# Has Liberalism Changed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2017, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517 "2017-02-23T00:21:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Doubticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@Doubticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doubticus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/61 "2017-02-23T21:35:54Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Responding all lives matter is affirming the common humanity of all people regardless of color. It is affirming that matters about people is not their race but their inherent worth as individuals. > As to it being a diversions it is not because Black Lives Matter is about taking a real problem and then begging the question. It assumes that the reason black people are shot by police officers is that the police officers don’t think their lives matter. So the problem is racist cops and teaching them to value the lives of black people will fix the problem. > Black Lives Matter protests show how much liberalism has changed. It was once about judging people by the content of their character and now it is about how [white](https://news.grabien.com/story-dnc-chair-candidates-bash-white-people-racially-charged-foru)people need to shut their mouths. So basically it is point D. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/62 "2017-02-23T21:42:57Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Can we agree that progressives have a problem with their messaging? But those in the thread did NOT agree. Instead of blaming the highly intelligent politicians for not communicating effectively, they blame the lower-intelligence citizen for not deciphering the messages better. Recall the Clinton-Sanders debates. On multiple occasions, the topic turned to gun control. Sanders’ rural roots with an understanding of gun culture should have been a plus for the Democrats; instead he was forced to cite his bad NRA rating multiple times. _ **The Democrats should have rejected all questions about guns and used them to segue into economic problems that aggravate crime and anger.** _ Catering to LGBT was also counter-productive. Those voters surely already knew which lever to pull: _But the Democrats cannot serve their interests unless elected._ ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/63 "2017-02-23T22:17:16Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > But those in the thread did NOT agree. Instead of blaming the highly intelligent politicians for not communicating effectively, they blame the lower-intelligence citizen for not deciphering the messages better. No, we blame them for not listening at all. Or if they did listen to anything, they listened to the media that had shopped up the message into little soundbites that lost all their meaning out of context. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/64 "2017-02-23T22:41:10Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > It was once about judging people by the content of their character and now it is about how [white](https://news.grabien.com/story-dnc-chair-candidates-bash-white-people-racially-charged-foru)people need to shut their mouths. Ah, yes, of course! I remember checking that box last time I voted. The one that said that she’s the official spokesperson for all white liberals. Was that wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/65 "2017-02-24T00:05:05Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Responding all lives matter is affirming the common humanity of all people regardless of color. It is affirming that matters about people is not their race but their inherent worth as individuals. > As to it being a diversions it is not because Black Lives Matter is about taking a real problem and then begging the question. It assumes that the reason black people are shot by police officers is that the police officers don’t think their lives matter. So the problem is racist cops and teaching them to value the lives of black people will fix the problem. > Black Lives Matter protests show how much liberalism has changed. It was once about judging people by the content of their character and now it is about how [white](https://news.grabien.com/story-dnc-chair-candidates-bash-white-people-racially-charged-foru)people need to shut their mouths. She clarified her comments later, but yeah, that was awful phrasing, especially for a wannabe politician. The comments for that article are a delight, BTW. Has conservatism changed into mindless racism, and swapping bullshit factoids and memes? If the lady in Idaho proves that “liberalism” has gotten worse, than I submit the comments for proof that conservatism has sunk deep into the sewer. ---
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/66 "2017-02-24T03:56:08Z")
I think what the OP was referring to was the fact that we have a new generation of liberals who are raised to believe in certain causes, but they did not arrive at their support for these causes organically - they had them pushed on them. They know what movements to support precisely because they are ones that liberals support, and they know they should be liberal. They don’t know why they support liberal causes, only that they should. They proudly wear the badge of “liberal” and try as hard as they can to be liberal, which means going to the next level of rhetoric that really isn’t supportable by reason. At least, that’s my take on things. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/67 "2017-02-24T03:58:49Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Interesting article: appeals to conservatives on the environment are much better received when framed in terms of heritage preservation: [Make Earth Great Again!--Here's How | Scientific American](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/make-earth-great-again-heres-how/) I can’t find it now it but I remember an article with a long list of liberal positions argued using conservative morality, e.g. purity, sanctity, tradition, and patriotism. Like UHC will help small business owners. Pollution tarnishes the beauty of America. That sort of thing. Investigations into political psychology are interesting (Jonathan Haidt being a popular reference) but I’m not sure if any of this would really work. It’s usually portrayed as wonderfully optimistic, but to me seems laughably cynical in its transparent manipulation. Like the joke about how conservatives should support abortion because women have property rights over their own bodies and can kick out those who don’t pay rent. > [@Doubticus](#): > > Responding to “Black Live Matter” with “All Lives Matter” doesn’t mean you’re racist. It does mean you’re tone deaf, though. What about the people who respond with “Black Lies Matter” or “Pants up, don’t loot”? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/68 "2017-02-24T13:30:42Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > What about the people who respond with “Black Lies Matter” or “Pants up, don’t loot”? I think you know. ---
**Author:** ![brujaja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@brujaja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brujaja)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/69 "2017-02-24T13:56:52Z")
**OP:** I too miss the old school type liberal (of which I am one), but not for the reasons you cite. 1. Celebrating African heritage is celebrating ethnic heritage. Celebrating “white” heritage is not pride in your ethnicity, it’s pride in your whiteness. Nobody has any problem with, say, Italian pride or Polish pride or whatever. Frankly, I think the term “white pride” is nonsensical. I mean, what characteristics, specifically, are being celebrated when celebrating “white pride?” Even when people say “black pride,” there is an unspoken association of (the majority of) black people with African culture and ethnicity. So to say “it’s fine to have black pride but everybody jumps down your throat if you have white pride” is basically sophistry. Try having pride in your specific ethnic heritage and no one will bat an eyelash. 2. The “Day Without Women” is in response to, uh… _must…not…use… all…caps…_ _gross_ insult/ disrespect/ offense/ legal attacks on women by the current administration. The “Day Without Immigrants” is in response to the same thing towards immigrants. With all due respect, though I haven’t read much about this “Day Without Men” thing, I suspect it is in response to nothing else but the other “Days” themselves. What these attitudes have in common is the peculiar idea that a focus on addressing institutionalized, systematic wrongs against a less-powerful group in society somehow diminishes or excludes the grievances of everybody else – it does not. People being proud to be African is **not** saying that you should be ashamed to be German or Latvian. Staging a “Day Without” women or immigrants is **not** trivializing or demeaning the contributions of men or American-born citizens. You know that one kid at the birthday party who cries when the birthday boy or girl opens their presents, because that one kid doesn’t get presents themself? So that one kid’s parent actually brings a wrapped gift for their own kid to open, so they don’t feel left out? That’s how these attitudes strike me. Now, **real** old-school pinko liberal leftists like me (I was a little kid at the formative time, but gained their same values after careful consideration) have no problem at all agitating for the rights and dignity of groups other than my/our own. It doesn’t make much sense to go to jail protesting for de-segregation, but stop short of allowing black folks to have “pride.” What I miss about old-school liberalism was the **toughness.** You know that picture of the Mexican woman with the bandolier, marching at the head of her people? Or the one of the classic Rosie the Riveter, making a muscle? You know the leather jacket-wearing guys with working class accents you used to meet in anarchist bookstores? I miss that. Liberals didn’t used to take any shit. No one talks about class issues any more. People are largely unfamiliar with classic leftist thought. I hardly ever meet anyone who has read Noam Chomsky. I have trouble understanding why people are so intent on being “civilized” with monsters. When they lie, call it a lie! ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/70 "2017-02-24T14:37:11Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > The general consensus then was the Republicans would have to reach out to minorities and women and soften their stance on immigration. I don’t recall mainstream writers saying the right would go further right and win. FWIW, Scott Adams predicted a Trump win (although he predicted a “landslide” which obviously was wrong.) I thought he’d win the primary. But I didn’t predict he’d win the White House. I thought it was 2-1 against. But then again, 2-1 favorites lose all the time. I do think his victory should be ringing alarm bellls among Democrats. _Something_ went wrong. I suspect - though there’s no way of knowing - that Bernie would have won, if he’d been in the race. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/71 "2017-02-24T14:49:20Z")
> [@brujaja](#): > > **OP:** I too miss the old school type liberal (of which I am one), but not for the reasons you cite. > > 1. Celebrating African heritage is celebrating ethnic heritage. Celebrating “white” heritage is not pride in your ethnicity, it’s pride in your whiteness. Nobody has any problem with, say, Italian pride or Polish pride or whatever. Frankly, I think the term “white pride” is nonsensical. I mean, what characteristics, specifically, are being celebrated when celebrating “white pride?” Even when people say “black pride,” there is an unspoken association of (the majority of) black people with African culture and ethnicity. So to say “it’s fine to have black pride but everybody jumps down your throat if you have white pride” is basically sophistry. Try having pride in your specific ethnic heritage and no one will bat an eyelash. True that no one bats an eye on “Polish pride” or whatever. But black pride is not “Nigerian” pride, or “Ethiopian” pride. It’s just black pride. It is the exact analog of white pride: race, not ethnicity. > [@](#): > > 1. The “Day Without Women” is in response to, uh… _must…not…use… all…caps…_ _gross_ insult/ disrespect/ offense/ legal attacks on women by the current administration. The “Day Without Immigrants” is in response to the same thing towards immigrants. With all due respect, though I haven’t read much about this “Day Without Men” thing, I suspect it is in response to nothing else but the other “Days” themselves. I cancelled “A Day Without Men.” They do too many important things to take the day off. > [@](#): > > What these attitudes have in common is the peculiar idea that a focus on addressing institutionalized, systematic wrongs against a less-powerful group in society somehow diminishes or excludes the grievances of everybody else – it does not. People being proud to be African is **not** saying that you should be ashamed to be German or Latvian. Staging a “Day Without” women or immigrants is **not** trivializing or demeaning the contributions of men or American-born citizens. “Institutional” and “systematic wrongs” are phrases that get thrown around a lot. What, specifically do you mean? > [@](#): > > You know that one kid at the birthday party who cries when the birthday boy or girl opens their presents, because that one kid doesn’t get presents themself? So that one kid’s parent actually brings a wrapped gift for their own kid to open, so they don’t feel left out? That’s how these attitudes strike me. > > Now, **real** old-school pinko liberal leftists like me (I was a little kid at the formative time, but gained their same values after careful consideration) have no problem at all agitating for the rights and dignity of groups other than my/our own. It doesn’t make much sense to go to jail protesting for de-segregation, but stop short of allowing black folks to have “pride.” > > What I miss about old-school liberalism was the **toughness.** You know that picture of the Mexican woman with the bandolier, marching at the head of her people? Or the one of the classic Rosie the Riveter, making a muscle? You know the leather jacket-wearing guys with working class accents you used to meet in anarchist bookstores? I miss that. Liberals didn’t used to take any shit. No one talks about class issues any more. People are largely unfamiliar with classic leftist thought. I hardly ever meet anyone who has read Noam Chomsky. > > I have trouble understanding why people are so intent on being “civilized” with monsters. When they lie, call it a lie! What is seems to me is that people have given up caring about how people get their money. More importantly, they’ve stopped caring (if they ever did) about whether the money comes from doing something sociallly useful - like work - or merely for existing. ---
**Author:** ![Doubticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@Doubticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doubticus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/72 "2017-02-24T15:15:11Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > What about the people who respond with “Black Lies Matter” or “Pants up, don’t loot”? Well, THOSE people are racists. LOL ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/73 "2017-02-24T16:31:19Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > The Bernie/Hillary split as a convenient example, though not perfect. > Bernie seemed to be a thouroughgoing old school liberal. Hillary was sort of a half-assed new liberal. > > What I’ll call “old school” liberalism had several core principles. > One was support for the working class, combined with opposition to what I’ll call the ownership class - rent seekers, and others who are rich, but don’t work. > Another was support for freedom of speech, combined with the rejection of dogma. > A third was opposition to classification, or different treatment of people, on the basis of race or gender, or religion. MLK’s “I Have A Dream,” is an example. > > There are others, but I’ll leave it there for now. > > New school liberalism, on the other hand, embraces identity politics. To be non-white, non-Christian, or non-male is something to be celebrated. New school liberalism separates people into two groups: the privileged, and under-privileged. They’re identified, not by wealth; but by race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. To celebrate African American heritage is admirable. Celebrating white heritage is racist. Similarly, “A Day Without Women” is encouraged. “A Day Without Men” is sexist. > > It’s an explicit rejection of MLK’s idea. It creates concepts like “micro-aggressions,” “trigger warnings,” and violent protests against the possibility of someone speaking who is antithetical to new liberalism’s agenda. It is, in other words, not at all friendly toward free speech. > > The dichotomy is not new, exactly. It’s been around at least 30 years. But new liberalism seems to be on the ascendency, and old liberalism seems to be waning. > > So my question is, is this something only I have noticed, or have others noted the same thing? I think I have sensed a bit of this. We have shifted a bit from “great society” liberalism to something else. 20 years ago I would have said that any conservative making Harrison Bergeron arguments because of affirmative action were hyperventilating. But more and more we are seeing liberals make the argument that because there is disparity there must be discrimination. I think perhaps its a generational thing. I don’t think I have changed, the world did and that’s not the world’s problem, its mine. The issues are more subtle than they used to be and AFAICT most of the people using terms like white privilege, trigger warnings and micro-aggression are not using it correctly and the way they use it incorrectly says a lot about the current mentality in society. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/74 "2017-02-24T16:31:41Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m sure it’s changed to some degree, but I think mostly for the better. Fighting injustice in various forms really should be the main priority of liberal politics. It is, in fact, why I became a liberal. That’s what I felt like conservatism pulled over my eyes, acting as if justice was something it actually cared about. But it’s not. It cares about order, and is willing to give up justice to achieve it. Libertarians also seem to care about justice, but, for them, a certain type of freedom takes precedence over justice. Despite seeing how their freedom makes justice worse, they continue to shoot for freedom, while creating artificial realities that will take care of the justice issue. That’s not to say I’m not for those things, in their proper place. Order is useful, because too much chaos can be dangerous. And, of course, I value freedom–I just think it has to be balanced with justice. Plus, I think the government helps with freedom by helping out those with less have the freedom that those with more already enjoy. With Trump, we have the added “safety” idea, where people are willing to give up justice and liberty to feel safe. And that seems even worse to me. As for the OP: Sure, liberalism has changed, but it’s mostly gotten better. The people who are being made fun of are usually the ones actually on the edges, still fighting the good fight. As for Clinton vs. Sanders: I don’t really think he’d win. He’s only going to pull in more people from the places where Clinton already had ample support. And then, given that he couldn’t win the primaries, he’d probably get less votes overall. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/75 "2017-02-24T16:58:05Z")
> [@brujaja](#): > > Celebrating African heritage is celebrating ethnic heritage. Celebrating “white” heritage is not pride in your ethnicity, it’s pride in your whiteness. Nobody has any problem with, say, Italian pride or Polish pride or whatever. Frankly, I think the term “white pride” is nonsensical. I mean, what characteristics, specifically, are being celebrated when celebrating “white pride?” Even when people say “black pride,” there is an unspoken association of (the majority of) black people with African culture and ethnicity. So to say “it’s fine to have black pride but everybody jumps down your throat if you have white pride” is basically sophistry. **Try having pride in your specific ethnic heritage and no one will bat an eyelash.** But as someone pointed out, “black pride” is not the same as Ethiopian/Ghanan/Angolan pride, just like “white pride” is not the same as French/Irish/Swedish pride. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/76 "2017-02-24T17:14:08Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I do think his victory should be ringing alarm bellls among Democrats. _Something_ went wrong. I suspect - though there’s no way of knowing - that Bernie would have won, if he’d been in the race. If Bernie would have beat Trump, then probably any Democrat other than Clinton could have beat him. If that’s the case, we don’t need alarm bells, we just need to nominate someone other than Hillary Clinton (which we undoubtedly will do). Something certainly went wrong, and i don’t pretend to understand it. A sizable percentage of voters fell for the con of a false populist and incompetent sleazebag. I suppose it could happen again, but I remain hopeful that there will be some serious soul searching before 2020. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/77 "2017-02-24T21:44:32Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > My problem with what you call ‘racist’ agitation against Mr Obama is that we now have equivalent agitation against Mr Trump. Is this also racist? In what twisted world could you possibly call the agitation against the Orangutan racist? Trump is ignorant. Obama is not. Trump is narcissistic. Obama is not. Trump is bigoted. Obama is not. Trump lies at the drop of a hat, often so obviously that you have to say to yourself, “Did he really just _say_ that?” Obama does not. Trump is the epitome of the tyrant. Obama is not. Obama is highly articulate. Trump is…heh…not. And, bottom line, Trump’s policies are nothing short of draconian. (Include Bannon and other advisors in that; regardless of where the idea originates, it’s put into practice by Trump.) _That’s_ why people agitate against Trump. His policies and his utter unsuitability for the office which he holds. It has zip, zero, nada to do with the color of his skin, his religion (wait, what religion other than the Tabernacle of Trump?), or any other such superficial qualities. Calling that racism is just another straw man. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/78 "2017-02-24T21:53:28Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Trump is ignorant. Obama is not. > Trump is narcissistic. Obama is not. > Trump is bigoted. Obama is not. > Trump lies at the drop of a hat, often so obviously that you have to say to yourself, “Did he really just _say_ that?” Obama does not. > Trump is the epitome of the tyrant. Obama is not. > Obama is highly articulate. Trump is…heh…not. Perhaps we’ve been too harsh on him. Perhaps Trump is simply, differently-abled. …nahhh, he’s a petulant jackass. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/79 "2017-02-24T22:33:12Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > If Bernie would have beat Trump, then probably any Democrat other than Clinton could have beat him. If that’s the case, we don’t need alarm bells, we just need to nominate someone other than Hillary Clinton (which we undoubtedly will do). > > \*\*Something certainly went wrong, and i don’t pretend to understand it. \*\* A sizable percentage of voters fell for the con of a false populist and incompetent sleazebag. I suppose it could happen again, but I remain hopeful that there will be some serious soul searching before 2020. Bolding mine. Here is a start on understanding. The voters didn’t fall for anything. They voted for the person who didn’t call them deplorable. They voted for the person who said that their problems mattered and that he would try and do something about those problems. For example, according to [exit polling](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-did-really-well-with-union-households_us_582367d0e4b0aac62488cc32)Trump did better with union households than Reagan did. Obama won union households by 18%. Clinton won them but by 8%. That is a huge change, especially considering that [union membership by minorities](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/unions-have-more-minorities-ever-and-democrats-have-noticed/311470/) is much higher than it was back in the 80’s. It is simply amazing to me that so many people are having a hard time with this. It isn’t hard, it isn’t rocket science. Trump won because he spoke to people who Clinton either ignored or insulted. Slee ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2017, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517/80 "2017-02-25T00:31:55Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Its all political theater. What does/did race have to do with it? If anything, Mr Obamas race protected him to some degree from criticism from the left and right. If today we had President Condaleeza Rice doing the sane things as Mr Trump, I highly doubt we would see an equivalent level of dismissal and demonization. Well, I think you may be right. Certainly Obama had a base of black leaders that did not want to criticize him. Condi could expect some of that, if not all. But one question is how Condi would even get into a position to do those things. She’s mainly known for her relationship to Dubya, not for being a part of electoral politics. Another question is, isn’t it clear by now that Trump has a base (white, heavily German-American, little bit racist) that refuses to criticize _him?_ And that Trump is getting far more consistent support from his party than Obama got from Democrats? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-liberalism-changed/780517.md?page=5)