Why are liberals often not more passionate about fighting for Cause XYZ despite having more to lose than conservatives?

[FlikTheBlue]

@Whack-a-Mole

If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you. ― Lyndon B. Johnson

@Whack-a-Mole

I’m not sure this is fair.

I do not think there was ever a remotely serious politician who wanted to “defund the police” (as in end police departments.

We have stupid things the left says and stupid things the right says but, those stupid things are an albatross around the liberal neck while stupid things the right says are applauded and encouraged by those on the right.

@Cervaise

That’s not what it means. I don’t want to hijack but I wish this inaccurate paraphrase would stop.

Yes, the phrase needs to stop. IMHO, however, I don’t think it’s a hijack. I think it’s one part of what gets to the heart of the matter. Not the funding of police, but political leadership. IMHO that’s what the Democrats lack, and why I also quoted the post with the LBJ quote. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were good politicians, but they weren’t great leaders. Democrats haven’t had a great leader since LBJ, while the Republicans have had three (Reagan, Gingrich, and Trump). That’s the difference.

By leadership I don’t mean coming up with ideas that are beneficial to the American people, or even winning the election that the politician in question happens to be running in. I mean convincing your voters that they should come around to your way of thinking on things. Reagan, Gingrich, and Trump didn’t achieve power by the “this is what most of my voters want, so that’s what I’m going to do” method. They instead essentially told the people “this is what I want you to think, so you need to get rid of the old way of thinking and start following this new way of doing things.” Democrats since LBJ have done the former. Republicans have also mostly done the former, but Reagan, Gingrich, and Trump grew their base not by realigning existing coalitions, but by actually convincing people to start thinking more like them. That’s the type of leadership that Democrats have largely lacked since LBJ forced through the Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts.

ETA. Here’s my three examples. Up until Reagan, Republican voters weren’t big into trickle down economics. That wasn’t what Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were about. Reagan convinced the average Republican voter to care about trickle down economics.

Gingrich did the same with his Contract with America. He shifted what the average Republican voter cared about to start including the things in his Contract with America.

Trump, of course, has done the same with his “stop the steal.” He’s managed to convince ordinary Republicans that election fraud is a major issue that they need to be concerned with.

I can’t think of a single issue since LBJ and his civil rights and Great Society legislation back in the 60s where any Democratic politician has shown similar leadership abilities.

ETA 2. Not that there hasn’t been progress. There has been, but it hasn’t been from the leadership efforts of elected presidents or legislators.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@FlikTheBlue

By leadership I don’t mean coming up with ideas that are beneficial to the American people, or even winning the election that the politician in question happens to be running in. I mean convincing your voters that they should come around to your way of thinking on things.

I think the closest we have come recently was Bernie Sanders.

Yet, even on this message board which leans liberal, the vitriol towards him and progressives was palpable and often overt. The support for Hillary Clinton and later Joe Biden was strong. The push back against Sanders was astounding (and not just here, the Democratic National Committee had its thumb heavily on the scale against Sanders).

And, here we are. Biden is as milquetoast as they come. Maybe Sanders didn’t have all the answers but he’d be fighting instead of mumbling some insipid speech that was poll tested 100 times till it was bland enough and then doing absolutely nothing.

[Mk_VII]

Gun owners are frequently passionate about this issue, and will vote gun, first, second and third. They will be the single-issue voter. Gun control advocates, not so much. There are probably other issues they weigh in the balance as well.

[FlikTheBlue]

Sure, but this wasn’t always the case. The NRA, for example, wasn’t always about eliminating every possible gun restriction. That started with Reagan, who was the first presidential candidate ever to be endorsed by the NRA. Again, it was leadership on the part of a top Republican that changed the way the base thought about the issue, not the base changing first and the leaders following. Democrats since LBJ haven’t had the leadership skill to successfully mold their own base the way Republican leadership molded the Republican base.