primary election, Ds would have their D candidate, and Rs would elect 45's candidate over Cheney. In the general election, 45's candidate would win.
Country over party outcome: In the primary election, no D candidate would be on the ballot. So, after a massive and effective sell job, and since Wyoming is a partially open primary state, Ds would request an R ballot and support Cheney. Cheney would win. In the general election, Cheney would win unopposed.