The Dems need to embrace economic populism, downplay cultural liberalism

[tomndebb]

Sorry, Evil Captor and ElvisL1ves, but EC’s post gave me the exact same feeling of condescension toward the working poor.

They don’t have enough imagination to understand exactly what being wealthy does for a person and his family – they just think it means they can by REALLY BIG TVs and BIG CARS and eat out in fancy restaurants with waiters and everytning and tip real big to show what big people they are.

Is not aimed at the middle class. They are already liable to have the TV and car they want and no one really thinks that having money means blowing it on fancy restaurants and big tips. Similarly,

The fact that the prospect of sending their kids to college or buidling up a decent savings account or retiring and living well afterwards is too distant for their teeny, tiny minds.

pretty much excludes the middle class–who already generally send their kids to college and look for jobs with 401k programs, etc.

Even the notion that the “gucks” are too stupid to read ignores the issue that what a person reads is often shaped by their culture and environment.

No, there are probably no “gucks” who are going to be offended by that post, but there are any number of posters, poor as well as rich, who can see the condescension and LonesomePolecat is exactly correct that it was the perception of the attitude that created the Reagan Democrats and which has shifted a huge section of the citizenry away from being Reagan Democrats to just being Republicans. If you’re willing to post those feelings, here, why should we believe that you would clean up your act when out wandering among the populace?

[Spoke]

I don’t care whether EC is castigating the “poor” or the “ignorant.” Either way, EC is displaying a contemptuous attitude toward those he claims to want to help.

If that attitude were confined to this message board, EC, maybe “they’d never know,” just as you say. The problem is that your post is symptomatic of a larger problem for Democrats. You hear this sort of contempt for average voters all the time from spokespersons for the left: on Air America, on Bill Maher’s show, and almost anytime a Hollywood liberal gets near a microphone.

My fellow Democrats really need to get back in touch with their roots, back in touch with the average people they wish to represent.

Otherwise, we will continue to have not “red states” and “blue states,” but rather shrinking blue islands in a red sea.

[John_Mace]

@ElvisL1ves

“People who don’t have imagination” are essentially the poor? People who don’t look ahead are the poor? Only the poor don’t look ahead to retirement funding?

Please. He’s castigating the ignorant.

You are missing the reference to income levels. He is castigating the poor for being ignorant. Not all the poor, of course, only the “gucks” who are also poor. The poor who vote for Democrats are, presumably, enlightened. You see, according to his logic, he can understand the rich “gucks” because they benefit from the class warfare tactics of the Republicans. But the “poor gucks” aren’t even getting any benefits from the Republicans.

This attitude, btw, is not all that different from the OP’s. **BG **doesn’t use such stark, negative wording, but his argument is essentially the same.

[Metacom]

@John Mace

This attitude, btw, is not all that different from the OP’s. **BG **doesn’t use such stark, negative wording, but his argument is essentially the same.

First, I don’t think that making the same argument means that two people have the same attitude. So saying that Evil Captor’s attitude is not that different then the OP’s because they make “essentially the same argument” seems like a non sequitor.

Second, I disagree that there arguments are similiar.

BrainGlutton’s argument is that large numbers of middle and lower class people vote Republican because they’re socially conservative, and their moral values are more important to them then their economic status. His argument implies that they’re politically aware enough to make the decision.

Evil Captor’s argument is that “gucks” have “teeny, tiny minds”, and proceeds to make a bunch of insulting characterizations that paint the proletariat as a bunch of ignorant idiots.

They don’t strike me as similiar at all: Why do you think they’re similiar?

[ElvisL1ves]

@tomndebb

Sorry, Evil Captor and ElvisL1ves, but EC’s post gave me the exact same feeling of condescension toward the working poor.

Disagree with me if you like, but you’re telling EC himself that he didn’t mean what he’s already said he meant (ref. Post 94)?

no one really thinks that having money means blowing it on fancy restaurants and big tips.

Nobody? Really?

Similarly, pretty much excludes the middle class–who already generally send their kids to college and look for jobs with 401k programs, etc.

And very often cannot. Their position is slipping, as EC asserts and as economic stats confirm.

Even the notion that the “gucks” are too stupid to read ignores the issue that what a person reads is often shaped by their culture and environment.

True, but “culture and environment” are not synonymous with income, and ignorance especially is not. Tell us, do the interests of corporate America get communicated more effectively by Fox TV or by NPR?

No, there are probably no “gucks” who are going to be offended by that post, but there are any number of posters, poor as well as rich, who can see the condescension

When did this board get to be about coddling ignorance, not fighting it? Willful ignorance *should * be the target of condescension.

[Spoke]

@ElvisL1ves

When did this board get to be about coddling ignorance, not fighting it? Willful ignorance *should * be the target of condescension.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, as the saying goes. We are talking about electoral politics, which means we must learn to persuade our potential converts. Persuade, not browbeat.

“Stop voting Republican, you ignorant sheep!” is not an effective rallying cry.

[John_Mace]

@Metacom

First, I don’t think that making the same argument means that two people have the same attitude. So saying that Evil Captor’s attitude is not that different then the OP’s because they make “essentially the same argument” seems like a non sequitor.

Well, I didn’t say the “same attitude”, I said “not all that different”. But I can be pursuaded to put a stronger qualification on that description. In fact, I’ll concede that the description is not a good one.

Let me put it htis way: both guys are assuming that the poor are largely blinded to the economic policies of the Republicans by their social values. Neither accepts that many people vote on principle and not on what will benefit themselves personally-- ie, that there can be lower class people who are unwilling to “soak the rich” on philosophical grounds.

The difference, and this is where my first description has some problems, is that **EC **holds those people in contempt, while **BG **just thinks they need to be better educated. Yes, that is a significant difference, but they are still both condescending and both attitudes are rooted in a class warfare mentality.

[ElvisL1ves]

@spoke-

we must learn to persuade our potential converts. Persuade, not browbeat.

Worked real well for Gore and Kerry, dinnit?

“Stop voting Republican, you ignorant sheep!” is not an effective rallying cry.

Why not? “Stop voting Democratic, you ignorant sheep!” has been.

[tomndebb]

Disagree with me if you like, but you’re telling EC himself that he didn’t mean what he’s already said he meant (ref. Post 94)?

I said nothing about his intent. I pointed out the problem with the attitude he conveyed. Regardless whether or not he believes the working poor are stupid gits (barring those enlightened members who vote his way), the words and examples he chose to convey his message sent a clear message of condescension and contempt for lower middle class and poor people. If he wishes to convey his ideas without conveying the attitude, then he needs to find better methods of expression.

When did this board get to be about coddling ignorance, not fighting it? Willful ignorance should be the target of condescension.

I agree. I am quite willing to be condescending toward people who are so foolish as to believe that they will persuade people by insulting them. On the other hand, there was no “ignorance” being fought in the post, just an opinion about society that was long on emotion and short on facts.
That there is class warfare being waged in the U.S. is proabaly true. However, there is no single class warring on one or more others. Rather, there are mutiple classes, defined economically, culturally, and educationally, who are each struggling either to persuade the the others of their truths or struggling to survive or to get ahead. Reducing all those struggles to a single “rich are pissing on society” thought is every bit as ignorant as the hypothetical “guck” longing for little more than widescreen TV.

[tomndebb]

@ElvisL1ves

@spoke-

we must learn to persuade our potential converts. Persuade, not browbeat.

Worked real well for Gore and Kerry, dinnit?

“Stop voting Republican, you ignorant sheep!” is not an effective rallying cry.

Why not? “Stop voting Democratic, you ignorant sheep!” has been.

Now you are being silly. The Republicans never got up in front of a crowd and harangued them with “Stop voting Republican, you ignorant sheep!” They got up and cried “Stop letting the Democrats give your money to the special interests.” I do not recall Reagan or Bush or Bush or Gingrich or any of that crowd ever calling their audience sheep or stupid. You are letting your anger affect not merely your thoughts, but your delivery.

A call to persuade one’s audience does not mean only persuade through calm discussion. It might very clearly indicate strident demonization of the opposition. In this case, however, EC (and, apparently, you) are demonizing the prospective audience. I can think of no occasion where the Republicans have done that.

[rjung]

@Sam Stone

Funny how many of the people on the left who claim to be champions of the poor and working class actually think so little of them.

Tell me, Sam, does it bother you when someone points at the latest inflammatory remark from Ann Coulter and then uses that as a brush to tar all conservatives?

[ElvisL1ves]

@tomndebb

I said nothing about his intent. I pointed out the problem with the attitude he conveyed.

Attitude and intent are different things now? What you disliked was what you inferred from his post; don’t blame him for anything but lack of clarity.

the words and examples he chose to convey his message sent a clear message of condescension and contempt for lower middle class and poor people.

That’s very much subject to debate, although it may seem obvious to some.

If he wishes to convey his ideas without conveying the attitude, then he needs to find better methods of expression.

Fine. Whaddaya got?

There was no “ignorance” being fought in the post, just an opinion about society that was long on emotion and short on facts.

It was a post about defining the nature of such ignorance, and, well, the ignorant.

That there is class warfare being waged in the U.S. is proabaly true. However, there is no single class warring on one or more others. Rather, there are mutiple classes, defined economically, culturally, and educationally, who are each struggling either to persuade the the others of their truths or struggling to survive or to get ahead. Reducing all those struggles to a single “rich are pissing on society” thought is every bit as ignorant as the hypothetical “guck” longing for little more than widescreen TV.

While there are any number of classes one can use, in the ultimate case 300 million of them which each consist of one member, it is certainly useful to consider what coalitions of interests exist among them. Ultimately we have only 1 winner in each election, from 1 of normally only 2 parties, each representing its own grand coalition of interests. Should we refuse to consider who constitutes those coalitions because it would be simplistic to do so? Do you propose to “educate” the ignorant/gucks/what have you without considering why they choose to vote the way they do? How?

[ElvisL1ves]

@tomndebb

Now you are being silly. The Republicans never got up in front of a crowd and harangued them with “Stop voting Republican, you ignorant sheep!” They got up and cried “Stop letting the Democrats give your money to the special interests.”

The difference being, well, what? That they were effective in portraying interests as special, somehow not applying to themselves? That’s an appeal to ignorance.

I do not recall Reagan or Bush or Bush or Gingrich or any of that crowd ever calling their audience sheep or stupid. You are letting your anger affect not merely your thoughts, but your delivery.

And you are letting your inability to concede that I, and EC, just may have a point after you’ve denounced it as “silly” affect your ability to recognize summarization and characterization.

A call to persuade one’s audience does not mean only persuade through calm discussion. It might very clearly indicate strident demonization of the opposition.

And that, as I’ve pointed out, perhaps too pithily, has been and remains effective for the right wing. The people EC wishes to “convert” have proven themselves to be susceptible to it, haven’t they? Or are you seriously suggesting that recent GOP campaign strategies have not involved “strident demonization of the opposition”?

[Metacom]

@John Mace

Neither accepts that many people vote on principle and not on what will benefit themselves personally-- ie, that there can be lower class people who are unwilling to “soak the rich” on philosophical grounds.

Is this based on anything in particular that BG said? I looked over his posts, and I haven’t got that impression at all.

In his OP, he says:

@BrainGlutton

Those are issues which will resonate with the economically stressed middle-class and working-class voters of the red states – who, at present, won’t vote for the Dems because they can’t square it with their moral and religious values.

Now, he’s speaking about moral and religious values in general, and not specifically the moral values of free-market capitalism, but he seems to clearly acknowledge that the people he’s targetting are capable of voting on principle and not on what will benefit them personally. I can’t find anything in his posts that strikes me as an accusation of ignorance.

In fact, his entire proposal is based on the existence of people who will “vote on principle and not on what will benefit themselves personally”, because many (certainly not all!) of them are voting Republican because of principles (abortion, gay marriage, abortion, gun control, abortion, etc.) and those are the people whose votes he’d like to get: not by educating them, but by changing the Democratic party platform so that it’s compatible with their principles.

Now, he is assuming that there’s a significant portion of Republicans who are so because of the conservative social policies and in spite of the conservative economic policies. But that’s an entirely reasonable assumption to make: the Pew Foundation classifies 10% of voters as “Populist Republicans,” and it seems that a more socially conservative Democratic party would be perfect for them.

No disagreements about Evil Captor or the “class warfare mentality,” though. Let the revolution begin.

[Sam_Stone]

@rjung

Tell me, Sam, does it bother you when someone points at the latest inflammatory remark from Ann Coulter and then uses that as a brush to tar all conservatives?

I said ‘many’, and that’s what I meant. See, Evil Captor’s rant is not at all unique. I run into it all the time when I debate liberals. It’s a depressingly common subset of liberal thinking. The poor need their enlightened help, because the poor are too stupid, too ignorant, too lazy, or too brainwashed to think for themselves. The poor needs their help to ‘lift them out of poverty’, because they are incapable of lifting themselves. They are sheep to be led to the promised land.

You can just hear the condescension dripping from liberals when they talk about the red states, about NASCAR fans, about ‘Joe six-pack’, and other caricatures of the poor and working classes.

The Democratic party used to be composed of working class people, and treated the working class with respect. Today, the activist Democrats are more likely to be young rich people with college educations, and instead of a being a coalition to support the poor and working classes they’ve become a collection of special interests - gay rights, environmentalism, feminism, multi-culturalism, anti-globalism, etc. They’ve lost connection with the roots of the party, and as a result those people are flocking to the Republicans in droves.

That’s why the ‘solid south’, which used to be a stronghold of the Democratic party, is almost entirely Republican controlled now. Democratic power bases have moved into the big cities and the northeastern states. The problem is getting worse, and the people who claim to be champions of the working man are growing increasingly disconnected from them.

As for why poor people vote Republican, it could be because A) they vote their conscience (I voted conservative when I was dirt poor, because I felt that income redistribution and punishing the rich was wrong), B) They hope to be rich some day, C) Social issues, such as religion and gun control, D) they undertand that a rising tide lifts all boats, and therefore do not have knee-jerk reactions to any policy that might help rich people who invest their money, and E) Many Democratic policy objectives are no damned good for poor people.

[Metacom]

@Sam Stone

It’s a depressingly common subset of liberal thinking. The poor need their enlightened help, because the poor are too stupid, too ignorant, too lazy, or too brainwashed to think for themselves. The poor needs their help to ‘lift them out of poverty’, because they are incapable of lifting themselves. They are sheep to be led to the promised land.

Interesting that you stuck “the poor needs their help to ‘lift them out of poverty,’ because they are incapable of lifting themselves” in between calling them stupid ignorant and lazy and calling them sheep.

To my (perhaps depressingly common and liberal) mind, that sentence is completely out of place. I do believe that many people aren’t impoverished by choice, and are incapable of helping themselves because they lack the economic means or knowledge to do so, but I certainly wouldn’t classify them as stupid or lazy and I also don’t think they’re sheep.

[Spoke]

@ElvisL1ves

And that, as I’ve pointed out, perhaps too pithily, has been and remains effective for the right wing. The people EC wishes to “convert” have proven themselves to be susceptible to it, haven’t they? Or are you seriously suggesting that recent GOP campaign strategies have not involved “strident demonization of the opposition”?

Take a deep breath and read Tom’s post again. He is suggesting that strident demonization of the opposition may be a valid method of persuasion.

What you (and EC) are not seeing is the difference between demonizing your opponent and demonizing your audience.

[tomndebb]

And you are letting your inability to concede that I, and EC, just may have a point after you’ve denounced it as “silly” affect your ability to recognize summarization and characterization.

I have never denied that there might be a valid point somewhere in EC’s diatribe. I simply pointed out, from the perspective of someone who is not normally associated with the Far Right on these message boards, that I got exactly the same message of condescension (and mild contempt) toward the working poor that others did. I only suggest that if I, who am not immediately predisposed to favoring the rich to the exclusion of the rest of us got that message, then perhaps that is the message that EC is effectively comunicating, regardless what his intent may be.
I would agree that the scales are currently tipped, in the U.S., to shifting wealth away from all the groups except the most wealthy. That is a message that can be demostrated with actual analysis of GDP, income levels, inflation, and other measures. Simply claiming that people are stupid (and that the most reliable indication of stupidity is an avaricious desire to have large TVs) is hardly the message that the Democratic Party should be expounding if it wishes to regain power (remember the OP?).

[Shodan]

@Sam Stone

See, Evil Captor’s rant is not at all unique. I run into it all the time when I debate liberals. It’s a depressingly common subset of liberal thinking. The poor need their enlightened help, because the poor are too stupid, too ignorant, too lazy, or too brainwashed to think for themselves.

Not just the poor - everyone needs the enlightened direction of liberals on how to live their lives.

And the government therefore needs to be expanded to direct you on how to do it, and force you to obey if you disagree.

It underlies a whole raft of liberal objections to political movements. The average citizen is too irresponsible to own a gun, or decide how to invest for his retirement, or decide how to educate his children, or practically anything else.

When it comes to liberalism, kindly Big Massa tells everybody what to do and how to live and how to think and what to say. And the job of the rest of us is to scratch our heads and grin and say, “Thank yuh kindly! Thank yuh!”

Regards,
Shodan

[tomndebb]

Sort of like the way that the “Conservatives” only want to let everyone live their own livs in peace, unless they are the “wrong” sex to marry (or wish to engage in sex with the “wrong” sex and still get a job or housing), or they wish to use any mind-altering drugs other than alcohol or if they wish to conduct business on a Christian feast or if they would prefer to not have their children indoctrinated in religions in which they do not believe.

Your criticism of “Liberals” has valid points. Unfortunately, both sides want to control the sheople, they just have different areas in which they wish to exercise control.