After my long list of blog posts leading up to the election, I’ve been trying to reassess. I was pretty sure we had that one in the bag, and so that means I was out of touch. Others have been focusing on the many areas where progressives take issue with President Trump and his actions, and that is important – even vital – work. But in this series, I’m not going to discuss Russia or North Korea, or executive actions, or SCOTUS, or cabinet members, or anything else like that. Instead, I’m going to talk about where I think those with progressive values, like me, have missed the boat.
First, let me assert my qualifications as a "liberal elite." I have a juris doctorate (so I'm over-educated). Especially for Arkansas, I make a pretty good paycheck. I drive a Civic Hybrid, and I still have a "Madame President for America" bumper sticker in the rear window. I think that white privilege is still a real and systemic thing that should be addressed, I try to use the pronouns people prefer, I think human-generated climate change is obviously occurring, and I think the First Amendment was designed to keep America from becoming a Christian theocracy. I'm one of those guys. And, again, I thought the 2016 presidential election was all but guaranteed for Hillary when Trump won the Republican primary.
There are many problematic external factors with the election, of course, but probably the most legitimate reason Hillary lost was that Democrats were not paying attention to what people were saying. In particular, the campaign was not listening to those in the Rust Belt who lost their jobs and believe that others (mainly people in other countries) have taken those jobs. I’ll talk about why that’s likely misguided in a later post, but the point now is that Democrats didn’t listen to the real pain and anger from that important constituency, and if they had, Hillary probably would have won, even with the other factors.
This ignoring of people’s pain because of their ideology is a huge problem across the political spectrum. Romney’s 47% remark and Hillary’s basket of deplorables completely matches what many people believe (pick one), but the statements are diminutive and insulting. I was certainly guilty of it. I could show why Hillary’s comments were correct based off of context and surveys, but going into those sorts of apologetics misses the larger point that these elections are designed to have the best rise to the top like in a high school debate, not to have the worst beaten down like an MMA fight.
One particular area that I’ve been struggling with is snarky comments. It is oh-so-easy to enjoy biting turns of phrase, like how conservatives are “clinging to their guns and religion.” This snarkiness makes for great memes, and you get a bunch of likes on your Facebook or Twitter or Instagram feed, but it is rarely insightful because memes almost always lack context. What it does is push people more into opposing camps, cause those that disagree to stop following you, and lowers the possibility of reaching common ground.
So President Obama was wrong when he talked about “clinging,” but he was absolutely right that we are in an intramural scrimmage. We are all on the same team, and when we forget that and begin dehumanizing the supposed “other side,” we go wrong.
So what I am going to do is try to talk about areas where I think we can do better. I have generally progressive (even libertarian) social values, and generally moderate financial values, so don’t expect these posts to be right-wingy. But I do think there are values we can discuss, and places where progressive values would be better met through different approaches.
Here are the topics I’ll discuss. These will become links as they are posted:
Any thoughts before we begin?
First, let me assert my qualifications as a "liberal elite." I have a juris doctorate (so I'm over-educated). Especially for Arkansas, I make a pretty good paycheck. I drive a Civic Hybrid, and I still have a "Madame President for America" bumper sticker in the rear window. I think that white privilege is still a real and systemic thing that should be addressed, I try to use the pronouns people prefer, I think human-generated climate change is obviously occurring, and I think the First Amendment was designed to keep America from becoming a Christian theocracy. I'm one of those guys. And, again, I thought the 2016 presidential election was all but guaranteed for Hillary when Trump won the Republican primary.
There are many problematic external factors with the election, of course, but probably the most legitimate reason Hillary lost was that Democrats were not paying attention to what people were saying. In particular, the campaign was not listening to those in the Rust Belt who lost their jobs and believe that others (mainly people in other countries) have taken those jobs. I’ll talk about why that’s likely misguided in a later post, but the point now is that Democrats didn’t listen to the real pain and anger from that important constituency, and if they had, Hillary probably would have won, even with the other factors.
This ignoring of people’s pain because of their ideology is a huge problem across the political spectrum. Romney’s 47% remark and Hillary’s basket of deplorables completely matches what many people believe (pick one), but the statements are diminutive and insulting. I was certainly guilty of it. I could show why Hillary’s comments were correct based off of context and surveys, but going into those sorts of apologetics misses the larger point that these elections are designed to have the best rise to the top like in a high school debate, not to have the worst beaten down like an MMA fight.
One particular area that I’ve been struggling with is snarky comments. It is oh-so-easy to enjoy biting turns of phrase, like how conservatives are “clinging to their guns and religion.” This snarkiness makes for great memes, and you get a bunch of likes on your Facebook or Twitter or Instagram feed, but it is rarely insightful because memes almost always lack context. What it does is push people more into opposing camps, cause those that disagree to stop following you, and lowers the possibility of reaching common ground.
So President Obama was wrong when he talked about “clinging,” but he was absolutely right that we are in an intramural scrimmage. We are all on the same team, and when we forget that and begin dehumanizing the supposed “other side,” we go wrong.
So what I am going to do is try to talk about areas where I think we can do better. I have generally progressive (even libertarian) social values, and generally moderate financial values, so don’t expect these posts to be right-wingy. But I do think there are values we can discuss, and places where progressive values would be better met through different approaches.
Here are the topics I’ll discuss. These will become links as they are posted:
- This one (I’m a member of the liberal elite, and I’m part of the problem)
- Let’s stop talking about intent and focus on outcomes
- Our societal goal should be a process we can believe in
- Fixing gerrymandering of districts is the best way to drain the swamp
- Who gets paid for all the robots?
- Controlling speech is rarely the solution
- Paying more for something isn’t always the answer
- Focus more on stories than facts
Any thoughts before we begin?
Comments
Post a Comment