Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 23K
  • Politics 
Paine said:
That’s a familiar line of attack, but it sidesteps the actual discussion we were having: how political messages land with voters, and why emotional resonance matters. Whether you love or hate Bernie, he tapped into something that many Americans, especially younger and working-class ones, felt deeply: that the system was not built for them, and that few people in power seemed to care.

You can list his net worth or his legislative record, but that doesn’t explain why he drew massive crowds, won 22 states in 2016, and built one of the largest small-dollar donor bases in political history. He didn’t do that by dazzling people with insider accomplishments. He did it by making people feel heard and by naming villains that actually wield power, instead of punching down.

If someone making money while still calling out concentrated power disqualifies them, then we should disqualify basically everyone in national politics, including Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and Biden. Bernie’s not perfect. But unlike most, he made people feel like he was fighting for them. That matters. That’s what’s been missing.

If the response to a populist who generates trust and energy is “but he owns a house,” that suggests we’re missing the forest for the trees. The left’s challenge isn’t to find a saint. It’s to build a movement rooted in solidarity, not cynicism.
Click to expand...
Bernie tapped into white working class anger and left-wing anger.

Bernie has yet to offer a solution. He’s good at ginning up anger. He sucks at solving anything.
 
Zoo_View said:
Bernie tapped into white working class anger and left-wing anger.

Bernie has yet to offer a solution. He’s good at ginning up anger. He sucks at solving anything.
Click to expand...
Good thing Bernie isn't running.

I mean, Paine isn't suggesting Bernie Sanders be the standard bearer. He's talking about Bernie's political/messaging strategies. Maybe AOC becomes the new Bernie, or maybe someone else emerges.

I don't think "Bernie sucks" is a rejoinder to what Paine is arguing. "Bernie's politics don't work" is an answer.
 
Paine said:
You say you had not defined what you meant by “connection” until your last post, as if that frees you from the entire frame this conversation has been operating in. But come on. The discussion around Newsom was clearly centered on the emotional and affective connection candidates have, or fail to have, with voters. It was about how someone like Newsom comes across to disaffected people, not simply how many people show up to vote for him or buy his merch.

If you were not talking about emotional connection, then why enter a conversation where that was the central focus and only now, several posts in, claim you meant something else entirely? That is not clarifying.

Your earlier comments clearly relied on an implied definition: mocking Vance for being inauthentic, calling him a muppet, and saying that “connection implies a two-way relationship.” That wasn’t nothing. You were drawing on a moral and emotional framework, the same one I was engaging in good faith. But now that I’ve pushed you to clarify and defend it, you’ve retreated to a totally different definition: connection as mere voter turnout. That shift allows you to dismiss Vance as disconnected while preserving Trump as a kind of outlier, without grappling with the emotional mechanisms that fuel both of them. It’s not that you haven’t defined connection, it’s that you’re switching definitions when the conversation gets inconvenient.

You also try to reframe my argument as being about what I personally desire from a politician. But this is not just some private preference I made up. Emotional connection, the ability to tell a story, to resonate, to build symbolic trust, has always been central to modern politics. Reagan had it. Trump has it. Obama had it, though in a very different register. The issue with Newsom is that he lacks it. He does not seem like he has lived the things he is talking about. And in today’s environment, how a politician makes people feel is not a minor concern. It becomes a signal for whose side they are actually on.

At any rate, your new definition of connection as “gets people to the polls” is a shallow and reductive way of understanding political appeal. It is not even internally consistent. You say Vance does not connect, yet he won a statewide race in Ohio. He did that while running on populist aesthetics and cultural grievance. You admit that Trump motivates people to act, but then pretend that this is not because of emotional connection. Of course it is. People buy into Trump because they feel, whether rightly or wrongly, that he understands them, that he shares their enemies, that he speaks from the gut. That is not just a turnout operation. That is myth-making.

You can’t have it both ways. The moment you say Democrats shouldn’t try to reach certain voters, you’re offering a strategy. You say we should not try to reach out to right-wing or working-class voters in any way that might challenge the current liberal moral framework. That is a strategy. It is a strategy based on exclusion. It assumes that large parts of the electorate, including former Democrats, are beyond redemption. If you are going to argue for that position, then at least own it. Do not pretend you are simply observing from the sidelines.

You’re trying to strip the whole concept of “connection” of any meaning by shifting between affective, symbolic, and mechanical models of “connection” while accusing me of muddying the waters. Then you turn around and declare that we should not bother with voters who are alienated from the Democratic Party unless they already accept the entire moral framing of professional-class liberalism. This is the same rhetorical move you made last night. You cloud the terms of the debate, redefine the topic, then claim that the other side is just confused.

Truth is, millions of Americans are politically homeless. They are alienated from both parties. Not all of them are unreachable racists. Many are disillusioned, cynical, struggling, and desperate for something real. If Democrats want to win again, especially in the places where they have been bleeding support for years, they need candidates who come across as genuine. Not because we are abandoning our values, but because we are showing people that we actually believe in them. That requires emotional trust, not just a policy menu or a polished speech. Without that, there is no connection at all.
Click to expand...
Good grief, I didn't change any previously agreed upon definition, we both used a common phrase and discovered we were using it with different nuances. There was no previously provided "definitions" section to this discussion and we were both using the word within acceptable understandings of the word. Also, I never accused you of "muddying the waters"; you're again arguing against an opponent that only exists in your mind.

I called Vance a muppet because he's cosplaying as a rural, white working class person when he's clearly no longer that person in any appreciable way. But the reason I say he doesn't connect is because he can't get voters to turn out for him or his message. There are several ways to forge a connection with voters that can get them to turn out. One is to create a "deep, meaningful connection" that assures them you understand them. Another is to present plans that convince them you can provide them the best future. Another is to scapegoat others to blame them for perceived ills. Another is to bash others and use fear/hatred to get them to the polls. And another is to show up at the right time and simply not be "the other guy". I would agree that a "deep, meaningful connection" likely provides the most sure way to ensure they turn out, but it is also the most difficult to achieve and most politicians - even successful ones - don't achieve that.

Reagan, Obama, and Trump did make deep connections to voters. Bill Clinton kinda/maybe/sorta did. HW Bush, Dubya, and Biden did not. But all of them were successful in gaining election as POTUS and achieving some of their proposed platform.

I also never said we "should not bother" to reach out to working class Pub-leaners, just that we shouldn't give them any special outreach. Dems should put forth plans and strategies that will improve life - economic and social - for all Americans, which includes working class folks. (I'd argue that's what Obama did and found some success with.) But Dems will not get anywhere trying to appeal specifically to working class, right-wing voters because Dems would need to sell out too many other important Dem consituencies. As you've said elsewhere on this thread, these voters will respond to a "bad story" over legitimate offers of proper assistance. The Dems should certainly engage in offering valid policies and programs that will benefit these voters, but shouldn't compromise other constituencies to appeal specifically to this voting block because what this voting block has routinely shown is that they prefer bigotry, scapegoating, and special status over programs which could be of assistance to them simply because they do not want to be required to change their expectations regarding their own economic opportunities.

I agree that millions of Americans are roughly "politically homeless" and that Dems should create policies, programs, and voter appeals that seek to benefit and draw in those folks, although I would argue that number does not include the working class right-leaning folks we've been discussing. That group is solidly on the side of the Republican Party, who caters to and enables their bigotries and unrealistic economic dreams. Dem messaging should be done in such a way that doesn't exclude any portion of the electorate at a philosophical level, but also should not privilege a group that has shown it does not agree with the overarching aims of the Democratic Party. The right-leaning working class has shown that unless they are privileged, they will take a comforting lie over an uncomfortable truth. We should show them the respect that Pubs do not by not providing them that comfortable lie.
 
Paine said:
If AI and automation end up doing to white-collar work what deindustrialization did to blue-collar towns, we’re going to see a new wave of disillusionment and reaction, not just from the working class.
Click to expand...
What I really meant was is AI ever going to get to the point of running on fear, pride, dislocation, nostalgia, and a desire to matter. It's actually a decently interesting philosophical question as to whether that sentence even makes sense when applied to AI, or if it does make any sense, how? But I see what you're saying too.

"If we don’t start telling a story that gives people a sense of belonging and purpose in the face of that, someone else will."

My dream is that the stories people will one day tell themselves that give them a sense of belonging and purpose won't primarily involve work or their role and identity as a worker. Ideally it won't involve work at all. Brave new world indeed. Well, new, anyway...
 
Paine said:
You say “one of those groups hates the other,” but that hatred isn’t innate. It’s been cultivated by decades of right-wing propaganda and liberal neglect. Working-class people have been fed a steady diet of scapegoating, while Democrats have failed to offer a compelling counter-story that ties the fight for LGBTQ rights to a shared struggle for dignity, security, and power.
Click to expand...
This is copium.

The hatred isn't innate because no hatred is. But it has not been only or even primarily cultivated by decades of "right wing propaganda." It's been cultivated by hundreds of years of evangelical Christianity. The politicians and the right-wing talking heads are responding to the churches. The WI Synod of Lutheran church, for instance, doesn't even ordain women. There are only a few hundred thousand of them, but the Missouri Synod ain't much better these days and it's got like 1.5M members. The Southern Baptists, as you know, recently voted to pursue overturning Obergefell. I will credit you the knowledge of the SBC's history. They are drivers, not victims, of propaganda.
 
Paine said:
They’re not pie-in-the-sky fantasies; they’re bold answers to real problems that affect tens of millions of people. The fact that they haven’t passed doesn’t mean they’re unserious, it means entrenched interests are very good at protecting the status quo.
Click to expand...
The confluence of those policies is pie in the sky. You'd have to pick one, do it, then retrench and do it again. Which is fine, but I bet the coalition gets weaker when you settle on priorities and get real cost estimates (current cost estimates being unmoored to any specific legislation, of course, so they are inaccurate).
 
Paine said:
If we don’t start telling a story that gives people a sense of belonging and purpose in the face of that, someone else will.
Click to expand...
I am really wary of any inclination that the government or a political party should be the chief arbiter and provider of stories that give meaning and purpose to people. Or have much of any role at all in that regard. Surely having a sense of and being on the side of social justice is important, but it just seems kinda sad to me that someone would look to a political party to be the primary provider and decider of what is meaningful in their lives. And anyway one need not be a member of any political party to be a striver for justice, social or otherwise..

MACBETH:
Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased,
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow,
Raze out the written troubles of the brain
And with some sweet oblivious antidote
Cleanse the stuff'd bosom of that perilous stuff
Which weighs upon the heart?

Doctor:
Therein the patient
Must minister to himself.
 
Another problem here is delivering on an agenda once you've made people identify with you. And communicating to people about that agenda, which can be hard. Obama's presidency is a story in the difficulty of doing that when your primary appeal is emotional. Not that Obama did everything perfectly; obviously he didn't. He was also unprepared for the unprecedented filibuster everything strategy of the GOP.

1. But Obamacare is a case in point. Everyone was really, really excited about universal health insurance! But then the rubber hit the road when they crafted the legislation. Even though it was a huge leap forward in American health care -- probably the most beneficial change since Medicare or perhaps COBRA -- a lot of people were disappointed. Their expectations, nurtured by emotional appeals of the sort you're talking about, were too high. Obamacare didn't deliver what they promised, and thus was it widely seen as a failure in 2014.

Obamacare didn't become actually popular until the GOP tried to take it away. That both supports your point and cuts against it, in different ways.

2. You can also go back to Clinton's health care plan. You can't blame neoliberalism for that fiasco. Dems were still the party of the non-religious working class; union guys like Gephardt and Harkin (neither of whom you probably remember/studied) were major party leaders and presidential candidates. Clinton campaigned on universal health insurance. As much as the campaign is remembered for "it's the economy, stupid," it spent an awful lot of time talking about health care. And that was considered an important part of his agenda.

Well, what happened to it? The insurance industry ran its kitchen table ads. I remember seeing one at the time and thinking, "this is the stupidest thing in the world. Who cares if the TV actors don't think it's 'right for them'"? It turned out to be one of the most successful political ad campaigns of all time (especially if you exclude campaign ads). One lesson I drew: political messaging is not my forte. Another: boy, people will fall for anything.

3. In any event, that hostility toward the Dem program wasn't neoliberal. It wasn't driven by decades of right-wing propaganda (it was the propaganda!). It was in part the hostility against HRC (who was not popular as a first lady after her widely misinterpreted and abused "bake cookies" remark), but it was in part a lack of empathy. Unions were supportive, but union members? Not so much, at least not in Missouri where I was based at the time. I did a lot of retail politics in a Dem Senate primary back then, going to county fairs all over the state. Again, me + county fair + county fair goers = a whole lot of awkward silence, but anyway: I must have heard a hundred times, "our health care is good. why do we need anything else." Well, not everyone has good health care, and your health care could be cheaper, and also what happens if you lose your job? This counterargument did not move the needle. I couldn't get past "our health care is good" as much as I would try.

Now maybe part of the problem was what you're talking about: I'm not the guy to make a connection with people at a county fair. But I don't think that was it. It was really the first time I had seen ostensible liberals show callousness, and it was eye opening. These were Dem voters.

4. Back then, Missouri was as swingy a state as there was. Clinton won it in 92 and 96. IIRC W barely squeaked it out in 2000. And it hasn't looked back since. Maybe it was the trade deals, but what I saw preceded NAFTA or WTO.

Look at St. Louis City voting totals. In the 1980s, it was 90+% Dem. By 2004, it had fallen to high 70s. You know what happened in the interim? A black man was elected mayor of St. Louis for the first time in like 5 decades. And immediately after that, the Dem vote share in St. Louis City started falling. And mind you, those were just the people who stuck around in the city -- it doesn't even count the folks who moved out to the burbs or, in the case of St. Louis County, the far exurbs.

It's also true that the GOP emphasis on military buildup and wars helped in these parts of the country. This is one reason why the Dems stopped being anti-Pentagon. It didn't win them much but scorn from the blue collar types who lived through Nam (especially if they served there) and never really got over what they saw as a betrayal from the hippie left.

Side note: It's interesting how many people have stories about being spat upon when returning from service. One scholar tried to track down what happened and he couldn't find a single confirmed incident of spitting incidents near any of the return ports. I had a colleague who said he was definitely spat upon, and when I showed him the article, he said he had come through LA (not SF) because he was an AF officer. So technically, it might have happened. But 95% of the stories about being spat upon were little more than confabulation.
 
Paine wrote: “People don’t disconnect because they’re immoral. They disconnect because they no longer believe anyone in power gives a damn about them. And in that vacuum, yes, lies and scapegoating thrive.”

I think you are correct. Steve Bannon saw these people and groomed Trump to speak to them. Many of these MAGAs were disengaged politically. They were on the sidelines and got involved once Trump emerged. 36% of eligible voters (none of them MAGA) did not vote last November. A politician who can tap into those voters (only need some of them) can win big.
 
Paine said:
The most powerful movements in this country have crossed racial, regional, and even religious lines when they were anchored in shared material interests and a larger moral vision.
Click to expand...
That was before 24/7 news and the stoking of constant outrage about everything. Before bothsiding was a real thing. Look how easy it is for them to whip white straight people into frenzies about the least important shit.

Look: I like your program. Absolutely talk to everyone. Don't let me be the messenger and you don't have to worry about my cynicism. But there are too many issues for us to bank on it working. There's a historical legacy of success, but also a long historical legacy of failure. Developments in social organization since the 1960s have made the task much harder.

As has gerrymandering, which is another problem. The effect of the 2010 gerrymandering was to make it possible for Pubs to win without getting votes from pretty much any liberals, as you well know. And as you also know, the effect was to push the GOP further and further to the extreme right -- and they carried millions of voters with them. The same voters being deluged the right-wing propaganda you mentioned. So many of these people, once gettable, no longer are. It's just not right to say, "the Dems failed to reach them" as if it was a Dem problem.
 
Paine said:
That wasn’t just callousness. That was a failure of emotional and political connection. People weren’t shown why this fight was their fight.
Click to expand...
1. I was there. You weren't.
2. Perception alone is a poor substitute for expertise. Our interpretation of events is not terribly reliable as a guide to actual reality.
3. Perception + memory is even worse. This was 30 years ago, and I don't think about it often. Could I have taken special note of a few interactions while letting the more anodyne ones fade? I'd say it's almost 100% that I have/did.
4. But still, let me have my anecdote, please? I'm never going to use anecdata to form my thoughts. I frequently use anecdotes to illustrate my points (incidentally, I do it precisely to reach people where they are, and I've found over the years that I'm quite good at it. If you need someone to organize law students or law professors, I'm definitely your guy. General public? Not so much). I don't need you to accept the message I'm trying to communicate with the anecdote; in fact, I don't want you to accept the message on that basis. It's poor grounds for truth claims.

But still, it's my anecdote and it's alienating to be told by someone who wasn't even alive that it wasn't X but it was Y. I thought it was X. I still think it was X. Don't invalidate my experience. Correct me on bad logic? Please do. Point out contradictions? Absolutely. Tell me that what I lived through was actually not happened? I mean, there are times when secondary perspectives are more accurate than primary ones. Maybe that's even the norm. So I don't necessarily have a problem with, let's say, a historian of Missouri telling me that I was seeing only a tiny sliver of the reality, or that I was misinterpreting what I saw. That might carry weight. But that's not you. Not yet anyway.
 
Paine said:
You’ve now repeated some version of this several times: that Democrats should not bother with right-leaning working-class voters specifically because they are too far gone; too bigoted, too irrational, too addicted to comforting lies. You hedge it with phrases like “shouldn’t give them special outreach” or “don’t exclude anyone at a philosophical level,” but the logic is clear: if someone doesn’t already fit within the moral parameters of the current Democratic coalition, they’re not worth investing in. That’s a strategy, whether you own it or not.

I think that’s a dangerous misread of where this country is politically and emotionally. Not because bigotry doesn’t exist, it obviously does, but because the real dividing line isn’t between “good people” and “bad people,” it’s between those who still feel seen by any political party and those who don’t. You’ve turned disconnection into a diagnosis of moral failure. But that gets it backwards. People don’t disconnect because they’re immoral. They disconnect because they no longer believe anyone in power gives a damn about them. And in that vacuum, yes, lies and scapegoating thrive.

The question is whether we leave that vacuum in place, or whether we offer something more powerful and real to take its place.

You say we should offer policies that improve people’s lives, good. I agree. But you then insist we shouldn’t reach out in ways that might actually persuade those people to believe that Democrats have their back. That’s a contradiction. Policies don’t sell themselves. People need to feel that the person offering help is on their side. That’s the basis of emotional trust, and, in politics, that trust is forged through stories, symbolism, presence, and yes, affective connection.

This goes deeper than one election cycle or one personality. The Democratic Party used to be the party of working people. Black and white, rural and urban, union and unemployed. It had its faults, but it spoke to people where they lived. It offered them a story about their lives that made sense. That connection has frayed, not just among the white working class, but among working people in general. If we don’t reckon with that loss and fight to rebuild it, then the only people left in the room will be the already converted, talking to each other while the country burns.

If the right can tell people a lie that feels emotionally true, the left has to learn to tell the truth in a way that feels just as powerful. Otherwise, we’re not serious about winning nor change.
Click to expand...
The truth is never as powerful as lies. It never has been nor will it ever be so. Once a person lapses into the willingness to accept comfortable lies as opposed to uncomfortable truths, they truly are beyond being reached. This has, at least, been my personal experience.
 
Paine said:
The fact that you encountered so many people saying “our healthcare is good, why change anything” reinforces the point I have been making. That sentiment did not come from nowhere. It came from a lack of political groundwork and emotional connection. It was not just stubbornness or selfishness; it was a gap in storytelling.
Click to expand...
Or racism and drained pool politics. Or selfishness.

You've been saying the same thing for the last 10 posts and I'm not adding all that much either. Kinda beat into the ground for now.
 
Paine said:
You’re still thinking about this in terms of surface-level messaging: “Did she say the words?” But emotional connection doesn’t work that way. It’s not about whether a candidate mentions working families, it’s about whether people feel that the message comes from a place of conviction, not calculation.

A convention speech isn’t enough. Most voters don’t even watch them. They build impressions over time through tone, body language, who you surround yourself with, and what fights you pick. Emotional connection is about resonance, not resume.

When Bernie said “the system is rigged,” it landed because people believed he believed it. It felt authentic. When most establishment Democrats say similar things, it feels like polling-driven ventriloquism. That doesn’t make them bad people, but it does mean the message doesn’t stick.

You’re asking: “Why didn’t these voters hear it?” The better question is: Why didn’t it land? The answer isn’t always prejudice. Sometimes people just don’t believe the messenger. That’s not their failure, it’s the political class’s failure to earn back trust.
Click to expand...
I stopped reading after your first paragraph. You’re comparing Harris to Trump. Give me a fucking break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top