So, there's a common statement I've seen recently among some moderate types that basically goes something like this: progressives lose because they dont appeal to Americans using their language. Americans are religious and patriotic, and if left wingers cant coopt these aspects of language into platforms, then theyll turn off American voters and lose elections.
I just....strongly dislike the statement. Probably because I dont buy into those values at all, and because if anything, when politicians try to appeal to them, it turns ME off. But then I get statements like "well if you don't, you get Kamala Harris", which is weird because she performed about the same as Hillary, who DID appeal to that kind of language and I found it offputting and alienating.
Here's the thing. There are two camps in politics, with two worldviews. The right is religious, patriotic, and the left is just...all over the place. My own stance is the right SHOULD be more secular and analytical, but I keep being told by moderates this is bad, and we gotta appeal to them instead. So what we get is this weird mixed bag of sentiments that make no sense and seem to have no coherent ideological backing. THe right doesnt trust them because it isnt as authentic as their version, and I DONT wanna try to out conservative a conservative. And liberals end up losing enthusiasm, because...what's the point of voting for someone who cares more about appealing to the other side? This is a problem with both Clinton, who went hard into the conservative framing of things in 2016, and Harris who was a bit more secular, but performed the same. It's the uncanny valley of suck.
Even if you have a masterful religious progressive using that rhetoric, look at James Talarico. Sure, you can argue he can win texas....in an apocalyptically bad year for republicans. In a normal year he'd get wrecked. Texas was R+13 in 2024, it was R+6 in 2020. For it to even start to turn blue speaks to larger systemic effects going on. But anyway, we discussed him before in terms of his policy and framing, and oh god, I cant stand the guy in a way. I have zero interest in trying to appeal to someone on the basis of the protestant work ethic. Like, I just wanna full on reject the ethic. When we accept our opponents' moral framing of issues, yeah, you can argue the nuances of that and maybe win. But, you'll never make true, lasting moral progress. Because the progress you made is tied to this dysfunctional conservative ethic that we shouldnt even continue to accept in the first place.
I swear, centrists are so braindead sometimes. Well, not really. The thing is, they dont WANT a lot of moral progress. They're conservatives who are fine with tweaks around the edges, and think anyone who dares actually challenge the underlying moral justification of the existing way of things as too radical.
But....for me, keep in mind, I'm both radical and moderate. Im not a marxist, but I am willing to challenge the conservative ethic head on and support an alternative to it. I have zero interest in watering down and compromising my message in that regard. And maybe that loses people, but so be it, that's what I'm here to do, and I refuse to let the other side define the terms of debate for me.
When I think about the left failing to connect to people, it isnt because they dont explicitly appeal to conservative values. It's because they get so lost in their own sauce they can't appeal to people at all. Like....say the goal is economic populism. You want policies that make peoples' lives better. I try to appeal to people in the universal language of self interest: this will help you, you should be for this. But....the left often doesnt. They expect people to be selfless, arguing that "selfishness" itself is a conservative virtue, they expect people to be altruistic and care about everyone else's issues, and they get so wrapped up in bull#### divisive issues like Palestine on foreign policy and identity politics on domestic policy, that somewhere, the core appeal to the left is just lost.
At the end of the day, people want what helps them. Maybe people get wrapped up in religion, but let's be honest, religion was a tool of domestication of humans to be obedient little wage slaves who DONT care about their self interests instead. It was literally a mechanism designed to control people. If people use religion to cause you to ignore your self interest, thats a BAD sign because it means someone is taking advantage of you in order to get you to sign away your self interest to their benefit. And this is another reason I wont appeal to religion. Again, why should I debate on the terms of my ideological opponents? If religion was created and/or is used to control people, by appealing to religious sentiments, I'm compromising my own moral stances and appealing to language that was intended to control us in the first place. My goal isn't simply to appeal to religious sentiments. It's to counter religion and liberate people from its way of thinking. Only then can we look at these issues CLEARLY and decide WITH REASON what we should do and where we should go.
Again, you can make incremental compromises within that system, but youre still drinking from a poisoned well. Id rather NOT do that and just advocate for what I want. Im not gonna out christian a christian, and Im not even gonna try. I'm too honest and autistic for that crap. if you want a politician who is honest and doesnt sound like a politician, then you should support people who speak honestly, not punish them for it and expect people to sound like a polished turd instead.
And yeah. I feel like centrists like this stuff BECAUSE they're centrists, but honestly, anyone who isnt is just like...no, wtf is this?
And again,, to the person who argued that Harris lost because she didnt appeal more to religion, I'd counter with Clinton who made religion very much a central part of her identity and language.....and....it alienated the fudge out of me. And she lost anyway.
Again, it's not religion, it's not patriotism. You gotta connect to people on a level of making their lives better, and you gotta make a convincing case you can actually do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment