Your link to the NYT op ed by John Fetterman’s chief of staff provides exactly the wrong lessons about the election results. He advises jettisoning progressive ideals represented by what he dismisses as special interest groups. Why? Because their idealistic positions anger others in the Democratic camp. His “winning at all costs” strateg…
Your link to the NYT op ed by John Fetterman’s chief of staff provides exactly the wrong lessons about the election results. He advises jettisoning progressive ideals represented by what he dismisses as special interest groups. Why? Because their idealistic positions anger others in the Democratic camp. His “winning at all costs” strategy means giving up the progressive half of the Democratic coalition and moving center-right a la the Clinton era. Sure, the faux-liberalism (ie, neo-liberalism) of Clinton-style pandering to the right is better than Trump’s fascism. But dumping on the left side of the Democratic coalition is not the route to majority status. So many young progressives are within a whisker of giving up on the Democratic Party already. Their ranks are growing, and growing those ranks and then getting them to the polls is key not only to victory but to party identity. How about a strategy that manages to temper the more “extreme” demands of the Democratic left while showing the Democratic center that it is important and necessary to tolerate what it may think are the nuttier elements of the coalition?
What exactly are the “extreme” demands of the Democratic left: universal healthcare?, overtime pay?, defending a worker’s right to organize a union? A woman’s right to complete autonomy over her own body?
Yes. How much of every health care dollar is spent on insurance company bureaucracy? 33 cents! Beyond outrageous! Health care is a human right not a a commodity to bought like Cheetos. Speaking of which, the left going on about the “good” things RFK Jr supports, like taking on the ultraprocessed food industry, masks his bizarre and harmful views. Of course anyone who can read reviews of the recent studies on soda and ultraprocessed food would take that stand. We must stop this pandering to the right and supporting media that sanewashes and downplays the fascism blossoming like toxic weeds across the country.
I guess the thinking is that the stridency of “wokeness” alienated all kinds of people. Woke is good, overwoke is bad. And overwokeness definitely is a thing, and it’s unpleasant to run into in the workplace or anywhere. But it’s FAR from the Democrats’ biggest problem. Failing to acknowledge high food prices would be a better place to start.
I still don't believe "woke" (as the Republicans use it) is a real thing. Human diversity is a fact about humanity, so people who accept diversity are acknowledging a fact.
This is the first time I've heard of "overwoke."
If you (or the Republicans) mean that sometimes people feel uncomfortable (confused, annoyed, burdened, etc.) around each other, don't gel with each other's vibes, feel that respecting each other takes too much time and effort, or recognize that they don't have much in common and won't be each other's people, that's a subjective assessment and not an objectively existing position or character trait called wokeness.
I agree. That sounded like the same old advice to throw vulnerable groups under the bus in pursuit of the imaginary median (read straight white male) voter.
Yes. That op-ed perhaps made some good points about supermajority thinking, but it was obscured by the claim that MAGA’s television ad campaign WAS the Harris strategy. That is just bonkers and so counter to what we all just witnessed that it borders on gaslighting. This was a campaign that made appealing to the “center” its…center. We had a Glock toting, border defending, all but silent on trans issues candidate who campaigned with a Cheney, or was I hallucinating that? I live in PA and saw at least five MAGA tv ads for every one Dem ad. And yes, the MAGA ads were all focused on anti trans and anti immigrant sentiment, often combining the two. Harris and Casey ads were all about the economy and how Trump won’t help middle class voters and by the way is also unhinged. That was the Harris strategy. And it didn’t work and we must talk about why, but discussing a campaign that didn’t exist isn’t the way to go about it. Why accept that the things your opponent strategically manufactured about your positions are your actual weaknesses? And given that these were actually small shifts in votes with many different causes, it is sickening to me to see so many claim that the main thing we need to do is jettison our values so our values can win.
"Why accept that the things your opponent strategically manufactured about your positions are your actual weaknesses?" ⬅️ This!
Or, similarly: When your anti-trans, anti-immigrant opponent relentlessly accuses you of not being prejudiced enough and then wins the election, don't react by embracing his prejudice. Instead, figure out how to better educate the public about his prejudice (it's the real reason they shouldn't have voted for him) and lean harder into your own values as your strengths (it's the real reason they should have voted for you).
I agree. I also thought that the Gaza issue was a perfect example. The campaign didn’t emphasize the issue or elevate it in the way activists wanted them to do. They tried to play it down the middle, which was impossible on such a controversial subject, but Harris basically was following Gentlesen’s advice. What happened? The Pro-Palestinian group voted for Trump or stayed home. Anyone think they didn’t make a disastrous difference in Michigan, for example? And what does the group itself have to show for this? Nothing, of course. But Harris basically followed the advice of the NYT editorial and it sure didn’t help her to earn a win in that swing state. I know we need to figure out how to do better, but I’m getting awfully tired of pundits gaslighting us about what the campaign supposedly did wrong, rather than looking at their own role and trying to do better themselves.
Your link to the NYT op ed by John Fetterman’s chief of staff provides exactly the wrong lessons about the election results. He advises jettisoning progressive ideals represented by what he dismisses as special interest groups. Why? Because their idealistic positions anger others in the Democratic camp. His “winning at all costs” strategy means giving up the progressive half of the Democratic coalition and moving center-right a la the Clinton era. Sure, the faux-liberalism (ie, neo-liberalism) of Clinton-style pandering to the right is better than Trump’s fascism. But dumping on the left side of the Democratic coalition is not the route to majority status. So many young progressives are within a whisker of giving up on the Democratic Party already. Their ranks are growing, and growing those ranks and then getting them to the polls is key not only to victory but to party identity. How about a strategy that manages to temper the more “extreme” demands of the Democratic left while showing the Democratic center that it is important and necessary to tolerate what it may think are the nuttier elements of the coalition?
What exactly are the “extreme” demands of the Democratic left: universal healthcare?, overtime pay?, defending a worker’s right to organize a union? A woman’s right to complete autonomy over her own body?
Yes. How much of every health care dollar is spent on insurance company bureaucracy? 33 cents! Beyond outrageous! Health care is a human right not a a commodity to bought like Cheetos. Speaking of which, the left going on about the “good” things RFK Jr supports, like taking on the ultraprocessed food industry, masks his bizarre and harmful views. Of course anyone who can read reviews of the recent studies on soda and ultraprocessed food would take that stand. We must stop this pandering to the right and supporting media that sanewashes and downplays the fascism blossoming like toxic weeds across the country.
I guess the thinking is that the stridency of “wokeness” alienated all kinds of people. Woke is good, overwoke is bad. And overwokeness definitely is a thing, and it’s unpleasant to run into in the workplace or anywhere. But it’s FAR from the Democrats’ biggest problem. Failing to acknowledge high food prices would be a better place to start.
I still don't believe "woke" (as the Republicans use it) is a real thing. Human diversity is a fact about humanity, so people who accept diversity are acknowledging a fact.
This is the first time I've heard of "overwoke."
If you (or the Republicans) mean that sometimes people feel uncomfortable (confused, annoyed, burdened, etc.) around each other, don't gel with each other's vibes, feel that respecting each other takes too much time and effort, or recognize that they don't have much in common and won't be each other's people, that's a subjective assessment and not an objectively existing position or character trait called wokeness.
I agree. That sounded like the same old advice to throw vulnerable groups under the bus in pursuit of the imaginary median (read straight white male) voter.
Exactly.
Yes. That op-ed perhaps made some good points about supermajority thinking, but it was obscured by the claim that MAGA’s television ad campaign WAS the Harris strategy. That is just bonkers and so counter to what we all just witnessed that it borders on gaslighting. This was a campaign that made appealing to the “center” its…center. We had a Glock toting, border defending, all but silent on trans issues candidate who campaigned with a Cheney, or was I hallucinating that? I live in PA and saw at least five MAGA tv ads for every one Dem ad. And yes, the MAGA ads were all focused on anti trans and anti immigrant sentiment, often combining the two. Harris and Casey ads were all about the economy and how Trump won’t help middle class voters and by the way is also unhinged. That was the Harris strategy. And it didn’t work and we must talk about why, but discussing a campaign that didn’t exist isn’t the way to go about it. Why accept that the things your opponent strategically manufactured about your positions are your actual weaknesses? And given that these were actually small shifts in votes with many different causes, it is sickening to me to see so many claim that the main thing we need to do is jettison our values so our values can win.
"Why accept that the things your opponent strategically manufactured about your positions are your actual weaknesses?" ⬅️ This!
Or, similarly: When your anti-trans, anti-immigrant opponent relentlessly accuses you of not being prejudiced enough and then wins the election, don't react by embracing his prejudice. Instead, figure out how to better educate the public about his prejudice (it's the real reason they shouldn't have voted for him) and lean harder into your own values as your strengths (it's the real reason they should have voted for you).
I agree. I also thought that the Gaza issue was a perfect example. The campaign didn’t emphasize the issue or elevate it in the way activists wanted them to do. They tried to play it down the middle, which was impossible on such a controversial subject, but Harris basically was following Gentlesen’s advice. What happened? The Pro-Palestinian group voted for Trump or stayed home. Anyone think they didn’t make a disastrous difference in Michigan, for example? And what does the group itself have to show for this? Nothing, of course. But Harris basically followed the advice of the NYT editorial and it sure didn’t help her to earn a win in that swing state. I know we need to figure out how to do better, but I’m getting awfully tired of pundits gaslighting us about what the campaign supposedly did wrong, rather than looking at their own role and trying to do better themselves.
Fetterman is proving to be a big disappointment. Better than Oz but disappointing.