I’m enjoying this version of Newsom:
Full text:
People (in general) are not dumb. Economics and inflation are complex, and simply because someone doesn’t have the time to invest in learning about them properly doesn’t make them an unwashed yokel. I get that explaining these things to people in a succinct way is difficult, but that’s what politicians should do without lying to them.
^ “Dumb” is shorthand for a lot of related and interlocking weaknesses. Let me put it this way: the weaknesses are such that the vast majority of the population will not even try to understand economics and inflation, and many who do try will get them wrong (obviously, there will be debate on many aspects of these topics even among experts). Finally, again owing to the same weaknesses, most who do not end up understanding economics and inflation will, instead of recognizing their lack of understanding and acting accordingly, will substitute a belief “plug-in” that is incorrect and usually politically determined.
True, and the myriad causes and ways to slow inflation have been debated by leading economists.
And people don’t realize that inflation isn’t an unmitigated evil. They focus on the price of gas and groceries, but don’t take into account that they’re paying off their mortgages and credit cards with cheaper money than they originally borrowed.
Quite, but it’s the variability of inflation in relation to growth in the economy, and crucially in relation to their individual household economy, that frightens. If inflation of your income doesn’t keep pace with price inflation, that’s what you - necessarily - understand it to be.
I certainly agree that fighting ignorance is important, but it’s also important to not minimize or disregard people’s personal experiences and pain.
“Yes, I know that inflation is higher than you’ve ever seen before, and you can’t afford to pay your bills, but people in Europe are seeing even worse inflation than you are, so it really could be so much worse” is a really tone-deaf, and meaningless, argument, particularly if you’re trying to sway voters.
Middle-class Americans don’t live in Europe, don’t have to pay European prices, and, frankly, don’t give a sh*t what other people in other countries have to deal with. Telling them “it could be much worse” is insensitive, at best, when their personal finances are stretched to the limit, and arguing that they won’t be as unhappy about things if they were simply not so ignorant is, again, insensitive and tone-deaf.
Not entirely, if the opposition is trying to blame the inflation on you. But of course, then you just say that this minor wave of inflation is worldwide, not just in the US,
I understand your points, but I just can’t agree that this part (which I agree is common) is okay. It’s not okay to me for several reasons, but the relevant one here is basically ingratitude — a warped sense of what we are lucky to have.
You didn’t exactly say it’s “okay,” but you seem to hold people blameless for this. I get that. In fact, I just completed some research on exploring reasons for geographic and historical ignorance among a certain segment of Americans.
It’s true I can’t look into the soul of severaL million people. I just find it hard to believe that none of them are “blameless” — surely, some “should” know better, no?
it’s a subtle yet crucial conundrum we’ve discussed on these boards ad nauseam.
I disagree. I think it’s perfectly fine to not care about what others in other countries are dealing with as a whole, to the degree someone chooses. Being told inflation is worse in Europe, for instance, also has the vibe of being told to eat your vegetables because other children are starving in whatever country or region is in the news. This idea that a politician or a party should get a pass because “it’s not as bad as it could be” is a recipe for a race to the bottom of shitty entrenched politicians and worse results for the public.
To the degree that it’s a big interconnected world with big interconnected problems and that effects can manifest themselves in strange ways and that people should really try to keep themselves informed about the world I actually do agree. But I really don’t blame people who just get through day to day because that’s all they can do.
FWIW, I’m not saying that “it’s okay” – I’m saying is that it’s reality, and frustration over inflation (whether or not it was “well-informed”) was a big factor in Trump winning again. “If you knew better, you wouldn’t feel the same way” is extremely unrealistic.
Well said.
Should more Americans have better knowledge about what goes on in other countries? Absolutely, and it’s a cultural flaw we have. The fact that inflation was even worse in Europe than it was in the U.S. under Biden does not lessen the financial pain which middle-class Americans were feeling, when their bills and the cost of living were rising far faster than their income, and lecture-y statements about it only serve to make the lecturer (and their party) sound out-of-touch and indifferent.
Regarding lecturers, a recurring theme in Paul Krugman opinions when he was still writing for the New York Times was basically “the numbers look good so people should be happy” with the comment section almost always contradicting him that even if the numbers look good, people don’t live by economic averages and statistics. Even if pay was up somewhat, for instance, it doesn’t mean that I personally got a raise anywhere close to the pace of inflation or rent increases.
Here’s an example from 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/opinion/americans-negative-economy.html
Being told that the conditions we were faced with had us (like the rest of the world) on a path to much worse, but through strong leadership and sound policies we had it better than they did (and what we could have faced). That sounds like a winning argument to me.
If voters are not stupid.
Assumes facts not in evidence, alas.
Most people will tell you that they are rational, smart, and make decisions based on the facts. The reality is that most people make decisions (including voting decisions) based on emotion and their guts.
Not sure if this is still the right thread to discuss frontrunners for the Democratic nomination in 2028, but is there any way that Gavin Newsom isn’t at the forefront “if the primaries were held today”?
Granted, as a lifelong Texan it was around this time almost 24 years ago that I thought “wow, Rudy Giuliani is one hell of a mayor, who can do know wrong”. So maybe there’s something in Newsom that I’m missing because I’m not as familiar with him as Californians are, but it sure seems like he checks a lot of boxes.
Only 57 right now, and no real straight-lines to connect him to President Biden’s administration (not that any of us think his administration was a bad thing, but some out there obviously do). And he shows he can go toe-to-toe with the supposed “strongman?” in office right now. I have a feeling he would wipe the floor with Vance in a 2028 debate.
Obviously there might be someone else to come along over the next couple of years (Beshear? Pritzker?) and knock our socks off, but at the moment my money’s on Newsom.
Not in the case. trump was blaming inflation on Biden- showing inflation was worldwide would act to disprove that.
Same here but maybe someone better will come along.
I think Newsom is the sort of politician who appeals mostly to people who are already Democrats. I don’t see a lot of evidence that he will bring in anyone else. Also, while people have mostly forgotten the “violating his own pandemic restrictions to party at a ridiculously expensive restaurant” thing for the moment, it will play very badly when people remember it, because it’s easy to understand and feeds into a bunch of pre-existing negative stereotypes about Democrats.
I’m hoping for someone down-to-earth and with a proven record of winning in a red-to-purple state, but I’m otherwise agnostic about who.
I think there never was a candidate without a political weakness. So the question is — how bad is this one?
From what I read, the dinner was outdoors, and he apologized within about a week. It seems to me this is going to greatly limit the damage.
I do agree that coming from a purple state would be a big plus.
Yeah, but we know the counter to that would have been based on American Exceptionalism. As in “who cares if the whole world’s suffering this, we’re America we’re entitled by God Himself to be exempted so Biden’s failing.”
“It was outdoors” is an OK defense if your audience’s primary concern is COVID spread, but doesn’t do a damn thing to tamp down the perception of elitism – either the straight-up kind (eating at a restaurant that most of his constituents can’t afford) or the more insidious, following-rules-is-for-the-lesser-people kind. That perception is still a live issue and a liability for Democrats today, and I think Newsom would be the absolute worst candidate to counter it.
To pick a more recent example: Personally, I find Newsom’s parodies of Trump’s social media posts hilarious, but I’m not a voter that the 2028 Democratic candidate needs to win over, and the more I think about it, mocking the posting style of a 79-year-old guy who struggles with the written word isn’t the way to win over the people you do need. (FWIW, I think there’s a good chance that Trump has an actual, legit learning disability affecting his reading and writing abilities, making this the sort of “punching down” that most of us would be uncomfortable with if the target were almost anyone else – but regardless of whether he does or not, lots of other people do, and they’re not likely to be on Newsom’s side regardless of how well it plays with committed Democrats.)