Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

[BlooVooDoo]

So is Senator Padilla getting arrested a publicity stunt? I am not being facetious; I do not know anything about Sen. Padilla except that he is from CA.

If it is a publicity stunt, is that OK?

Arrested?

 

[superrific]

So who is moving the goalposts now?

Kingpin asked if Padilla was engaging in a publicity stunt. I answered.

Now you are talking about "publicity gathering."

You typically don't engage in bad faith arguing so I'll cut you a little slack. But again, for you to compare the Selma marches with Alex Padilla is absurd. And you obviously know the difference between a cheap political stunt and a publicity "gathering" .

Gathering was used there as a verb. It was attempting to be a generic term for the process of obtaining publicity. I didn't even think about the noun form.

My contention was that all politics is about publicity. I used the example of the civil rights movement because it is usually considered among the most honest, good faith political movements in history. But even that was publicity seeking. In fact, that was the whole point.

I wasn't comparing Padilla to Selma; just saying all politics is about publicity. Your gripe with Padilla isn't actually that he's seeking publicity. It's that you don't agree with his method. And that's fine. Confusing those different senses can cause friction.

 

[4thgenheel]

Man, that thread has him farther in his feelings than than a 40 year old single woman at a wedding.

Single women are happier than single men, researchers find

Single women are happier, on average, than single men. That's among the findings of a recent study by University of Toronto psychology researchers. They say the results suggest that men may have more to gain than women in heteronormative romantic partnerships.

phys.org

 

[superrific]

I appreciate the response, even if it was shorter than usual. I still think there are contradictions in your framework that you haven’t really resolved.

You say it’s not your assumption that every MAGA voter is motivated by hate, but earlier you said “literally all of MAGA is hate and xenophobia.” Then you listed examples to back that up and concluded the entire movement is rooted in grievance. So when you now say “I don’t believe they’re all haters,” it reads more like a disclaimer than something that actually informs your analysis. If you believed these voters were more complex, your language and framing would reflect that.

The KKK comparison only reinforces the issue. Yes, the KKK created a toxic form of belonging. But the fact that belonging can be dangerous doesn’t mean it isn’t also powerful. Every successful political movement has used it: from labor unions to civil rights to Obama’s 2008 campaign. The challenge is to offer a better kind of belonging, not to pretend that the emotion itself is illegitimate whenever it shows up on the right.

Historically, the most powerful democratic movements, from the labor movement to the civil rights movement, did create cross-racial, emotionally resonant political communities rooted in dignity, justice, and shared struggle. Was it hard? Yes. Did it require organizing, leadership, sacrifice, and moral clarity? Of course. But it happened. And it can happen again. It requires a broad political imagination.

Here’s where your logic breaks down: You say “let’s talk to them,” but you also describe them in terms so sweeping and moralized that there’s no real political reason to do so. If they’re unreachable and beyond reason, what exactly are we planting seeds for?

And that ties into your point about Port Huron. You treat Hayden’s ideas like a quaint failure because they’re old, not because they’re wrong. But 60 years later, many of the same forces SDS identified (elite consolidation, political alienation, economic dislocation) have only gotten worse.

Regardless, what I’m proposing isn’t a replay of Port Huron or the campus-centered politics of the New Left. That vision, while idealistic, was often disconnected from the everyday lives of working people and too wrapped up in cultural rebellion to build majoritarian power. My project is rooted in material politics, not abstract moral appeals or lifestyle radicalism, but the concrete promise of dignity, belonging, and economic security for a multi-ethnic working class that has been abandoned by both parties. It’s not about purity or protest; it’s about winning AND building something real and durable in the process.

Meanwhile, the alternative strategy you seem to endorse (technocratic governance paired with moral condemnation) has left millions of voters feeling abandoned and fueled the rise of right-wing populism.

If Democrats want to compete on the emotional and cultural terrain the right has claimed, they can’t do it with moral distance and data points alone. They have to offer people something real, not just in terms of policy, but in terms of meaning and solidarity. If you thinks that naive, then fine. I think it’s how we start taking actual politics seriously again.

1. Haha. My point was completely missed. That's what happens when, oh I don't know, brevity takes precedence over clarity. I write longer for a reason.

2. There's a distinction between MAGA and MAGAs, right? Like there was a Soviet Union, and then individual Soviets. If it was any other pair of words, it would be pretty dumb of you to confuse them. But, MAGA is sometimes used to mean the movement but also sometimes to mean the people. That's not how I use them at all, and it would never really be my style; but I should be more explicit going forward. In my defense, it's hard to **always** be *perfectly precise* on a message board.

3. I wasn't making a comparison to the KKK. I was offering a hypothetical situation, though again the shorthand might have obscured the meaning. If we orient our politics around belonging, following MAGA, there's a risk that we'll end up reinforcing the growth of white supremacy. It would be really, really important to ensure that strong racial diversity, with class being a unifier only if everyone's included.

And the reference to Tom Hayden was simply to say: it's really hard in America to sustain unity across racial lines. We've been trying for a long time, and we seem to be getting further away. Maybe my post was little more than the banal point that some things are easier said than done, but whatever.

4. You're probably familiar with Gil Scott Heron but you might not have listened to the bulk of his spoken word. I really like the way he describes the interactions between "SDS paleface motherfuckers" and "everyday black people." Unfortunately, this was pre-feminism and there's some misogynist imagery in the first two minutes, but the part I'm most interested in starts around 2:10. None of it is safe for work.

 

[Calheel]

Arrested?

 

[wmheel1287]

"..... This concludes our PSA on why generalizations are a bad idea and don't work."

I have never voted for Trump, would never vote for Trump and absolutely do not believe the 2020 election, nor the 2024 election, was stolen.

I don't believe this for one second.

 

[superrific]

I don't believe this for one second.

That's one second longer than me.

 

[superrific]

On the MAGA vs. MAGAs distinction: I hear you, and sure, we can be more precise going forward. But when you say “literally all of MAGA is hate and xenophobia,” that inevitably bleeds into how readers interpret your view of the people who support it. If you really believe many of them are motivated by other things, like economic dislocation, cultural alienation, or distrust in institutions, then that nuance has to show up in how you describe the movement. Otherwise, the line between condemning the ideology and writing off the people gets blurry fast. That matters, especially if the goal is persuasion or political outreach.

Same thing with the belonging point. I get that you weren’t equating MAGA with the KKK, but the rhetorical move still does some work. You brought up the most toxic form of belonging in American history in response to a point about building emotional resonance and solidarity. That suggests a deep skepticism of affective politics in general, unless they come from the “right” moral posture or social class. My point wasn’t that belonging is always good, but that it’s always powerful. It’s the job of democratic politics to channel that power toward justice, not pretend it only exists on the wrong side.

And on Hayden: I’m not saying it’s easy. Of course cross-racial, class-based organizing in America is hard. It always has been. But to bring that up just to say “we’ve been trying for decades and it hasn’t worked” feels like a kind of strategic surrender. Especially when the current strategy of technocracy, moral scolding, and elite managerialism has also failed, and arguably helped fuel the alienation we’re talking about.

Ultimately, I still think the core tension remains: you say we should “talk to them,” but the way you describe these voters as fundamentally unreachable, or so far gone that we risk enabling white supremacy just by engaging them, undercuts any real reason to do so. You warn against the dangers of populist affect but don’t offer a compelling alternative that can compete with it. And the longer we cede emotional resonance, symbolic politics, and the language of common cause to the right, the more they win by default.

I think you're reading too much into something I dashed out pretty quickly. I already said that my use of MAGA wasn't clear because of the particularities of the word. I didn't think about the KKK mention very much. It was just a shorthand way of introducing the point that belonging isn't a great politics if you can't reach across cultures.

As for the last point, I ain't gonna be doing the talking. I promise you that. Not because I'm unwilling to or anything like that. I'm just not good at it. Sure, I might seem like a superfly smooth operator but actually I'm socially awkward. So it doesn't matter all that much how I talk.

 

[Duke Mu]

Again, your reading of what I said is not supported by my posts. You’ve had such a hard on for Newsom that Im pretty sure you haven’t taken the time to thoroughly read anything that I or others have said.

First, you brushed it off as though we were all a bunch of Newsom advocates—which isn’t the case.

Now you’ve broadened your unfounded argument to suggest that we only care about these performative measures by Hochul et al.

My only point from my first post has been that I’m happy some Ds have started to find the tiniest bit of willingness to publicly and openly put up a small fight. I’m not on anyone’s bandwagon, and I’m not looking at these PR actions as some sort of be-all end-all.

But we have to start somewhere. Anything is better than sending Chuck Schumer out in front of cameras for one of his glasses-halfway-down-the-bridge-of-his-nose snoozefests.

Up to now only AOC, Bernie, Jasmine Crockett, Pritzker have not been cowering in a corner. About time.

This whole damn Trump 2.0: The Appendicits show has all been orchestrated TV. Mango Duce has admitted it and MSM has just gone along...

 

[Mulberry Heel]

My only point from my first post has been that I’m happy some Ds have started to find the tiniest bit of willingness to publicly and openly put up a small fight. I’m not on anyone’s bandwagon, and I’m not looking at these PR actions as some sort of be-all end-all.

But we have to start somewhere. Anything is better than sending Chuck Schumer out in front of cameras for one of his glasses-halfway-down-the-bridge-of-his-nose snoozefests.

God yes. This times a million. As everyone else is making any points I may have regarding Newsom, I'll only add to the chorus that one doesn't have to be a Newsom supporter or admirer to praise his willingness to actually speak up and out against what Trump is doing in his state, of which he happens to be governor. And that's really all this is - people being happy to see a prominent Democrat (other than Bernie or AOC) willing to forcefully speak up and out against Trump. As you said, Democrats have to start somewhere. That doesn't mean that I or anyone else actually supports Newsom for the Democratic nomination or admire him as governor.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Was he not released after they removed him from the building?

 

[Calheel]

Was he not released after they removed him from the building?

I believe so. The reporting is a little fuzzy. It does not appear he has been charged with anything yet, although I wouldn't put it past the Trump Gestapo to charge him with something. So, I don't think it was crazy for @heelwithnoname to use the "arrest" word there. Getting thrown to the ground and handcuffed is pretty darn close to an arrest.

 

[Zoo_View]

Of course racism was a key part of Reagan’s strategy. No one’s denying that, least of all me.

But having lived through those years, you know the idea that only racism can explain his mass appeal is way too tidy. And, most important to this discussion, it lets Democrats off the hook for decades of failure to offer an emotionally resonant alternative.

Reagan didn’t just dog whistle: he spoke to people’s anxieties about inflation, crime, and national decline in a way that felt strong and coherent, even if it was rooted in lies.

If we write off every disaffected voter as just racist or duped, we’ll never win them back. Some were, absolutely. But many were just looking for hope and strength.

You should read more about the 1976 Republican Primary in North Carolina.

Reagan’s campaign AND political career were dead in the water until Jesse Helms and Tom Ellis saved it in the 1976 NC Primary.

 

[mpaer]

You should read more about the 1976 Republican Primary in North Carolina.

Reagan’s campaign AND political career were dead in the water until Jesse Helms and Tom Ellis saved it in the 1976 NC Primary.

A lot of defeats in our life in NC politics.................

 

[Zoo_View]

I will say, I accidentally sent an earlier version of a reply I typed out to Snoop. My edited reply differs a good bit, but the idea is still the same.

At any rate, I’ll try to respond to your post.

I appreciate that you at least partially agree there’s value in engaging conservative or right-leaning voters, even if it’s not always about flipping them. But I think your post ultimately reveals the limits of the framework you’re working within, especially the way it flattens conservative voters into caricatures and substitutes a moral diagnosis for a political strategy.

You say it’s not “convenient” to reduce MAGA to hate and xenophobia because it’s based on what you see and what the studies say. But you’re not treating these studies as data points to think with, you’re using them as moral proof texts. You’re assuming that correlation is destiny, that because racial resentment correlates with Trump support, it must be the core driver for every voter in that camp, and that it therefore forecloses serious political engagement.

What makes that even more contradictory is that you then turn around and say we should be appearing on Fox News to “plant seeds.” Why would we plant seeds among a population that, by your own account, is incapable of recognizing human decency or responding to anything but grievance? Either these voters are emotionally reachable or they’re not. You can’t write them off as morally depraved and politically unreachable in paragraph two and then tell us it’s “low cost” and “worth a shot” to try to reach them in paragraph one.

What’s going on here isn’t really a political strategy so much as it’s branding. You want Democrats to appear open-minded and decent to people who, in your telling, are beyond reason. That’s not a political plan. That’s reputational damage control for professional-class liberals who are uncomfortable being seen as aloof. You’re not trying to win anyone over, you’re trying to feel better about not winning them over.

And that ties into the larger problem: liberalism still doesn’t know how to process the emotional power of populism. You treat MAGA as a mass psychosis rather than as a political formation that has emotional, cultural, and economic resonance, much of which has grown in the vacuum created by decades of bipartisan neglect. You mention jobs as an “empty promise” and then act like grievance politics came out of nowhere. But maybe the promise of jobs isn’t empty to people who watched their towns collapse while both parties gave them NAFTA and Walmart.

You say, “What positive thing does MAGA offer?” The answer is belonging. Narrative. Identity. A sense of being seen. It’s not just “hate” any more than the appeal of Obama was just “hope.” The left will never understand how to defeat that until it understands how it works. And that begins with refusing to treat half the country like they’re too poisoned to ever matter politically.

People’s political identity isn’t genetically hardwired. If we cede that emotional ground to the right, they will keep winning it.

NAFTA nor Wal-Mart killed the Southern Textile industry……it was dying in the late ‘70’s and early-mid ‘80’s. So was the furniture industry.

At best, automated textile mills would replace the mills of the ‘50’s, ‘60’s, and ‘70’s. If automation replaced the workers, the mills are still there; the jobs are gone.

Democrats offered training to displaced mill workers (textile, steel, furniture, etc.); Republicans offered grievance. Poorly educated mill workers wanted their jobs back; their jobs were gone.

I’m familiar with it. I had a great class at UNC with Dr. Chris Clark, we covered the 1976 NC primary and the roles of Helms and Ellis in helping revive Reagan’s campaign. That moment was clearly pivotal. But I think the broader point still stands: Reagan didn’t build a national coalition just on the fumes of the Southern strategy. His message resonated far beyond the South, including with many traditionally Democratic working-class voters in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and parts of North Carolina.

That Reagan Democrat phenomenon wasn’t just about racial backlash, though that was part of it. It was also about a sense of decline, inflation, and national uncertainty. Reagan offered a story that felt emotionally coherent and strong, even if it was grounded in harmful ideas.

”The fumes of the Southern Strategy…..”

You think the Southern Strategy was dying in 1976-1984?

You think it was limited to the South?

 

[Calheel]

Although I do think Jon Stewart could be a dark horse candidate. He is 2x the debater that Gavin Newsom is and he has the advantage of actually believing what he says.

And see, this is why I think Jon Stewart would be a good President. He sees Gavin for the fakey fake he is, too

 

[hedge]

What NAFTA and Walmart represented wasn’t the beginning of the collapse, but a bipartisan endorsement of a model that said: “This is the future. Get used to it.”

Sounds like each new generation of iPhone. Or people...

 

[hedge]

What I’m arguing is this: when people say they want their jobs back, it’s not always a literal demand. It’s often a longing for dignity, stability, community, identity.

You left out the most important thing: Money. That may not be all that everybody cares about, but it's very big part of what most people care about (which actually dovetails back into my quip about people voting for anybody who promised to direct deposit $10K into their checking accounts). All of the other things you mentioned fall into place when you've got money. And I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. It might be a good thing. How to get it, though?

 

[Zoo_View]

You’re right that the decline of the Southern textile and furniture industries began before NAFTA or Walmart entered the picture. Automation, globalization, and shifts in capital investment were already transforming those sectors by the late ‘70s and early ‘80s.

The timing and political management of that decline still matter. So does the story people were told, or not told, about what was happening to them.

What NAFTA and Walmart represented wasn’t the beginning of the collapse, but a bipartisan endorsement of a model that said: “This is the future. Get used to it.”

Democrats offered job training, sure…but for what exactly? For service jobs at half the wages? A PowerPoint and a training voucher are not a political vision.

Republicans, meanwhile, offered a story. A bad story, often grounded in scapegoating, but a story that acknowledged loss, and assigned some emotional meaning to it.

What I’m arguing is this: when people say they want their jobs back, it’s not always a literal demand. It’s often a longing for dignity, stability, community, identity. A time when they felt useful, needed. We can’t just dismiss that as backward or irrational.

As for the “fumes of the Southern Strategy line…,” I think we might just be using the term differently. When I say Reagan’s coalition wasn’t running purely on the “fumes of the Southern Strategy,” I’m referring specifically to the Goldwater-to-Nixon era model: overtly racial appeals aimed at disaffected Southern whites, later repackaged in coded language.

What Reagan did was build on that foundation and expand it into a national emotional narrative that fused coded racial grievance with themes of economic individualism, national decline, and patriotic renewal. That’s what made it so potent. It wasn’t just the dog whistles; it was the story.

Lee Atwater said it best. By the 1980s, the coded language had become so abstract,”cutting taxes,” “small government,” “welfare reform,” that it didn’t just appeal to the South. It could sell in the Midwest, in the West, in the suburbs. And it brought in voters who didn’t think of themselves as racist, but who still responded emotionally to that broader narrative.

If we flatten that into just “hate and racism,” we miss how the emotional power of that message shaped American politics for decades and how a lot of working- and middle-class voters ended up inside that coalition not because they were committed bigots, but because the left had stopped telling a competing story that spoke to their lives.

Thank you for educating me on how Lee Atwater changed wording of the Southern Strategy.

I didn’t know they could no longer shout, “N****r, N****r, N****r,” when Reagan or Helms ran for office. I didn’t know that “school busing,” “welfare queen,” “welfare reform,” “food stamps,” or “states’ rights” weren’t racist code words.

I always thought that speaking at Bob Jones University or the Neshoba County Fair, especially about states’ rights, sent “I am with you” signals to racists and bigots. I didn’t realize it’s been about expressing sympathy to the white working class because jobs are doing what they’ve done for centuries - move to areas with lower costs.

 

[hedge]

when people say they want their jobs back, it’s not always a literal demand. It’s often a longing for dignity, stability, community, identity. A time when they felt useful, needed. We can’t just dismiss that as backward or irrational.

This probably isn't the time or place to discuss rationality in contradistinction to feelings and longings and needlings, is it? I don't even know what the thread title is...