• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Vox: The Smug Style in American Liberalism

Status
Not open for further replies.
"It's not ___ism, it's just business" is never a valid argument.

Nobody said it was. It's a systemic issue, systemic sexism, in the same way that systemic racism fills our jails and with minority groups. But even that? Some people don't wanna listen. And once you account for all of those systemic, social issues, there is still a gap, it's just not 30 cents on the dollar. But it's deceptive to say that the gap is 30 cents due to active sexism, as opposed to said systemic issues.

And that's all people need to discount the problem out of hand, because "Well I'M not sexist!" or "Well it's not like I can do anything about that!"
 

Clefargle

Member
I don't know why you even focused on this one. I said I agreed with you. :|

Asking people to accept murder is an imposition. For example when someone takes the life of a mother carrying a child people argue over whether or not it should be counted as a double homicide. Certain people don't like the idea of society having a double standard when it comes to determining that a fetus is alive when taken against the will of the parent but isn't when the parent determines they don't want to commit to it. Personally I already have determined how I would confront that conundrum myself when this talking point comes up.

Again, these are false equivocations. Giving women a choice of whether or not to take a medical action is NOT a personal imposition on you. Not all Christians (or other religions) agree on when "life" begins. Some decry birth control, some draw the line at the morning after pill, others after a pregnancy test, or a certain number of months. Telling a woman what to do with her body IS an actual violation of her bodily autonomy. I can demonstrate this. The laws are clear on it and there are exceptions. There are even some things we accept suspension of autonomy for. Like prison, mental health, comas, or quarantine. There are actual degrees of imposition we accept as a society and some we don't. This is one the courts have decided is not an acceptable degree of imposition. If someone has a problem with that, they don't personally have to get an abortion. They have the same degree of autonomy as the person that chooses to have one. It isn't a violation to allow other people to do things society deems acceptable just because some don't. It isn't being done to them, it isn't murdering their children. It isn't a direct imposition. The stuff the right tries to codify into law IS. It actually allows violations of people's medical options, access to healthcare and right to family planning.

Personally it doesn't. But when talking to women and I mean a lot of women over the years it is clearly an imposition to them. The percentage of women who are ok with mixed bathrooms is far lower than men from my observations, maybe statistics would bear this out.

Anecdotes aren't really helpful here. I'm in Europe now and many restrooms are kinda shared. They are constructed with central sink areas and gender specific areas on either side. But people are walking around between each side of the central sinks. No one has any issue because each stall has actual walls that enclose it fully, a real door, and most times a fan. I think it's largely an American issue because of how our stalls are constructed. I think a simple update in building codes would help fix this issue. I don't care about the signs but the problem is You can't enforce these arbitrary gender lines without violatin people's medical privacy. So again it boils down to conservatives wanting to impose and claiming that not allowing them to impose is itself an imposition. Not the same. Again, they could keep whoever they want out of their private bathroom. This doesn't violate them personally.

Right, and practically everyone sees healthcare as important and a big expense. I don't think couching the system in terms of it being free really helps get across the net benefits it provides.

Ok, so we agree here.


Many conservative people would disagree with you -- public sanction and legal protection of activities considered morally wrong can can feel like a grave imposition. Some people do not want to live in a society that condones such things.

It's easiest to see this when it comes to abortion. Some people see abortion as murder because they believe that life begins at conception and is sacred. Now, don't dismiss that -- for the sake of argument, accept that as true. How would you feel living in a society that sanctions and protects an act that you sincerely believe is an atrocity -- a crime against God? That sanctions evil with a capital "E?" Wouldn't you vote to prevent that from happening, to protect the perceived victims of that practice, even if it doesn't affect you personally?

I am a pro-choice atheist (hello, virtue signalling). You can't convince these people they're wrong because you can't convince them they're wrong. They're not wrong; they just disagree. The inability or refusal to see that is one of the problems raised by the article.

It doesn't matter if they "feel" imposed, I can demonstrate specific personal violations in the cases where conservatives legislate against marriage equality, access to public facilities and healthcare, and women's rights. I can show a direct effect on that persons life. They could die in childbirth, or not be able to use public transit, or not receive marriage tax breaks, or become pregnant because of no access to birth control. These are all obvious physically demonstrable impositions into that persons human right to personal autonomy. If they feel it is a crime that someone else is sanctioned to commit, they should make legal arguments against it. We see that they have tried and failed to present a good case. The fact that they disagree means nothing. I disagree with many things in American society and I speak out against them. I don't try and legislate away someone's autonomy to keep it from happening.
 

wildfire

Banned
Anecdotes aren't really helpful here. I'm in Europe now and many restrooms are kinda shared. They are constructed with central sink areas and gender specific areas on either side. But people are walking around between each side of the central sinks. No one has any issue because each stall has actual walls that enclose it fully, a real door, and most times a fan. I think it's largely an American issue because of how our stalls are constructed. I think a simple update in building codes would help fix this issue. I don't care about the signs but the problem is You can't enforce these arbitrary gender lines without violatin people's medical privacy. So again it boils down to conservatives wanting to impose and claiming that not allowing them to impose is itself an imposition. Not the same. Again, they could keep whoever they want out of their private bathroom. This doesn't violate them personally.

I live in NYC. The majority of people I will talk to in life are liberal. Framing this as only a conservative issue is falling into the same trap the Vox article is warning against.

That said, gender lines are not arbitrary. Women are more sensitive about their bodies especially around men as they mature. This is about more than building codes. This is about the male gaze. This is about how their bodies are sexualized. It's about how they can quickly and conveniently talk about topics without a man around. Men are stereotyped as creeps. Some of the women I have interacted with don't have these hangups but the articles written every other weak about American gender issues makes it clear my anecdotes are more likely a nationwide problem than not.




It doesn't matter if they "feel" imposed, I can demonstrate specific personal violations in the cases where conservatives legislate against marriage equality, access to public facilities and healthcare, and women's rights. I can show a direct effect on that persons life. They could die in childbirth, or not be able to use public transit, or not receive marriage tax breaks, or become pregnant because of no access to birth control. These are all obvious physically demonstrable impositions into that persons human right to personal autonomy. If they feel it is a crime that someone else is sanctioned to commit, they should make legal arguments against it. We see that they have tried and failed to present a good case. The fact that they disagree means nothing. I disagree with many things in American society and I speak out against them. I don't try and legislate away someone's autonomy to keep it from happening.

Your opening sentence here makes it seem you fit the very mold of only facts matter like the author was talking about. Feelings do matter and have been used to define the spirit of laws as we hash out the specifc way we right them down. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we don't.
 
It doesn't matter if they "feel" imposed, I can demonstrate specific personal violations in the cases where conservatives legislate against marriage equality, access to public facilities and healthcare, and women's rights. I can show a direct effect on that persons life. They could die in childbirth, or not be able to use public transit, or not receive marriage tax breaks, or become pregnant because of no access to birth control. These are all obvious physically demonstrable impositions into that persons human right to personal autonomy. If they feel it is a crime that someone else is sanctioned to commit, they should make legal arguments against it. We see that they have tried and failed to present a good case. The fact that they disagree means nothing. I disagree with many things in American society and I speak out against them. I don't try and legislate away someone's autonomy to keep it from happening.

Of course, it matters how they feel and that they disagree. It matters politically (see the terrible legislation you alluded to) and it matters on principle.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
Oh yeah, elitism is huge in the left. I admit I'm part of the problem sometimes. It's honestly difficult to not be condescending when talking to people who truly believe that their misfortune should be blamed on the powerless rather than the powerful.
 

kirblar

Member
Nobody said it was. It's a systemic issue, systemic sexism, in the same way that systemic racism fills our jails and with minority groups. But even that? Some people don't wanna listen. And once you account for all of those systemic, social issues, there is still a gap, it's just not 30 cents on the dollar. But it's deceptive to say that the gap is 30 cents due to active sexism, as opposed to said systemic issues.

And that's all people need to discount the problem out of hand, because "Well I'M not sexist!" or "Well it's not like I can do anything about that!"
And it gets even more complicated, because while some of the reasons for the gap may be systemic, they may also not be systemic issues. A recent study found that differing gender trends in work/life balance preference were translating into differing career paths- http://www.nber.org/papers/w22173#fromrss

While there is substantial heterogeneity in preferences, we find that women on average have a higher willingness to pay for jobs with greater work flexibility (lower hours, and part-time option availability) and job stability (lower risk of job loss), and men have a higher willingness to pay for jobs with higher earnings growth. Using a follow-up survey several years after the experiment, we find a systematic relationship between the respondents' job preferences as revealed during college and the actual workplace characteristics of the jobs these individuals are currently working at after college.

In the second part of the paper, we relate these job attribute preferences to major choice. Using data on students' perceptions about the demand side of the labor market--beliefs about expected attributes of jobs students anticipate being offered if they were to complete particular majors--we find that students perceive jobs offered to Humanities majors to have fewer hours, more work-time flexibility, and higher stability than jobs offered to Economics/Business majors. These job attributes are found to play a role in major choice, with women exhibiting greater sensitivity to non-pecuniary job attributes in major choice.

Not to devolve it into a wage gap thread, of course- but in general people like black/white answers, and in the modern world, answers are rarely black and white.
 

Mumei

Member
You would be surprised, because that is exactly the myth I'm continuing to point out. Not education. Not anything else besides the supposed white flight from liberal ideology. The Pew research link I provided distinguishes between voting and ideological identification. It does not matter how else we want to try to manipulate the data, the constant fact remains that according to every bit of research, there has been nothing approaching this supposed enormous exodus from liberal ideals over the past couple of decades, at the least. Again, if somebody has something that contradicts Pew, then feel free to provide a source. I'm only going off the data present. This isn't an ingrained religious belief.

When you look at cross-tabulations, that isn't a "manipulation" of the data, and you shouldn't characterize it that way. It's worth being precise about demographic sub-groups, and the question that we are answering - and I think we've both done less than adequately on that front.

I was presenting the argument that white people - more particularly the white sub-population of the larger demographic group called "working class" - had left the Democratic Party, and that surveys commissioned by the Democratic Party had found that the foremost reason for this rejection were (embarrassingly) racist attitudes by white respondents, specifically anti-black antipathy. Your counterargument was that white voters have not abandoned liberalism, and you posted a survey with information to that effect. I should have stopped you here; whether white voters have abandoned "liberalism" is a different question than whether they have abandoned the Democratic Party. It also broadened the population I was talking about by describing "white people" as opposed to the narrower group of "white people who are working class."

Of course, it is worth discussing how precisely white voters interact with liberalism. For instance, racial ethnocentrism among white voters is associated with support and generosity for liberal programs such as Medicare or Social Security for the elderly, and opposition to and miserliness towards means-tested welfare programs. It might be the case that those white respondents self-label as "liberal" but also hold a more jaundiced view towards certain liberal programs because of the (inaccurate) perception that non-deserving people are more likely to benefit from those programs. It is also the case that the working poor are still quite liberal, but simply don't vote, and that there is a rather unfortunate and disturbing pattern of social distancing on the part of people in the second quintile of income that leads to their dropping support for welfare programs:

THAT pattern is right in line with surveys, which show a decades-long decline in support for redistributive policies and an increase in conservatism in the electorate even as inequality worsens. There has been a particularly sharp drop in support for redistribution among older Americans, who perhaps see it as a threat to their own Social Security and Medicare. Meanwhile, researchers such as Kathryn Edin, of Johns Hopkins University, found a tendency by many Americans in the second lowest quintile of the income ladder — the working or lower-middle class — to dissociate themselves from those at the bottom, where many once resided. “There’s this virulent social distancing — suddenly, you’re a worker and anyone who is not a worker is a bad person,” said Professor Edin. “They’re playing to the middle fifth and saying, ‘I’m not those people.’ ”

Meanwhile, many people who in fact most use and need social benefits are simply not voting at all. Voter participation is low among the poorest Americans, and in many parts of the country that have moved red, the rates have fallen off the charts. West Virginia ranked 50th for turnout in 2012; also in the bottom 10 were other states that have shifted sharply red in recent years, including Kentucky, Arkansas and Tennessee.

And these two patterns (racist attitudes vis-à-vis welfare, as well as social distancing even on the part of people who themselves once benefited from welfare), are (probably) major factors in the lack of support by white voters in that second quintile for the Democratic Party. It might be the case that if all white people voted that the data would be closer to the Pew data, but the white people who aren't voting just so happen to be the ones more likely to support positions held by the Democratic Party.

But be that as it may, your response didn't actually address the argument that I was presenting, and I shouldn't have gone down that rabbit hole without making it clear that I wasn't talking about the same phenomenon. Sorry. :|

We've got plenty of people on here that write dissertations for questions just as much as they do counterarguments (mumei [RIP], MHWilliams, etc.) and are nothing but welcoming in the proper context.

I'm not dead.

lrAytGg.jpg
 

Lime

Member
Thanks Mumei for that elaborate post on a complex phenomenon. Regarding (ideological) White Flight from the Left because of racism, I am wondering about the parallels to the rise of the European Far-right nationalist parties.

Because this is actually very similar to how a lot of (white) Europeans flee from Left/center parties the last two decades into the more overtly racist parties, which in turn forces the center/left parties to do a sort of arms-race of anti-immigration and racist laws in competition with the straight-up racist ideology of the European right-winged nationalist parties due to populism in politics.

The challenge for the European Left is also linked to this (I'd call it a crisis for the European Left), but I am wondering if the same racist mechanism in the US (ideological White Flight) is comparable to the transition to European far-right nationalism.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Mumei said:
For instance, racial ethnocentrism among white voters is associated with support and generosity for liberal programs such as Medicare or Social Security for the elderly, and opposition to and miserliness towards means-tested welfare programs.

Heh, I was actually reading a machine learning paper the other day that was mostly a paper about the statistical properties of a particular method of analysis, but the token real-world data they looked at to prove their method worked was data on a random experiment that asked people for their opinions either on "help for the poor" or "welfare" (it is pretty routine for social scientists to test how question wording drives answers, in large part to make sure the questions they're asking are actually capturing public opinion).

boHX4LZ.png


Summary of what we can see in these graphs:
- The data comes from the ANES (American National Election Study)
- Each panel is a look at a different predictor: Party ID, Ideological Leaning, Age of Respondent, Amount of Education, Racial Resentment, and Year of Survey. These are measured on the X axis.
- The Y axis is a measure of the conditional average treatment effect, basically the size of the difference between support for "support for the poor" and support for "welfare". Positive values mean people like "support for the poor" more than "welfare", negative values mean the opposite. So +0.25 could mean that people have strong support for welfare and even stronger for "support for the poor", or it could mean low levels of both but even lower for welfare. It's just talking about the gap between responses to the two terms.
- The panels are disaggregations of the marginal effects, so every panel is controlling for every other panel.

The top-line takeaway is that the word "welfare" is pretty toxic across all groups, but the most interesting panel is the bottom-left: individuals scoring high on the racial resentment scale have the widest gap of everyone. If you're racist, even if you support redistribution for the poor generally, hearing the word 'welfare" causes you to feel strong antipathy to the concept. And I think we can all agree that the difference in that panel in particular shows the racialization of welfare.
 

kirblar

Member
Thanks Mumei for that elaborate post on a complex phenomenon. Regarding (ideological) White Flight from the Left because of racism, I am wondering about the parallels to the rise of the European Far-right nationalist parties.

Because this is actually very similar to how a lot of (white) Europeans flee from Left/center parties the last two decades into the more overtly racist parties, which in turn forces the center/left parties to do a sort of arms-race of anti-immigration and racist laws in competition with the straight-up racist ideology of the European right-winged nationalist parties due to populism in politics.

The challenge for the European Left is also linked to this (I'd call it a crisis for the European Left), but I am wondering if the same racist mechanism in the US (ideological White Flight) is comparable to the transition to European far-right nationalism.
The minority population growth in the US heavily alters the calculus in the US in ways it isn't changing in Europe. Only one of the parties is getting the candidate the majority of white voters want.
 

Lime

Member
The minority population growth in the US heavily alters the calculus in the US in ways it isn't changing in Europe. Only one of the parties is getting the candidate the majority of white voters want.

Majority vs minority influence on politics is not part of my question. I am talking about ideological white flight.

The "racialization of welfare", as Stump calls it, can be seen before our European eyes in terms of how people who would usually support social security for the old and the disabled move away from leftist policies because of "immigrants and refugees from the Middle East with their inferior culture" come in and either take the white jobs or leech on the system ("welfare queens") Therefore they run into the arms of far-right nationalist parties and in turn, the populism of moderate and center-left parties force them to adopt the same racist policies of the far-right in order to appeal to the White Flight voters. This is not possible though, because an arms-race with a fundamentally racist worldview can never be topped within the boundaries of international human rights.

(it's getting late here so I'm not explaining it coherently and more wondering than stating)
 

aeolist

Banned
Many conservative people would disagree with you -- public sanction and legal protection of activities considered morally wrong can feel like a grave imposition. Some people do not want to live in a society that condones such things.

It's easiest to see this when it comes to abortion. Some people see abortion as murder because they believe that life begins at conception and is sacred. Now, don't dismiss that -- for the sake of argument, accept that as true. How would you feel living in a society that sanctions and protects an act that you sincerely believe is an atrocity -- a crime against God? That sanctions evil with a capital "E?" Wouldn't you vote to prevent that from happening, to protect the perceived victims of that practice, even if it doesn't affect you personally?

I am a pro-choice atheist (hello, virtue signalling). You can't convince these people they're wrong because you can't prove that they're wrong. They're not wrong; they just disagree. The inability or refusal to see that is one of the problems raised by the article.

religious people have always and will always live in "sinful" societies. american christians have honed in on abortion when the government also sanctions divorce, usury, masturbation, pornography, and any number of other things their religious text finds to be equally objectionable compared to murder (if not more so, considering how much god-approved murder is in the bible).

if they are not willing to live in a secular society then they are shit out of luck because they have no other options.
 
I think the article makes some good points.

As a guy who grew up on construction sites around framers, tiles setters, plumbers etc etc but who always loved books, history and intellectual debate for its own sake it's really important to be able to bridge that class/education/desire-for-intellectual-engagement gap.

I have a cousin up in Portland who lives a stones throw from Reed College and who's a reedie alum and a self-described die-hard liberal. He got his degree in women's studies. And I can remember visiting him for the first time since I was a kid a couple of years ago and describing some of the guys I was working with at the time and how I tried to bridge the seeming gap with them. We were working on a big remodel in Marin and most of these guys were off-roaders, rock-crawlers, hunters, and cross-fit enthusiasts. Most couldn't remember the last thing they read that was longer than a paragraph. I had headphones in one ear and listened to podcasts and audiobooks while running romex and mounting boxes and throwing verbal jabs around when I could. They loved to talk shit and most could not have given two fucks about ideas or as they put it, I swear, "book learning".

One guy lost the use of one of his thumbs in a crabbing accident, was covered in tattoos and had a shaved head. White guy. Built like a brick shithouse. Loved to be a dick. Thought the government was poisoning him with chemtrails and GMOs. Living stereotype. He also thought China was going to invade and he'd have to take to the hills with guns to defend himself. Lunch was fun. Another guy was from a ranching family going back like four generations or something and they couldn't make ends meet that way anymore and he'd turned to tile setting to make a living.

The trick is just to treat the person with respect and empathy, like the article says. I used to ask Mike, the plumber with a limp thumb about his girlfriend and how his house was doing, if it was in good shape, what music he was listening to etc etc. Luke, the tile setter, was really into WWII cause it was the last good one and we used to talk about Rommel the Desert Fox and the north african campaign. I eventually helped him put up new drywall in his house and replace his well motor.

You have to establish rapport on common ground and then spread that commonality slowly into other areas, not just expect people to be able to leap right to where you're at with nothing inbetween, especially if they have no desire or training in it.

I remember talking with Paul the reedie about all this and when I got to the fact that most of these guys were misogynist assholes who openly hated gays and the liberal media, he was baffled as to why I'd bother putting up with these people. Because they were people, I said. These were men I worked right alongside and who took pride in their work. And if I wanted them to be better people it was my duty to make an effort towards that without blaming them for simply being who they were. I showed them respect. I listened to their problems and offered solutions. And I didn't intellectually bully them or put them down except in ribbing jest (sometimes it's okay to call an idiot an idiot if you're on good enough terms).

It's like the opposite of "It's not my job to educate you."

I never understood that. Maybe that's because my education mostly happened at such a far remove from the ivory tower of the higher education system. I never finished my own degree and was intensely frustrated with the whole process. Maybe I'll go back someday and finish it.

There's an unspoken expectation among those who've never swung a hammer, hooked up an electrical panel or laid a tile that they're better than those who do. Blue collar people are looked down upon and are rarely offered a hand up, even rhetorically, by those who believe them to be their inferiors. I used to ask my cousin Paul "Who's the "worst" person you'd invite to your dinner table?" as sort of an intellectual exercise. "How different a person from your own sociocultural experience would you be able to actively connect with and whom you'd offer your hospitality to?"

He didn't have an answer. Not that the answer was really the point or anything.

That basic dignity and hospitality and ability to connect on more than just an ideological level has largely been lost in the culture, so loud is it.

I believe it's also called dining with the opposition.

Anyway, I didn't mean to make this so frigging long when I started it, but I feel like I've myself viscerally and personally experienced both sides of this thing. I could go on and on but ultimately it's about finding common ground and common values and slowly expanding from there. Simple as that.

Nice, humans treating humans like humans.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
I followed up on the white partisanship thing, and I think I found something with the Pew data; Pew does not seem to be separating whites and non-hispanic whites. Edit: No, they apparently are using non-hispanic whites, their data just doesn't remotely accord with ANES data. Anyway, Using non-hispanic white data from ANES surveys since the civil rights era, there's a significant decline in white Democratic partisanship:

J5hodul.png

(The graph is from White Backlash--the book also notes that analyzing non-hispanic whites versus all whites is "a restriction that greatly impacts the trend that emerges")
 
I agree with the premise of this article but goddam it's so hard to read because the author is so caught up in himself.

And, of course, Vox is the vanguard of smug urban liberalism.

Though come to think of it, insular internet social networks tend to have an overwhelming smugness, and maybe it's not so much liberalism that is smug but these insular, protective social groups, and they end up representing contemporary, pop liberalism.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
I followed up on the white partisanship thing, and I think I found something with the Pew data; Pew does not seem to be separating whites and non-hispanic whites. Edit: No, they apparently are using non-hispanic whites, their data just doesn't remotely accord with ANES data. Anyway, Using non-hispanic white data from ANES surveys since the civil rights era, there's a significant decline in white Democratic partisanship:

J5hodul.png

(The graph is from White Backlash--the book also notes that analyzing non-hispanic whites versus all whites is "a restriction that greatly impacts the trend that emerges")

I believe a huge portion of this is attributed to Reagan
 
I believe a huge portion of this is attributed to Reagan

WEll, that's not too hard to believe. That particular graph shows the change from Dem to Republican around the time Reagan was elected, and that's when the big push about "Welfare queens" started. This also coincides with that second oil crash that was caused and fixed by the Fed -- which is why people think Reagan did such great things. He, uh. He didn't. It was all ephemeral.
 
I feel like I'm in some kind of bizarro world. Are there really articles talking about the "smugness" of the Democratic party when Donald Trump has just proven once and for all that the base of the Republican party is literally comprised of racist white people who would rather vote for themselves to have nothing than to give anything to a black/Hispanic/gay/Muslim/any minority person?

It's easy to hate. Instead, we should be asking ourselves, "Why do they feel this way? What could we be doing to help? Are we listening?"
 
It's easy to hate. Instead, we should be asking ourselves, "Why do they feel this way? What could we be doing to help? Are we listening?"

Pretty much, but that in itself requires understanding the full picture. They feel that way, but they're wrong. It's a 30 year brainwashing thing, that worked mostly on people who already leaned that way to begin with.It's culturally entwined in the south for at least 40 years since the busing disaster. "black culture(what they SEE of it on the news, anyway)" has also changed a lot since back then, too.

So, all of these problems need to be addressed. You're not poor because "the other" are taking your jobs, or taking your taxes, the culture you fear is based mostly in being poor with zero opportunities other than crime(play up how it's happening in nearly 100% white places for the same reasons, with the same issues, and the same conclusions), but that's hard to change unless we can gain their trust that we're fixing it...but that's hard to do when nobody does anything but give lip service -- that's why the Tea Party and the populist wave of support has burgeoned forth.

It's a shitshow all around, but the thing we should probably address to get them over t o 'our side' on these issues is probably THEM. Without enough political capital, we can choose only one "side."
 
Seems like conservatives are about their principles before anything else. Thsts their biggest pitfall to say the least because it leads to a double loss.
 
I feel like I'm in some kind of bizarro world. Are there really articles talking about the "smugness" of the Democratic party when Donald Trump has just proven once and for all that the base of the Republican party is literally comprised of racist white people who would rather vote for themselves to have nothing than to give anything to a black/Hispanic/gay/Muslim/any minority person?
Trump is getting support for a variety of reasons. Racism against Hispanics may be one, but people are also irrationally frightened of trade deals and global trade. Trump has been using that heavily and it's not really a racial issue, more one of people being concerned for their jobs or wanting old jobs to come back.

Trump has done well in some non white states and territories as a result, including nonwhite US Territories and Hawaii.

Also trump has only gotten above 50% in one state, New York, and is currently polling to have a historic disaster of a general election compared to the previous decades of GOP candidates. Big parts of the "base" are predicted to either stay home or vote for Hillary.
 

Steel

Banned
Trump is getting support for a variety of reasons. Racism against Hispanics may be one, but people are also irrationally frightened of trade deals and global trade. Trump has been using that heavily and it's not really a racial issue, more one of people being concerned for their jobs or wanting old jobs to come back.

Trump has done well in some non white states and territories as a result, including nonwhite US Territories and Hawaii.

Also trump has only gotten above 50% in one state, New York, and is currently polling to have a historic disaster of a general election compared to the previous decades of GOP candidates. Big parts of the "base" are predicted to either stay home or vote for Hillary.

That would be a more compelling argument if the only other frontrunner in this race wasn't Ted Cruz. Between Trump and Cruz you now have the majority of the Republican party by a large margin.

Speaking of smug, I don't think I've ever seen a more smug politician than that bastard.
 

kirblar

Member
Trump is getting support for a variety of reasons. Racism against Hispanics may be one, but people are also irrationally frightened of trade deals and global trade. Trump has been using that heavily and it's not really a racial issue, more one of people being concerned for their jobs or wanting old jobs to come back.
Bernie did the exact same thing - economic populism isn't restricted to either the left or right.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
Trump is getting support for a variety of reasons. Racism against Hispanics may be one, but people are also irrationally frightened of trade deals and global trade. Trump has been using that heavily and it's not really a racial issue, more one of people being concerned for their jobs or wanting old jobs to come back.

Trump has done well in some non white states and territories as a result, including nonwhite US Territories and Hawaii.

Also trump has only gotten above 50% in one state, New York, and is currently polling to have a historic disaster of a general election compared to the previous decades of GOP candidates. Big parts of the "base" are predicted to either stay home or vote for Hillary.
Trump-style populism appeals to people who reject both globalism and immigration for similar reasons. As David Frum wrote in The Atlantic:

These populists seek to defend what the French call “acquired rights”—health care, pensions, and other programs that benefit older people—against bankers and technocrats who endlessly demand austerity; against migrants who make new claims and challenge accustomed ways; against a globalized market that depresses wages and benefits. In the United States, they lean Republican because they fear the Democrats want to take from them and redistribute to Americans who are newer, poorer, and in their view less deserving—to “spread the wealth around,” in candidate Barack Obama’s words to “Joe the Plumber” back in 2008. Yet they have come to fear more and more strongly that their party does not have their best interests at heart.

As for the article in the OP, the idea that liberal smugness has alienated white working class voters, at least to the degree suggested, is absurd. The Republican establishment is probably even less willing to represent the economic interests of their base than the Democratic party. For example, McConnell and other Republican leaders chose to actively screw over their own voters in order to prop up the phony narrative of a war on coal. And they continue to harness and exploit the economic disaffection among the working class for their own political advantage. The reason why many Republicans have embraced an obvious charlatan like Donald Trump is not because the Democratic party is completely impervious to their concerns - after all, the Republican base mostly loathes Barack Obama, who fits into very few of the author's silly stereotypes about a "smug liberal" disdainful of all the "stupid hicks" - but because the values of the Democratic party are opposed to their own. The author appears to be more interested in chastising fellow liberals than dealing with the issue in an intelligent manner.
 
Just found this article. Quite relevant after seeing the reaction to Brexit.

True, that and the Orlando shooting. It does fit GAF, and a lot of young liberals to a T. They are almost militant in their liberalness. I say that as a liberal. And man, after reading the article many in this very thread even go on to prove the point while trying to deny it. Just no self reflection there, no respect and no empathy. You are never going to get anywhere with your ideology while being hostile to people who are non believers.
 
Sorry for the necro bump, but the context of the article for me has taken a dramatic shift post election, almost prophetic.

Trump was not the best candidate for the office, but he ironically was the only one that gave the working class a voice (usually the job of the liberal party to enforce freedom of speech). The economic turmoil of the working class has reached its boiling point and they showed up in numbers.

This smug "I'm right, therefore you're stupid" attitude is toxic and hypocritically class/party shaming is causing segregation within the nation. Liberals needs to start practicing what they preach and they must treat everyone equally, not just ones affected by social issues. This is the only way we will get better as a nation.

For reference, I don't really identify with any party, but I have voted democrat in the last 16 years, minus abstaining this election.
 
Sorry for the necro bump, but the context of the article for me has taken a dramatic shift post election, almost prophetic.

Trump was not the best candidate for the office, but he ironically was the only one that gave the working class a voice (usually the job of the liberal party to enforce freedom of speech). The economic turmoil of the working class has reached its boiling point and they showed up in numbers.

This smug "I'm right, therefore you're stupid" attitude is toxic and hypocritically class/party shaming is causing segregation within the nation. Liberals needs to start practicing what they preach and they must treat everyone equally, not just ones affected by social issues. This is the only way we will get better as a nation.

For reference, I don't really identify with any party, but I have voted democrat in the last 16 years, minus abstaining this election.
This is a good bump, with a good lesson in the article:

I am suggesting that they notice how hating and ridiculing the people they say they want to help has led them to stop helping those people, too.
 

Crayon

Member
Is it smugness? I think it's cynicism. People who live somewhere out there who can't vote in their own best interests to save their life. Because reasons.
 
Vox employs one of the most shameful journalistic hacks in liberal media, Matthew Yglesias, so they would know about the smug style of American liberalism.
 
This smug "I'm right, therefore you're stupid" attitude is toxic and hypocritically class/party shaming is causing segregation within the nation. Liberals needs to start practicing what they preach and they must treat everyone equally, not just ones affected by social issues. This is the only way we will get better as a nation.

This is true, with special emphasis on the bold.

I tried to contrast the voters that gave Hillary the popular vote with the group that gave Trump the most support - less educated rural whites. Basically saying "hey, America's more diverse than just Trump supporters, so there's still some hope for minorities in larger, more diverse communities."

But I used the word "uneducated" instead of "less educated." And though I really was just trying to say "these voters aren't the majority everywhere," it definitely came off as me calling people stupid.

It wasn't helpful.
 
To be fair to Trump's and Hillary's campaigns, the best thing this election has brought up was a discussion about political discourse, I dont mean this article in particular but seeing people arguing about how to talk about political issues is refreshing to me. I hope this continues and actually bears some fruit.
Trying to understand people with different opinions and actually let them speak out what they have to say is a good thing and should be encouraged.

And I really dont want to give this an disclaimer, but NO, I dont mean arguing with racists about their racist opinions.
The politcal spectrum is wide, people shouldnt dissagree with the opposite party, they should dissagree with the individual things they say.

Maybe I'm a too optimistic, but I really hope people could come together and solve fundamental problems this way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom