In the recent thread on Democratic prospects, the claim was made that the party has become fundamentally “anti-white male.” For the moderate and centrist Democrats who hold this view: I don’t want to debate the validity of the grievance; I assume you sincerely believe it to be the case. Instead, I want to discuss the mechanics of a solution.
If the goal is to “prove” the party isn’t hostile to white men, what is the specific, actionable checklist for doing so? How does the party realistically signal inclusion to this demographic without treating the interests of the white and Black working classes as a zero-sum game? The same question applies to the female base.
Can you describe a “corrected” Democratic platform that addresses your concerns without requiring the party to pander or abandon its core constituencies?
There is no way to “address” that lie directly without further spreading that lie, which is, I think, the strategy.
If someone you know says anything like that, just say, “Well, that is certainly a silly lie, isn’t it?” and move on. Too much time is wasted trying to argue points that were never grounded in reality in the first place.
Screw their feelings-what are the facts? How the hell can you address feelings that are based on a marketing campaign based on lies? I didn’t say they were lying. I said that the image they have been fed is based on lies, so please don’t mistake the two.
A gentle reminder that reasonable Minimum Wage, Protections from Police abuse, Healthcare & Medicare, Social Security being secure, reigning in the excesses of Billionaire and mega-Corporations, Clean Air & Water, safe drinking water & safe working conditions are policies that are colorblind and good for all.
Doesn’t the fact that many in the leadership of the Democratic Party are white men demonstrate a lack of hostility towards them? Looking at the Democratic National Committee leadership and guessing who the white men are, they appear to include Ken Martin, Jason Rae, Chris Korge, Stuart Appelbaum and Chuck Schumer; five out of thirteen. Does that demonstrate anything?
I see a lot of energy being spent on whether the premise is factually ‘true.’ For the purpose of this thread, that is irrelevant. In politics, perception is a mechanical reality.
If 40% of a target demographic perceives a brand as hostile, that is a data point a campaign must navigate regardless of the ‘truth.’
To those fighting the premise: If you were a strategist hired to neutralize this specific perception without losing the base, what would you actually do? If your only answer is ‘tell them they are wrong,’ then you aren’t talking about winning elections; you’re talking about winning an argument.
I’m still waiting for a moderate to describe a policy or rhetorical shift that addresses the perception without the zero-sum trade-offs I mentioned.
Renounce DEI initatives and affirmative action/quotas generally, stop destroying good schools and watering down curriculum standards in the name of “equity,” prosecute all people who commit shoplifting and assault even if they are black, stop with the “Dear Colleague” kangaroo courts on campus that have been ruled unconstitutional 70 times.
If these aren’t real problems and are just “propaganda” then it shouldn’t hurt anyone to commit to ending them, right?
Absolute bullshit that is designed to waste time. Because it is not based in reality, while we are running around like chickens with our heads cut off trying to fight these lies, the ones that created these lies just pop out more lies for us to try to chase down.
What is the “target demographic” for the Democratic Party? Is it the nation as a whole? If so, I am not surprised that forty percent are hostile to the Democratic Party. A similar number is likely hostile to the Republican Party.
Thank you for the specific list. To drill down on the mechanics:
You are proposing the renunciation of DEI, affirmative action, and specific curriculum standard, policies that are core priorities for the Black and Latino voters, as well as many women, who form the current Democratic base.
From a purely strategic standpoint: How does a party survive the ‘renunciation’ of its own base’s core interests? Is the assumption that the influx of white male voters would be so massive that it would offset the certain loss in enthusiasm and turnout from minority and female voters? Or is there a way to ‘end’ these things that doesn’t feel like a direct strike against those groups?
Also, regarding the crime point: The Democratic platform already supports prosecuting crime. Does a ‘remedy’ require the party to explicitly frame law enforcement in racial terms as you did, or is there a race-neutral way to do this that solves the branding issue?
It’s just a dogwhistle; when they say “white males”, they mean “white male racists and sexists”. Like how “white working class” is a term that in practice only means “racist white men”.
Just because you are white and male, doesn’t mean you are a “white male” if you don’t have the unspoken qualifications.
Reminder: do not turn this thread into another Trump bashing thread. That will be considered a hijack. If you want to talk Trump, go to one of these threads: trump
With the mod’s reminder to stay on track, can we return to the mechanics?
Whether the “anti-white male” label is factually true is irrelevant to the branding problem. If the perception exists, it has electoral consequences.
Beyond Zoster’s list of policy subtractions, which risks alienating the base, what are the specific, actionable remedies? If you were writing the platform to neutralize this brand, what would you add or change that isn’t a zero-sum trade-off?