Many Americans Say the Democratic Party Does Not Share Their Priorities

[finesse]

What I most regret is that somewhere back in the spring of 24, Biden should have just loudly and publicly called him a "lying sack of shit" and gone into chapter and verse. We might have still lost but but there would have been a lot less tap dancing.

 

[superrific]

Democrats represent institutions that have been failing the majority of Americans since the 1990s.

No, no, no. This is untrue. This is what the enemies of liberalism want people to believe -- including progressives. This is the entire meaning of the phrase "neoliberalism." That word exists to pin blame on Dems for the incredibly terrible shit the GOP does.

There is a reason why the GOP doesn't even try to traffic in reality any more. If the economy really was so bad, surely they would have been able to find real examples of it. They wouldn't have to talk about carnage on our streets or Venezuelan gangs taking over towns or kids going to school and coming back with a sex change blah blah blah.

Nothing is perfect, but Dems gave the world Medicare, Social Security and Obamacare. Protect those institutions. Dems built the greatest economy in the modern world, more or less without any help from the Pubs who have repeatedly tried and occasionally succeeded to tear it down.

We have to make sure people remember that the Republicans have NEVER LEFT THE COUNTRY IN GOOD SHAPE when they left office. I mean, in my lifetime, the absolute best shape we were in when the Pub administration left was 92, when we merely had a recession. When Bush left, the economy was in tatters and we were embroiled in two forever wars. We all know what things were like in 20-21.

And occasionally, it seems, Americans need reminding. That's what we need to focus on. Stop bullshitting about how the Dems fail people. WHEN DEMS RUN THINGS, THEY WORK. That's the message for the next few years.

 

[lawtig02]

No, no, no. This is untrue. This is what the enemies of liberalism want people to believe -- including progressives. This is the entire meaning of the phrase "neoliberalism." That word exists to pin blame on Dems for the incredibly terrible shit the GOP does.

There is a reason why the GOP doesn't even try to traffic in reality any more. If the economy really was so bad, surely they would have been able to find real examples of it. They wouldn't have to talk about carnage on our streets or Venezuelan gangs taking over towns or kids going to school and coming back with a sex change blah blah blah.

Nothing is perfect, but Dems gave the world Medicare, Social Security and Obamacare. Protect those institutions. Dems built the greatest economy in the modern world, more or less without any help from the Pubs who have repeatedly tried and occasionally succeeded to tear it down.

We have to make sure people remember that the Republicans have NEVER LEFT THE COUNTRY IN GOOD SHAPE when they left office. I mean, in my lifetime, the absolute best shape we were in when the Pub administration left was 92, when we merely had a recession. When Bush left, the economy was in tatters and we were embroiled in two forever wars. We all know what things were like in 20-21.

And occasionally, it seems, Americans need reminding. That's what we need to focus on. Stop bullshitting about how the Dems fail people. WHEN DEMS RUN THINGS, THEY WORK. That's the message for the next few years.

I agree with pretty much all of this, but I do think Dems have had a hard time handling the tech bro migration to the Pubs because Dems have been so all in on Silicon Valley for so long, even after it became clear unregulated social media and the consolidation of wealth among tech billionaires is extremely damaging to the country. Biden was really the first mainstream Dem to push back hard on those alliances. The tech bros responded by seeing if Trump was an easier mark, and of course he was. And that happened so fast and was so impactful to this last election that Dems are still struggling to figure out how to respond.

 

[superrific]

Here's my idea: lean into superhero messaging and imagery.

1. Early next year, starting in the Super Bowl, we unveil a series of ads depicting ordinary Americans living in a hellscape. There are hordes of MAGA zombies on the streets -- make sure everyone understands these to be the J6 insurrectionists -- and people are scared to leave the house. The mail works only half the time. The fridge is empty. And it's Billy's birthday, but the store is closed and they can't get there anyway because of the zombies.

Then they hear a window open in a back room and they go to check on it. They find a birthday cake, made out to Billy. Barack Obama is in the window, and he winks before Batmanning away. There's a card: "Dems: We Make Things Work," or "We Actually Fight For You." We don't need to choose which, because we'll use them all.

2. Other ads move on the same thing. Bill Clinton will deliver a bag of groceries. Gretchen Whitmer a check for college tuition. Michelle Obama some healthy food. Kamala Harris some insulin. Etc. Get all our stars, past and present, into the narrative. Remind people that Dems are for them and always have been for them, and people got distracted.

We don't need one slogan. We need many. "Dems Make Things Work." "Dems Are Good Guys." "Dems: We Are Not Evil Overlords." etc.

3. Follow it up with a summer blockbuster. Plot needs to be that Trump fussies around doing his trivialities, when the real decisions are being made in an underground lair by a billionaire who just happens to look like a cross between Elon Musk and Voldemort. Name him Velon. People will get it. And Elon will eventually lose, because Dems will organize people to storm the wicked castle.

Now, we need to depict Trump as a naif. There needs to be scenes of him telling Velon, "OK, we've torn down everything like you asked. Now, when do we start making America great again?" Velon will laugh and say, "America IS great, for me." Then he tosses Trump aside like a wet noodle and plans to crown himself emperor. Make sure to splice in plenty of tapes of Trump talking about how America is a Third World country. Don't worry about details about when he said it. Use actual footage of him talking shit about the economy, telling Velon about how things are going.

This is how we will win. All politics in America is now negative partisanship.

4. Trump and the GOP have committed themselves to what will be the most unpopular political program in American history. Getting back into power will be simply be to protect free and fair elections. The GOP is apparently planning on never winning an election again. If the elections are held, we will win. 2026 is possibly shaping up to be the biggest rout in modern American history.

5. What the Dems need to figure out is how to play hardball when governing. MAGA needs to be crushed, period. They jettisoned norms; make them eat it. Make enough new states to put the constitution within our editing power, and fix the problems. It's heavy handed, yes, but it has to be done. It's not as if we would be going against popular will. We'd just be finding a way around the ridiculously high bar for amendments. Get rid of all the stupid bullshit that has impeded us for too long.

 

[superrific]

I agree with pretty much all of this, but I do think Dems have had a hard time handling the tech bro migration to the Pubs because Dems have been so all in on Silicon Valley for so long, even after it became clear unregulated social media and the consolidation of wealth among tech billionaires is extremely damaging to the country. Biden was really the first mainstream Dem to push back hard on those alliances. The tech bros responded by seeing if Trump was an easier mark, and of course he was. And that happened so fast and was so impactful to this last election that Dems are still struggling to figure out how to respond.

A big problem is bitcoin. Crypto made a lot of stupid people rich, while telling them that they were smart because of their "line goes up" investment strategy.

Make bitcoin illegal and this problem largely goes away.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

I understand that. I don’t think it’s politically useful for Democrats to associate theirselves with socialism for that reason. Doesn’t mean I’m not going to call myself what I am on this message board. I’d think people are smart enough to divorce my particular political philosophy with the pure politics that I think Democrats need to embrace to win.

To reject what I’m saying out of hand because I identified myself as a Marxist or socialist on a thread discussing socialism and political theory is stupid. I won’t judge voters for this but I will judge educated message board posters.

It’s amazing how so many are getting confused by the separation between a) your personal beliefs, and b) your takes on what broader strategy for the Democratic Party should be.

 

[mynameisbond]

I agree with pretty much all of this, but I do think Dems have had a hard time handling the tech bro migration to the Pubs because Dems have been so all in on Silicon Valley for so long, even after it became clear unregulated social media and the consolidation of wealth among tech billionaires is extremely damaging to the country. Biden was really the first mainstream Dem to push back hard on those alliances. The tech bros responded by seeing if Trump was an easier mark, and of course he was. And that happened so fast and was so impactful to this last election that Dems are still struggling to figure out how to respond.

Broligarchs are fickle creatures. They will align with either party as circumstances dictate. When Trump’s policies start damaging the economy and making their wallets lighter, they’ll come back again.

 

[Paine]

It’s amazing how so many are getting confused by the separation between a) your personal beliefs, and b) your takes on what broader strategy for the Democratic Party should be.

Baffles me as well. I think it’s pure bad faith in some circumstances. Not sure how to explain it otherwise.

 

[CFordUNC]

Multiple things can be true here.

1. Dems are not good communicators right now. And Biden was one of the worst communicators we’ve seen in a LOOONG time. Political communication in this age is about volume and speed more than substance. Trump has mastered that, and with his buyout of Silicon Valley, his advantage there will only increase. Dems MUST figure out how to counter this, and they realistically need to get that done in the next six months or so.

2. Pubs will almost certainly be their own worst enemies now that they have unchecked power. I suspect we’ll soon see historically low approval ratings not just for Trump, but for the whole GOP.

3. Social issues are much more politically effective when you’re using them to attack than when you’re playing defense. It’s not like this is a new playbook for American conservatives. The people railing against trans rights and inclusion now are from the same segment of the political spectrum as those railing against the Civil Rights movement in 1965 and the gay rights movement in the 1990s. I’d pretty much guarantee you that the 2055 versions of HeelYeah, Calltoroy and Zen won’t give trans inclusion even a second of attention because it will be so widely accepted. Maybe not Ramrouser — there are still people who oppose the CRM even today, after all. But the point is that conservatism will always have a bogey man to hang around liberals’ necks. It’s part of the identity of the movement, and it has been for a long time. So it’s not like Dems can ignore it, but we also shouldn’t be wringing our hands about it. It’s not the Dems who will have grandkids embarrassed that their recent ancestors opposed basic human rights.

Agree with all of this. Short of actually not losing the election to Donald Trump, the next best thing that could have happened occurred: Republicans completely control the federal government. Everything from here on out is theirs. I think we are finally going to have a chance for people to get exactly what they think they wanted, and now the ball will be in their court moving forward to determine whether getting pronouns removed from email signatures matters all that much to them when their retirement age gets pushed back, their Walmart grocery bill goes up by 30%, and their gas price goes up by a dollar a gallon.

 

[superrific]

I understand that. I don’t think it’s politically useful for Democrats to associate theirselves with socialism for that reason. Doesn’t mean I’m not going to call myself what I am on this message board. I’d think people are smart enough to divorce my particular political philosophy with the pure politics that I think Democrats need to embrace to win.

To reject what I’m saying out of hand because I identified myself as a Marxist or socialist on a thread discussing socialism and political theory is stupid. I won’t judge voters for this but I will judge educated message board posters.

1. So why do you defend Bernie Sanders when people criticize him for associating themselves with socialism? This is the first time I've seen recognition from you that questioning capitalism is politically bad. Or at least the first time I can remember. Which is good progress.

2. I'm not rejecting anything you're saying out of hand and neither is anyone else. But it's not so simple as "the truth is the truth." In politics, everything is about framing. And when the leftists want to frame everything as "we need radical change because Americans are really unhappy and they are rejecting our institutions and they hate liberalism" when the reality might be closer to "America got scammed by a con artist," -- how are you helping? And I don't know about the cause and effect, but the fact that you want to organize politics around class struggle and your Marxist beliefs go together.

3. In the past, you've said things like, "of course I see the world as materialist struggles between classes. I'm a Marxist," as if that answers everything. On multiple occasions, you've said that your ideas are framed by your ideology. That's not what you're saying now. You want us to treat your Marxism as epiphenomenal to your views on politics, and I don't see why we should given that you don't seem to see it that way yourself.

Maybe I'm wrong and you can clarify, but from my point of view, I think your youthful attachment to this semi-academic radicalism is not merely a preference like wearing autumn colors in summer. It's a part of your approach to politics and it's fair game to question.

Just like it's fair game for you to question my perspective. Maybe I'm hopelessly ivory tower -- but it's also true that I admit it to a certain extent. You won't find me talking about how to communicate with ordinary Americans. I don't know how to do that. If I did, I would be a lot happier.

 

[lawtig02]

Broligarchs are fickle creatures. They will align with either party as circumstances dictate. When Trump’s policies start damaging the economy and making their wallets lighter, they’ll come back again.

Maybe. I’m skeptical for two reasons. First, as super pointed out, the tech bros are making a huge play for crypto now, and I don’t think Dems will ever facilitate that like the anarchists in the GOP will. Second, as the damaging effects of unregulated social media become more and more clear, I’m not sure the tech bros will ever be ok with what Dems should, and I think will, be pushing for in terms of reasonable regulation.

I certainly agree the tech bros are motivated by self-interest and not by principle, so they may not be reliable members of the GOP’s deplorable coalition. But I’m not sure they’d be welcomed back into what I hope the Dems will become. And I’m personally skeptical they should be.

 

[superrific]

Baffles me as well. I think it’s pure bad faith in some circumstances. Not sure how to explain it otherwise.

1. How is it that you, a self-proclaimed Marxist, are complaining about reductionism? Literally your whole idea is that peoples' views are determined by their class interests, regardless of what they say or what ideas they express. I mean, that is literally what Marxism is all about, and you've embraced that idea here multiple times.

2. I won't speak for anyone else. Nothing I say here is in bad faith. I spend too much time on explainer posts to be a troll or mendacious.

If a MAGA tries to tell me how bad DEI is, I will take his MAGA-ness into account when evaluating the ideas. So would you. If a Marxist tries to tell me that culture wars don't matter and everything is materialist -- which again, you've said more than once -- then I will take account of the Marxism. And you should take my background into account too. I taught corporate law and corporate finance. I'm no apologist for corporate America but I'm also much less likely to rail against multinational corporations given that background. I happen to think that background is helpful for a liberal, but I have no trouble with recognizing that my experience can bias me.

 

[Paine]

1. So why do you defend Bernie Sanders when people criticize him for associating themselves with socialism? This is the first time I've seen recognition from you that questioning capitalism is politically bad. Or at least the first time I can remember. Which is good progress.

2. I'm not rejecting anything you're saying out of hand and neither is anyone else. But it's not so simple as "the truth is the truth." In politics, everything is about framing. And when the leftists want to frame everything as "we need radical change because Americans are really unhappy and they are rejecting our institutions and they hate liberalism" when the reality might be closer to "America got scammed by a con artist," -- how are you helping? And I don't know about the cause and effect, but the fact that you want to organize politics around class struggle and your Marxist beliefs go together.

3. In the past, you've said things like, "of course I see the world as materialist struggles between classes. I'm a Marxist," as if that answers everything. On multiple occasions, you've said that your ideas are framed by your ideology. That's not what you're saying now. You want us to treat your Marxism as epiphenomenal to your views on politics, and I don't see why we should given that you don't seem to see it that way yourself.

Maybe I'm wrong and you can clarify, but from my point of view, I think your youthful attachment to this semi-academic radicalism is not merely a preference like wearing autumn colors in summer. It's a part of your approach to politics and it's fair game to question.

Just like it's fair game for you to question my perspective. Maybe I'm hopelessly ivory tower -- but it's also true that I admit it to a certain extent. You won't find me talking about how to communicate with ordinary Americans. I don't know how to do that. If I did, I would be a lot happier.

I think the message board mode of communication doesn’t lend itself well towards complex understandings of a particular person’s political philosophy and ideology. I’m not that interested in trying to communicate it via this method either.

At least part of this has been because of poor communication on my part, but I think there is also a segment of posters who assume things about me because of the labels I use. Weirdly, it tends to be liberals who don’t give me the benefit of the doubt.

I’ve criticized Sanders on this message board for his use of democratic socialist. He ran an unserious campaign in 2016 in part because he thought he’d just be a message candidate. He’s idealistic, like me, and put his commitment to his ideology over political practice in praising Ortega and Castro.

Again, it’s hard to discuss this on this medium for me. Loosely, my politics derive from my belief in universal human rights. This is a belief borne out of liberalism. I came to socialism through this belief in liberalism, which confuses a lot of liberals due to the longtime association of socialism with Stalinism and Maoism.

I don’t take Marxism as some kind of orthodoxy than we can’t stray from or some kind of religious text. I especially don’t believe this when it comes to the politics of Western democracies. Nor do I think that culture is irrelevant. The mistake you make is in having not examined the evolution of Marxist thought, which has incorporated the cultural turn and can exist alongside the revelations there.

Hope that helps position my thought more clearly, though I doubt it will.

 

[finesse]

It's less that I have something against socialism and more that I think even a link to the term is a poison pill in politics for about 75% of the country.

Actually, if I had to predict the future, I'd predict a predominantly socialist society for about 95% of the populace in the next hundred years. The rest will live in an effectively different society of privilege.

 

[Paine]

It's less that I have something against socialism and more that I think even a link to the term is a poison pill in politics for about 75% of the country.

Actually, if I had to predict the future, I'd predict a predominately socialist society for about 95% of the populace in the next hundred years. The rest will live in an effectively different society of privilege.

I agree, though I’d put the number at lower than 75%. Whatever the percentage, I think it’s clear that using the label distracts from what one is proposing more than anything. It’s unfortunate for me obviously. It makes communicating political ideas outside of liberalism quite difficult.

 

[CFordUNC]

This is purely anecdotal. I live in what is a pretty solidly red suburb of Birmingham, AL. I work out at a local mom-and-pop (i.e., not a chain) gym that is owned by a guy who is a local pastor and former Marine and police officer. As soon as you walk into the gym, on the walls you see the "Back the Blue" and "Back the Red (Firefighters)" versions of the American flag. There's the "Don't Tread on Me" Gadsden flag, the POW/MIA flag, and flags representing every branch of service. The lone TV in there is almost always on Fox News. I've gotten to know a lot of the guys whom I work out around- majority of them are local PD and FD and look and talk exactly like you'd imagine a bunch of good ol' boys from Alabama would look and talk.

We've gotten to know one another well enough to have a general understanding of one another's politics. It's not that we specifically talk politics a lot per se, but it's pretty clear that we know which way one another votes. Put it this way, I am almost certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm the only non-Trump voter in there. And it doesn't matter We have great, friendly, cordial conversations. In talking to a lot of those guys, it's clear to me that a lot of what animates their votes are the social issues, but that they aren't unreachable by any means. I really do think that if the Democrats forego the culture war battles, drop the perceived faculty lounge elitism, and get a whole lot better at talking to average, non-college-educated Jimmy's and Joe's about how their economic policies are significantly better for the lower and middle classes and blue collar workers, there is an opportunity to gain back a lot of what has been lost to Trumpism. Mind you, we aren't going to gain back many MAGAs. And we don't need to. We need to gain back people like the guys whom I'm talking about.

 

[MendotoManteo]

I'm sure someone has already pointed this out (and we've discussed it elsewhere since the election), but - despite what Americans say or think - they overwhelmingly support Democratic policies. The catch, of course, is that they do so only when they don't know to associate them with Democrats or liberals. Once those terms are ascribed, Americans no longer support those policies.

In truth, Americans are largely dumbasses. But pointing out the fact won't change anything.

What Democrats need is a competitive media ecosystem. They're at least a decade behind conservatives in this regard and, frankly, I don't see this ever changing given the financial incentives of opposing liberalism.

 

[rodoheel]

*This* is the conversation I’ve been wanting to see on this board in the aftermath of Trump winning every competitive state and making gains in every demographic. I’ve got my popcorn ready!

This conversation has been had constantly since the election, and even before. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention?

In any event all this really demonstrates is how gullible people continue to be. Republicans spend way more time talking about social issues than Democrats. The Republican president who just got elected has been doing way more to fight "DEI" and "woke" than in fixing the economy, and in fact is likely harming the economy right now. But people will continue to eat up the culture war BS, so Pubs keep doing it.

 

[rodoheel]

This is purely anecdotal. I live in what is a pretty solidly red suburb of Birmingham, AL. I work out at a local mom-and-pop (i.e., not a chain) gym that is owned by a guy who is a local pastor and former Marine and police officer. As soon as you walk into the gym, on the walls you see the "Back the Blue" and "Back the Red (Firefighters)" versions of the American flag. There's the "Don't Tread on Me" Gadsden flag, the POW/MIA flag, and flags representing every branch of service. The lone TV in there is almost always on Fox News. I've gotten to know a lot of the guys whom I work out around- majority of them are local PD and FD and look and talk exactly like you'd imagine a bunch of good ol' boys from Alabama would look and talk.

We've gotten to know one another well enough to have a general understanding of one another's politics. It's not that we specifically talk politics a lot per se, but it's pretty clear that we know which way one another votes. Put it this way, I am almost certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm the only non-Trump voter in there. And it doesn't matter We have great, friendly, cordial conversations. In talking to a lot of those guys, it's clear to me that a lot of what animates their votes are the social issues, but that they aren't unreachable by any means. I really do think that if the Democrats forego the culture war battles, drop the perceived faculty lounge elitism, and get a whole lot better at talking to average, non-college-educated Jimmy's and Joe's about how their economic policies are significantly better for the lower and middle classes and blue collar workers, there is an opportunity to gain back a lot of what has been lost to Trumpism. Mind you, we aren't going to gain back many MAGAs. And we don't need to. We need to gain back people like the guys whom I'm talking about.

You are talking about a gym where they have about 100 blaring indicators that the people in there are, in fact, MAGA. And yet your conclusion is that these are the reachable moderates, not the MAGA guys? The reachable moderates are not the people with "back the blue" flags, the Gadsden flag, and a TV playing Fox News constantly in the gym.

I'm not going to defend many things about the Democratic party strategically, and it's absolutely true that Dems need to "get a whole lot better at talking to average, non-college-educated Jimmy's and Joe's about how their economic policies are significantly better for the lower and middle classes and blue collar workers," but the idea that Dems are going to be getting back the Gadsden Flag guys hanging out in a local gym just by talking more about unions and the rising price of healthcare is not realistic, IMO.

 

[Zoo_View]

This is purely anecdotal. I live in what is a pretty solidly red suburb of Birmingham, AL. I work out at a local mom-and-pop (i.e., not a chain) gym that is owned by a guy who is a local pastor and former Marine and police officer. As soon as you walk into the gym, on the walls you see the "Back the Blue" and "Back the Red (Firefighters)" versions of the American flag. There's the "Don't Tread on Me" Gadsden flag, the POW/MIA flag, and flags representing every branch of service. The lone TV in there is almost always on Fox News. I've gotten to know a lot of the guys whom I work out around- majority of them are local PD and FD and look and talk exactly like you'd imagine a bunch of good ol' boys from Alabama would look and talk.

We've gotten to know one another well enough to have a general understanding of one another's politics. It's not that we specifically talk politics a lot per se, but it's pretty clear that we know which way one another votes. Put it this way, I am almost certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm the only non-Trump voter in there. And it doesn't matter We have great, friendly, cordial conversations. In talking to a lot of those guys, it's clear to me that a lot of what animates their votes are the social issues, but that they aren't unreachable by any means. I really do think that if the Democrats forego the culture war battles, drop the perceived faculty lounge elitism, and get a whole lot better at talking to average, non-college-educated Jimmy's and Joe's about how their economic policies are significantly better for the lower and middle classes and blue collar workers, there is an opportunity to gain back a lot of what has been lost to Trumpism. Mind you, we aren't going to gain back many MAGAs. And we don't need to. We need to gain back people like the guys whom I'm talking about.

Out of curiosity, what’s the racial breakdown of this gym?