Speaking of podcasts: far right monster* Ezra Klein had on noted transphobe* Sara McBride to discuss exactly the topic of this thread: why the Democrats’ messaging is failing:
*I’m preempting the criticism I assume they will get for the views displayed on the podcast)
Agreed.
Details do not matter to the rightist rank and file. Pick the simplest possible bumpersticker statement that has the teeniest pebble of realism in the mountain of BS then hammer that slogan relentlessly until it becomes a background “truth” in their minds.
Any other communication style will wilt in the fierce glare of the rightists delivering their counter-messages the same way.
While this is an hour-and-a-half video, there is an (edited) transcript of this same video at this NYT link (apparently not paywalled). I post this because, commonly, long videos get a chilly reception on these boards.
EDIT: Also, for those that didn’t know (like me), McBride is transsexual.
Badass - I didn’t know about the transcript because I’m a big podcast fan, but that’s very helpful.
The Onion has come out with a bold and decisive stand. I think their clear and thoughtful message has a chance to move the needle.
Quick question about the video for other people who have watched it. Right after it says, “Speaker Mike Johnson…” it calls out Brittany Petterson, my Representative. Any particular reason to call out a freshman Rep from suburban Colorado who is mostly known for bringing her newborn to the podium, or is this some YouTube magic that it knows where I’m from and played a special video just for me?
Did everyone else see Rep. Pettersen, did you see your own Rep, or some other one?
I heard, and I assume saw, your Rep. I think it’s just a coincidence.
I have some vague recollection that the Onion is (was) physically based in Denver-ish. I can’t say when or how I came to this impression, but it was a long time ago.
I poked around on their website a few minutes ago but the one thing I could not find was any physical address for an HQ office. Perhaps someone else will have better results or remember more reliably that they’re really someplace else.
If we can’t convince people with facts and we can’t convince them with reason what’s left? “Meeting them where they are” just puts us in the wrong place too.
I remember seeing her name in the news because some Republican asshole made a point of introducing her to Congress as ‘Mr’. Shitty behaviour.
McBride is very critical of ‘cancel culture’ and left-wing purity politics in the interview, which is presumably why @Babale thinks she’ll get a negative reception on the Dope. But I’ve picked out some quotes that seem most relevant to the thread.
The OP argued in favour of messaging that pushes the rich as the enemy, here’s what McBride had to say:
On the Dems trying to send the message that they are the not-crazy party, which according to the OP was not good enough:
On what ordinary voters want to hear from politicians vs what heavy social media users are interested in:
What voters believe are the most important issues to the Democratic party, and why:
IOW, voters believe LGBTQ rights is one of the most important issues to the Democratic party not primarily because of Republican propaganda, but because unlike bread-and-butter financial issues, it is used as a litmus test for who can be in the party, or be part of left-wing movements, and no difference of opinion is tolerated.
She even understands why people excommunicated by the left over one issue often switch to being completely right-wing, which is rare:
All in all it was an interesting interview. I’m impressed.
But where the Republican propaganda does come in, is in putting in the general public masses’ mind that this LGBTQ rights platform (and mentioned in the interview, ALL gender-issues platforms) is not just something that makes them feel uncomfortable, but that it’s objectively a dangerous threat to be fought and nullified.
What McBride says is, recognize that a lot of people are in the “uncomfortable” stage. Take the W of tolerance and reserved acceptance if that’s what you can get and work from there. Not retreat from where you got, nor stop moving forward.
I’m still not buying this idea of LGBTQ being a bigger issue for the left than the right.
The Dems position is the same as it should be for any civilized person: don’t be a jerk to gay and trans. Don’t go out of your way to take away their freedoms. So yeah, it’s tough to get to the top of dem politics if you can’t do these things but the same is implicitly true about pretty much any other human grouping.
Meanwhile this is a primary campaign issue for republicans. People are made uncomfortable by trans women, so it’s a fantastic vote-winner. Ergo, you have to push the propaganda on this. It’s ok to stay silent, but if you’re asked about trans you’d better reel off a talking point.
The devil is in the details. What does “don’t be a jerk” mean? We can all agree that misgendering trans people or policing the bathroom they use probably falls under “being a jerk”, but was Gavin Newsom “a jerk” when he said that trans women with no medical transitioning competing against cis women in sports is “deeply unfair”? There certainly was a ton of backlash. Is Newsom’s position acceptable for someone on the left to hold?
They can’t, because much of the 2020s left is opposed to tolerance. They see it as selling out, as throwing oppressed group X under the bus.
McBride talked about the gay rights campaign, in particular how a lot of the initial wave of support for transgender issues was transferred from support for same-sex marriage, both because people saw the issues as similar, and because people who had been wrong on gay rights wanted to avoid being similarly wrong on trans rights. But since those people had not been persuaded on the merits, it was easy for the Republican party to change their minds later. But also, how in the campaign for same-sex marriage there was a compromise position available - supporting civil unions - which meant elected Democrats in redder areas didn’t have to commit to something their constituents opposed.
My memory of the campaign for gay marriage is that the message was “it doesn’t matter if you’re uncomfortable with the idea of two men having sex, or believe it’s a sin. We live in a pluralistic society and should tolerate others with different beliefs. Two strangers getting married doesn’t affect you, so there is no reason it should be illegal.” That was a winning message because it didn’t require people to change their deeply felt religious beliefs or examine uncomfortable feelings. But it’s very much not the message coming from the left today. Now, the message is “if you don’t support 100% of our agenda - if you dare to question any part of it - you’re a horrible person who deserves to be fired from your job and reviled by all.” And that’s not a message that endears you to anyone who didn’t already agree with you on everything.
What’s worse is that even if you could persuade the left to go back to a message of tolerance, it would be a much harder sell. Because as the right sees it, the left asked for tolerance when they were powerless, and then refused to extend it when they were powerful. And the general attitude among online conservatives is that they won’t fall for that again.
Still, that is less likely to be true for the average non-social-media-obsessed person. I think what McBride said about being ahead of the public, but staying within arms reach of them, has a lot of merit when you want to persuade people.
Tolerance of what exactly?
Not that I don’t already know it’s bigots.
Tolerance of any dissent at all. Is Gavin Newsom a bigot?
I already gave an example. Of people who think gay sex is icky and don’t want to hear about it or be reminded of it, and of religious people who believe it’s a sin but don’t want to legislate their religious beliefs.
If they are bigots, then yes, of bigots. By definition, you don’t tolerate things you approve of.
Just to be clear, in the context I was discussing McBride’s statements, as I understood them, “tolerance” and “reserved acceptance” mean the stage in the process where the person being persuaded says, “ok, I don’t have to like what this is, but people should not be persecuted for it”.
The left such as is in America is not “opposed to tolerance” in this context. It rather is saying “reserved acceptance is not enough” which is true, but is not where the public is, and what I hear McBride stating is that to her, the problem arises from taking a view that it’s all-or-nothing now-or-never (which Klein brings up early in the interview: “people are dying now”), and that reserved support is worth less than no support at all, and from her POV, those dichotomies inherently favor the “nothing” and “never” side (if just out of sheer inertia).
“Tolerance of bigots” aka the paradox of tolerance, is a separate theme from what McBride was speaking of – save that she did bring up that she feels some in the movement have the word “bigot” too ready on our lips or fingertips. McBride was talking about imperfect allyship.
Thank you. The several posts immediately above yours were missing McBride’s point by a mile.