So...this is one of those times I am glad to be proven wrong. I was dooming for much of 2024, not just because trump is a wannabe autocrat, but because i feared that Biden/Harris losing would be a repudiation of the democrats in a way that would actually kill my entire ideology in its infancy. As you guys know, I'm literally the anti work and free money guy, and basically, the republicans were trying to pin inflation on Biden, arguing...specifically against free money and working less.
However, it seems like, as the 2024 autopsy is being done, another narrative is emerging instead. It's one in which the democrats are out of touch with Americans, and "overly focused on diversity and elites."
To give a few small quotes from the above article:
When asked to compare the Democratic Party to an animal, one participant compared the party to an ostrich because “they’ve got their heads in the sand and are absolutely committed to their own ideas, even when they’re failing.” Another likened them to koalas, who “are complacent and lazy about getting policy wins that we really need.” Democrats, another said, are “not a friend of the working class anymore.”
This is a "no crap shirlock" moment from me. I've been calling this since 2016. As I keep saying, the democratic party can't fail, it can only be failed, and they lecture and condescend to the voters while shaming them for wrong think. And yeah, they're worthless at fighting for people in office. It's just watering stuff down and then weaponized incompetence. I dont blame people for not being happy with Biden's performance in office based on this.
“I think what the Democratic elites and their politicians believe is often very different from what the average Democratic voter is,” said a Georgia man who voted for Biden in 2020 but Trump in 2024. “The elites that run the Democratic Party — I think they’re way too obsessed with appealing to these very far-left social progressivism that’s very popular on college campuses.”
In a way they are. It's all social justice politics and then on economics it's just running to the center to win over moderate republicans.
On inflation:
“Obviously I wouldn’t want stuff to go up, but at the same time, in the long run, would it be better off for America and maybe having more stuff made here?” said one man from Wisconsin.
I just did an article on this earlier. No, hard disagree. It's not about the jobs. It's about the quality of the jobs. Factory work aint great. Hell, when we forced people into factories at the start of capitalism, people hated it the same way they hate minimum wage service jobs now. But over time, unions made factory work dignified while service work is still considered very low end, and has pay and working conditions that reflects that. They're considered to be "jobs for high schoolers" by middle class conservatives, and not "real jobs." But in reality, all jobs that are useful are "real jobs", it's just a matter of making them pay, and making them dignified. Service workers need better working protections, they need higher wages, better hours, access to healthcare, and let's face it, we ALL need a UBI. Ya know? Let's not romanticize bringing the old jobs back. What we need are to make the new jobs suck less.
Even though the focus group voters did not solely blame Harris for their distaste of the Democratic Party, they also weren’t happy about her candidacy. Participants described her as “inauthentic,” “very dishonest” and “did not seem competent.”
An Arizona man, citing the time Harris said, “you better thank a union member,” during a speech in Detroit, said “that was very disingenuous to me because I didn’t see an honest person that could be president.”
“It seemed like a lot of what she came out and said wasn’t really off-the-cuff, wasn’t coming from her,” said another man who voted for Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024. “Seemed like every interview, every time she came out and talked about something, it was planned out and never her thoughts, didn’t seem genuine to her thoughts, whereas, Trump, even though you never really knew what he was going to say, when he was going to say it, it was always him and genuine to what he thought, so that’s what swayed me.”
Let's face it, they're not wrong. Harris DOES kind of come off as dishonest and inauthentic. And you wanna know why? Some of it was BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS FORCED A BRAND ON HER! Seriously, Harris aint as far left as I'd like her to be, but she's significantly further left than she portrayed herself in 2024. She came off as inauthentic because she was fitting the stereotype of inoffensive corporate democrat. She moved away from her actual based policy stances on issues like healthcare, then had to thread the needle with explain why she backed away and yeah, you force a candidate to conform to all of these little boxes they dont normally tick off to make them fit the stereotype of your typical inoffensive corporate dem, and she's gonna come off as bland, uninspiring, and inauthentic.
That inauthenticity come from the fact that she basically was trying to dodge questions and couldn't be herself, because that's not what the corporate democrats behind the scenes wanted her to be.
Not that it matters. Even being herself, Harris has always been kind of on the "fauxgressive" side of the spectrum, coming off as more progressive as she was, in a pathetic attempt to emulate Obama and win back Bernie voters in 2020, while basically being a team player. So people dont like it because they smelled her out to be this inauthentic corporate democrat. And to be honest, they ain't wrong. As i write this, I struggle more and more to actually figure out what Harris stands for. Was she always a corporate dem, or was she always more progressive than her record lets on? Who knows? And that's why she didn't land. She really does lack authenticity.
Several participants also raised the transgender attack ad that the Trump campaign deployed against Harris, which showed a 2019 clip of her expressing support for gender affirming surgery for state prison inmates. The ad’s tagline included: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”
Democrats disagree on the potency of the attack ad, but several participants raised it unprompted in the focus groups.
Lagging turnout was a major problem for Democrats in November. One woman from Georgia who didn’t vote in 2024 said that she didn’t agree with Harris’ “thinking that it’s okay for children to change their body parts.”
“I think that there needs to be some parameters on what’s accepted in society and what isn’t. Some of the societal norms, and I think that the Democrats have tried to open that up a little too much,” said a woman from Wisconsin who also didn’t vote in 2024.
When asked by the moderator if she was referring to the “trans issue,” the woman said, “primarily that.”
Ok, this is where I have to cringe a little bit. Like, let's be clear. I'm pro trans. Transgender issues fundamentally arent much different than the gay issues of the 2000s. People just dont understand it, they need to be educated a bit, and yeah.
On that issue, let me say this. NO ONE WANTS TO CHOP OFF YOUR KID'S PP WILLY NILLY!
Seriously, gender dysphoria is a diagnosable condition in the DSM5. You can call it an "identity", a "mental illness" what have you, but it's real. And the best treatment is to LET THEM LIVE THEIR LIVES AND AFFIRM THEIR CHOICES TO TRANSITION IF THEY DESIRE TO.
When minors seek that kind of treatment, they do so after years of therapy and introspection. Doctors are involved every step of the way. The reason they give puberty blockers to teens is because it's easier for them to transition BEFORE they go through puberty. And symptoms manifest themselves young, like 9-12ish. So, they delay puberty, they do watchful waiting to rule out other possible causes, and then later in their teen years, we're talking like 15-17 or something, they might transition.
That's how this works. What traditionalists wanna do is force people to go through puberty, become adults, and THEN transition, when it is more harmful for them to do so and there are more complications. Ya know? I get it from an intuitive perspective. "Do we really trust kids to make that decision? Democrats go too far." Understanding the science, yes, I do. As long as doctors are giving the green light.
If I were to change my rhetoric at all, I would say that the child should have a doctor's approval to transition. That makes the process sound more authoritative and like we're not just changing kids body parts willy nilly. It might satisfy some fence sitters and improve support for the democrats' point of view without compromising trans rights much.
Either way, do you guys understand why TYT was like...moderating this issue on their program? They've been doing that and being crucified by the far left for doing so. I do think at the very least a rhetorical approach to how we approach the issue needs to change. Drop the awkward "birthing persons" language, stop the woke scolding, that sort of thing. Make some mild, mostly rhetorical concessions. We won the gay marriage issue on freedom. We can win the trans issue on freedom, it just involves having the country come around a bit to our point of view, which we can do simply by disavowing the loudest and most obnoxious people on the left on the issue. People dont like wokeism. They dont like the social justice crap. Get rid of it. But at the same time, dont really give up on the issues as much. I think these issues are winnable, it just involves reframing them a bit.
Like, if youre not in the know, and youre in normieville, the democrats look BAD on these issues. They're cringe. They're condescending, lectury, and literally believe in punishing anyone who doesnt toe their line on things. They look culturally authoritarian. They look like THE RIGHT with their moral panics and policing. And because most of them dont understand the science of transgender care, they think it's weird, like it's just some weird lifestyle choice it doesnt make sense for kids to do, and like we're trying to convert them to something and push it on them. It's nonsense and that perception comes primarily from ignorance, but it is what it is. And we gotta change our strategy if we want to make the issue palatable to the public. I personally believe it is winnable, but it is going to involve reframing the issue, and maybe making some minor concessions that will piss off the SJW crowd. Oh well, screw them, if this article taught me anything it's that those guys are out of step with the country.
Anyway, the conclusion I draw is that if the democrats were gonna lose, this is the best possible version of that. We lost because we were too centrist on economics, ineffective and unwilling to do anything, while appearing wildly obsessed with cultural issues. And I do agree with the assessment that we need to shift left on economics, but a bit to the center on social issues. Im not saying abandon our roots on the social. But make minor concessions for the sake of winning elections, and dont come off as the pink haired psychos who wanna scold everyone for not having the "correct" position on issues. Americans need to be guided gently toward the right positions, not screamed at and lectured by some weirdo gender studies major with dyed hair, you know?
And for the love of god, DO SOMETHING ABOUT HEALTHCARE AND OTHER ECONOMIC ISSUES. Seriously, the impression I get over the past month is americans are genuinely ANGRY about their living conditions. being this out of touch economic centrist isnt gonna win elections. it just isn't. We're in an era of populism, and we need to get that.
No comments:
Post a Comment