POTUS Donald Trump

[TheLeviathan]

 

Some thoughtful political analysis about why the Dems should resist dying on the hill of this SCOTUS appointment. 

 

This person said what I was trying to say with much better tact:

 

I worry when Senator Warren and other coastal liberals declare this “the fight of our lives.” It makes NO sense to declare a “fight of your life” that your side has ALREADY LOST. Much better to look to repositioning forces for the next fights. The Dems must take at least the House and some state legislatures and Governorships this fall, and if they do not, the country not just the Court is lost, because of voter suppressions that will happen thereafter. Democratic candidates and voters across the country have to keep their eye on the ball. Voting and broader legislative strategies are the key now.

 

 

That was a good read overall too. I hadn't considered how much advocacy/money the left had applied to the Court as a way to push the agenda.  That was an interesting point the commentator made.

[Mike Sixel]

It was an interesting read. So, just don't really bother....because they can't stop them. Say some words, none of which will really change anything. 

 

What if the fight energizes the left, knowing their reps will really try to win?

 

btw....I think I mostly agree, but it disgusts me....

 

and, it says "don't even try to keep abortion legal, or, hell, gay rights" if you want to win the midwest......is the midwest really lost? Because that reads a lot like what I've been saying here....

[Mr. Brooks]

I literally posted it was my experience with rural voters I know, but that I was asking to be educated if the other poster had other experiences.....

 

I'll ask you, what message gets over the identity politics that the GoP uses? Denying that identity politics exist doesn't help either....

Sorry Mike, I meant to answer this right away, but I was at work, and distracted. I wanted to wait until I could focus, as i find this complicated and multi layered.

 

I imagine there are different variables at play in different regions, as not all rural areas are the same. So, I'll stick to the area and people that I know personally, for this specific post. But I think the general sentiment applies in most areas, except perhaps the deep south, for obvious reasons.

 

I grew up in a mostly rural county. It's technically metro, as it's part of the 7 county metro around mpls/stp, but really it's mostly rural. After school, I lived in urban areas, and then moved back to my home county several years ago.

So I do have some experience living in both types of areas.

 

The county I live in, went something like 81% Trump. But, it also went to Obama at least once, the other one might have, it was basically 50/50.

 

So let's consider what the hell happened there?

Did they all become racists? Not likely.

 

Let's first get out of the way, and agree, that those people exist. I'm close to one, unfortunately.

My mother in law used to be the most open minded, open hearted, compassionate, empathetic person I knew. I genuinely looked up to her. Then, she met her second husband, and over the years has changed dramatically. She's naive, and gullible, and she's been sucked into a bubble that is unrecognizable. She's racist, homophobic, and xenophobic. It's caused a lot of tension.

I don't allow my kids to sleep over at her house, and very nearly cut her off from them completely, when she told them that all muslims hate us and want to kill us. Try explaining to your kids why they can't stay at grandma's, because she's racist and hateful. It's heartbreaking.

 

But, I've found that those people are in the vast minority.

And, I've also met people like that in the city.

From my experience, those people are fringe, and aren't more measurable in rural areas than cities.

 

Where rural voters are vulnerable though, and able to be exploited, is their lack of connection to all types of people.

Yes, rural areas are more homogeneous than urban areas. And it's harder to feel empathy without connection.

 

When a white guy in the city sees cops harassing a black person for no reason, they realize that could be their neighbor, or co worker, or the guy the bs'd with about sports at the bar. They've seen it happen to people that they've already established a connection with.

 

When a white guy in a rural area sees that on TV, they might not have the same reaction. They might not have ever known anyone who was harassed for no reason by the cops.

This isn't racism. It's a lack of connection.

It's frustrating. I'm not trying to defend that type of thinking. But that person isn't some deplorable, irredeemable person.

 

We need to not abandon the people in these areas. We need to not toss them aside as lost cause, racist Trump supporters.

They can be connected with. It takes respectful, continuing dialogue. And it has to come from a place of genuine respect.

 

I've discussed these types of issues with my family for years. At first they see things a certain way, but it's because they haven't had experience with certain issues, not because they are hateful or closed minded.

 

My biggest issue that I'm passionate about is the disgusting act of throwing so much of our population in prison, the vast majority of whom don't belong there. It's a branched issue, because it just compounds into so many other issues, when you break up families and neighborhoods that way.

When I first became passionate about this issue, it was hard to discuss with family members. In an almost exclusively white county, they just hadn't ever experienced, or even known anyone who had, the type of systemic profiling that is at the root of the issue.

But over time, as I've presented facts rather than heated emotion, I've been able to open their eyes to what is really going on.

But if I'd initially just called them racists who only care about themselves, they'd have shut me out, and I'd have lost my factual argument.

 

It's a lack of connection that causes those types of issues to rank very low on rural voters lists of issues. It's not because they are racist and hateful. They aren't voting for Trump BECAUSE he's a hateful, racist, sexist person. They voted for him despite those things.

 

Why? I think that lack of connection, which makes progressive issues low on their list of priorities, is exploitable to someone like Trump.

 

People are desperate. Jobs and wages haven't recovered in these areas. Overall, our economy has, but not across the board. The types of jobs that exist in their world, are paying the same wages they did 15 years ago. Meanwhile, all the things that lower middle class people spend their money on, have risen in cost.

 

You may have seen news on the recent study showing there is a suicide epidemic among farmers. They are killing themselves at 8.5 times the national average.

 

There is also an opioid epidemic in rural America.

 

People are desperate.

 

The way of life is quite different in rural areas.

People hunt, people fish, people have bonfires, eat a lot of red meat, and drive pickups.

The Republicans have convinced them that liberals are coming for their guns, that PETA doesn't want them to fish, that liberals hate their diet and bonfires and pickups because of climate change.

We know this isn't true, but we don't take the time reaching out to them to assure them that these things aren't true.

Meanwhile, the Republicans hammer these points at every opportunity.

 

So now they are desperate and scared.

Deep down they know Trump doesn't have their back. But he says he does. He says he has their back all the time. The liberals don't. The left will likely actually benefit them more, but they don't get that message. The only time they see liberals talk about them, is when they are being condescended and discarded.

Or, maybe they're not. But it looks like they are, the right has them paranoid and desperate and scared. It's not very hard to get a paranoid, desperate, scared person to vote for you, if you manipulate them while the other side ignores them.

 

I truly honestly don't meet or know many people who voted for Trump because of any amount of bigotry or hate that they have.

A few, yes, but very few. And I'm surrounded by Trump voters.

Mostly, I talk to people who are embarrassed that they voted for him. It was a desperation, hail Mary, because they are scared and desperate, and what if Trump really does have my back, they think. It's my only hope, they were convinced.

 

Progressive issues just aren't on their radar. Not because they don't want equality. It's because they don't experience inequality, and many have never known anyone who has. But they all know someone who has lost a job, or is struggling to pay a mortgage and kids in college, and rising food and fuel costs. They are connected to those issues.

 

Many of these areas have been blue, or at least competitive before. They didn't suddenly become awful people.

Please don't give up on these areas. It will backfire.

They can be reached. They know right and wrong.

We need to connect with them. As much as we'd like everyone to be progressive, we need to understand that there are more important issues in some areas.

That doesn't mean we abandon our principles, it just means we don't shove them down their throats.

We show them why our policies benefit the issues that ARE important to them. They may not vote blue because of progressive issues, but I truly don't believe that they are turned away by them either.

 

Try to consider all the issues on their minds, rather than the easy route of dismissing them as racists because they voted for a racist.

Bernie Sanders was very popular in my county. The county that voted for Trump at 81%! They were desperate for someone to connect with them. Unfortunately, it was Trump who did so more than Hillary.

I've seen people in this thread who think we should dismiss these areas as a lost cause. Have seen the same at times in the media. I urge you to please reconsider. They are not a lost cause, I know it, please do not give up on them.

[Mike Sixel]

powerful post, appreciate it very much. In no way should we give up on people. 

 

It is funny, but you just replied we need to be even more liberal (in some ways), while many are saying we need to be even more moderate.....hence the conundrum for the Dems......

 

edit to add: I'll need time to properly respond.....and don't apologize for working/life/whatever, I really appreciate the conversation.

[Mr. Brooks]

Also, when did liberals do a complete 180 on the belief in open dialogue. The belief that you win arguments by being right, just and fair. Not by shouting down speech and shaming people?

 

It has to stop. It used to be a tenet of liberalism, what happened?

 

Some people are open to evolving their beliefs, and are genuinely seeking dialogue, to express why they feel what they feel, and looking for other viewpoints. Until they've been shouted down and shamed, that is. They won't try that again.

 

Genuinely hateful speech should be countered. But it can be countered with facts. Not for the benefit of the person giving the hateful speech of course, but everyone listening to it is someone who may need to hear the factual, reasoned rebuttal. That chance is lost once they are silenced and shamed.

 

Mansplaining, cultural appropriation, etc. How did this happen?

 

Edit: Just want to be clear this isn't directed at anyone in here, I don't think. But this is becoming a big problem on the left.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Also, when did liberals do a complete 180 on the belief in open dialogue. The belief that you win arguments by being right, just and fair. Not by shouting down speech and shaming people?

It has to stop. It used to be a tenet of liberalism, what happened?

Some people are open to evolving their beliefs, and are genuinely seeking dialogue, to express why they feel what they feel, and looking for other viewpoints. Until they've been shouted down and shamed, that is. They won't try that again.

Genuinely hateful speech should be countered. But it can be countered with facts. Not for the benefit of the person giving the hateful speech of course, but everyone listening to it is someone who may need to hear the factual, reasoned rebuttal. That chance is lost once they are silenced and shamed.

Mansplaining, cultural appropriation, etc. How did this happen?

Edit: Just want to be clear this isn't directed at anyone in here, I don't think. But this is becoming a big problem on the left.

 

there is a problem, agreed.

 

there are some interesting studies about the ineffectiveness in getting people to change their minds by using facts, btw.....so I'm not sure that is going to work on enough people. But, I'd hope we at least try both logic and emotional appeals.

[Badsmerf]

Fight it, but don't die on it. This is a game of chess. Move a rook you know will be taken in order to take a better piece. There has to be push back and pressure, just not going all in on this. McConnell went all in and won in 2016, but he got lucky.

 

I define identity politics as divisive topics that split our country. Democrats shouldn't run, just not make them a litmus test in red districts. Democrats have to widen the party in some districts to win. Look at Doug Jones as the perfect example of who to run in red states. Let representatives of liberal areas carry that baton.

[Vanimal46]

If you're looking for a beacon of hope...

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-new-york-14-primary/index.html

 

This is what we need in politics. Someone that wins through true bluegrass efforts. A person that's not in the back pocket of corporate interests (Dems are just as guilty of that as Republicans) and someone who won't half ass their representation because they're concerned about winning the next election.

[Mr. Brooks]

If you're looking for a beacon of hope...

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-new-york-14-primary/index.html

 

This is what we need in politics. Someone that wins through true bluegrass efforts. A person that's not in the back pocket of corporate interests (Dems are just as guilty of that as Republicans) and someone who won't half ass their representation because they're concerned about winning the next election.

Yep and Nancy Pelosi says it's a fluke and not a sign of anything.

The DFL is really their own worst enemy sometimes, if that's their lesson from this primary.

[TheLeviathan]

Progressive issues just aren't on their radar. Not because they don't want equality. It's because they don't experience inequality, and many have never known anyone who has. But they all know someone who has lost a job, or is struggling to pay a mortgage and kids in college, and rising food and fuel costs. They are connected to those issues.

 

 

To add to this, many rural towns are facing extinction.  As the agricultural economy gets more and more corporate, many of the small towns that required that industry to function are slowly shriveling and dying.  They have a few small businesses, a cafe, maybe a few other places of employment but otherwise there is little for small communities to offer.

 

This has been a major part of the opioid epidemic.  While we can all agree the Republicans, and Trump specifically, are lying about bringing back their jobs.....it's nonetheless compelling.  "Make America Great Again" is stupid.....but it's a crafty stupid.  It appeals to people who see their way of life crumbling and literally know nothing else.  

 

I've seen some reports in Minnesota about trying to reach out to save community hospital and other core economic drivers to save these towns, but make no mistake - they are in a crisis right now.  And the Democrats have been largely silent.  I think it's cost them in huge ways and will continue to do so.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Fight it, but don't die on it. This is a game of chess. Move a rook you know will be taken in order to take a better piece. There has to be push back and pressure, just not going all in on this. McConnell went all in and won in 2016, but he got lucky.

I define identity politics as divisive topics that split our country. Democrats shouldn't run, just not make them a litmus test in red districts. Democrats have to widen the party in some districts to win. Look at Doug Jones as the perfect example of who to run in red states. Let representatives of liberal areas carry that baton.

 

I thought that's what you meant.  And I agree - anytime you engage in this form of identity politics you are, immediately and by definition, being divisive.  That's a problem.  

 

And we aren't even talking much about social media - a cesspool of liberal woke-ism that is taking a serious run at the right's onslaught of conspiracy theory, lie spreading whackos for who can hurt America more.

[Mike Sixel]

The way some of these posts read, it's almost like the Republicans don't exist, and the voters don't like them, and it's all the Democrats fault. I think people are underestimating the GoP and their voters.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The way some of these posts read, it's almost like the Republicans don't exist, and the voters don't like them, and it's all the Democrats fault. I think people are underestimating the GoP and their voters.

 

No, they are a well oiled propaganda machine.  They know how to message, even when the message is preposterous.  They have used their side's political involvement to dominate every level of government and use those advantages to give them advantages in national elections.  I could definitely go on.

 

I wish we had more Republican posters, it would be interesting to engage with them on those topics.  I feel like talking about them in this group is just an unhelpful (and uninteresting) echo chamber.

[Mike Sixel]

That's true.

[Badsmerf]

The way some of these posts read, it's almost like the Republicans don't exist, and the voters don't like them, and it's all the Democrats fault. I think people are underestimating the GoP and their voters.

Is not all democrats fault, but they have to be the ones to fix it. The GOP has lost all my hope for rationalization. I would love to see them fix themselves, but it is impossible. They'd have to backtrack on years of lies, manipulation, pandering, and fear mongering. That isn't going to happen. They are having success doing things they way they have been. They are entrenched into this for the foreseeable future. A moderate overthrowing Trump in 2020 is the best chance we'd have, but this mentality runs so deep it will take a long time to fix it.

[PseudoSABR]

I feel like the thread got to some positive places recently, but this really got my goard: Trump has been romancing Kennedy to retire early.  If this is true, well, I don't know what to say really.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I feel like the thread got to some positive places recently, but this really got my goard: Trump has been romancing Kennedy to retire early.  If this is true, well, I don't know what to say really.

If true, I know exactly what to say: my respect for Justice Kennedy just dropped through the floor. I hold justices to the absolute highest standard. Most of them meet this standard, even the ones I don't particularly like much (Scalia, for example). I respect the hell out of Roberts, even though I disagree with his opinions much of the time.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, Thomas can go jump off a cliff.

[Squirrel]

If true, I know exactly what to say: my respect for Justice Kennedy just dropped through the floor. I hold justices to the absolute highest standard. Most of them meet this standard, even the ones I don't particularly like much (Scalia, for example). I respect the hell out of Roberts, even though I disagree with his opinions much of the time.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, Thomas can go jump off a cliff.

Yeah, Thomas should never have been confirmed. And, actually, that was the Dems fault on that. That was Biden at the time who led that committee.

[Craig Arko]

Saw this tweet that I liked:

 

Imagine what it will feel like to one day tell your grandchildren,

 

"I'm the one who told the freedom fighters to be polite."

[biggentleben]

 

As someone who grew up in rural America, it's so incredibly lazy and insulting, to me, to say that Dems lose the rural vote because rural voters are racist and sexist.
Dems used to compete in rural areas, even recently enough while they were advocating for equal rights and treatment. In areas where their message resonated, such as mining, industrial, and farming areas, they even dominated.

Until the left stops lumping them all together as stupid, racists and undesirables, the left is never getting them back.
Nobody likes being spoken down to, and discarded, and people will cut off their own noses to spite their faces if you insult them enough.

Messaging matters. The Republicans don't help rural working class people, but they also don't ignore them and insult them.
Unless there is a deliberate, pointed attempt to tell rural voters that they matter, Trump will win again in 2020.

 

One of the best examples of this recently is South Dakota. Heavy Republican state in general, but kept Daschle and Tim Johnson in office for decades due to their tremendous ability to relate to the totality of the state and act in the best interests of agriculture. When Daschle became the public face for opposition to Bush Junior just after 9/11, it cost him his seat. Johnson ended up retiring out of his. Then the state had their next generation of tremendous Democratic representative in Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, but the Republicans attached her hard with AMA and used her support on that bill to indicate she was a party-line lackey, which is opposite of the truth. Now she's hesitant to jump into anything state politics, which is horrible because she really was the type of person and politician that would have carried on Daschle's and Johnson's legacies.

[ashbury]

"I'm the one who told the freedom fighters to be polite."

That's pretty narcissistic. Middle America is frightened to death of self-styled "freedom fighters," like Antifa, who wear masks and don't actually take the time to interact positively with the masses of population that they purport to save from fascist doom.

 

I'm not saying to lay down and not resist. But the more it looks like freedom fighters, who have been seen on teevee down through the decades, the more that the remaining uncommitted voters will flock to candidates who promise to protect them from anarchy. Even groups of retired men and women shouting slogans at city parks make too many folks go, "ugh".

 

"A working class hero is something to be." Yeah, if the working class actually perceives you as on their side.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That's pretty narcissistic. Middle America is frightened to death of self-styled "freedom fighters," like Antifa, who wear masks and don't actually take the time to interact positively with the masses of population that they purport to save from fascist doom.

 

I'm not saying to lay down and not resist. But the more it looks like freedom fighters, who have been seen on teevee down through the decades, the more that the remaining uncommitted voters will flock to candidates who promise to protect them from anarchy. Even groups of retired men and women shouting slogans at city parks make too many folks go, "ugh".

 

"A working class hero is something to be." Yeah, if the working class actually perceives you as on their side.

I think the real lesson here is that we need four kinds of people and politicians: far right, middle right, middle left, and far left.

 

We're weeding out the two middle groups, which should be the strongest of the four.

 

Now, I'm not equalizing the far left and right, as one has actual policy traction while the other shouts and kicks in a corner, mostly by itself. But if the country is going to right itself, those two middle groups need to be better represented.

 

We should demand two things from every politician right now, and one of them should be really easy to accomplish:

 

1. Massive campaign finance reform (hard)

2. Independent districting of both state and federal representation (this should be easy to accomplish)

 

The problem is that whatever jackass group is running things wants to avoid the latter. Right now, it's the GOP. In two years, I expect it to be the Democrats. They'll pull the same **** the GOP did a decade ago and we'll all lose for it, except in a different (and probably more palatable) way. That doesn't make it better or right.

[Mike Sixel]

That's pretty narcissistic. Middle America is frightened to death of self-styled "freedom fighters," like Antifa, who wear masks and don't actually take the time to interact positively with the masses of population that they purport to save from fascist doom.

 

I'm not saying to lay down and not resist. But the more it looks like freedom fighters, who have been seen on teevee down through the decades, the more that the remaining uncommitted voters will flock to candidates who promise to protect them from anarchy. Even groups of retired men and women shouting slogans at city parks make too many folks go, "ugh".

 

"A working class hero is something to be." Yeah, if the working class actually perceives you as on their side.

Just like they did in the fifties and sixties. Those damn civil Rights protesters were just not polite enough.

 

Change does not come by keeping the comfortable comfortable.

[PseudoSABR]

 

That's pretty narcissistic. Middle America is frightened to death of self-styled "freedom fighters," like Antifa, who wear masks and don't actually take the time to interact positively with the masses of population that they purport to save from fascist doom.

 

I'm not saying to lay down and not resist. But the more it looks like freedom fighters, who have been seen on teevee down through the decades, the more that the remaining uncommitted voters will flock to candidates who promise to protect them from anarchy. Even groups of retired men and women shouting slogans at city parks make too many folks go, "ugh".

 

"A working class hero is something to be." Yeah, if the working class actually perceives you as on their side.

Is this sarcasm?  There are vigilantes on the right, who might also term themselves freedom fighters....yet Dems don't gain any traction with middle america by calling out such vigilantes. 

 

There's a difference to being empathetic to the needs of middle america/rural whites, and coddling them. 

[TheLeviathan]

Yes, there is a difference between empathy and coddling.

 

There is also a difference between protest and "freedom fighter".  If you've bought into those implications,then maybe the left is further gone than I thought too.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

  If you've bought into those implications,then maybe the left is further gone than I thought too.

Just stop this. You keep construing things I'm saying as somehow emblematic of people on the left. You've always had a perverse interest in discrediting the left, but there's just no need for it to appear in so many posts, and in such a personal manner. Quit gaslighting me (i.e. quit saying "I've always suspected the likes of you were crazy, but if you really believe this thing, I guess you really are crazy.").

 

[TheLeviathan]

I'm sorry there is no echo chamber here for you, but "freedom fighter" is not a term to be taken lightly. If you are being criticized for it, maybe it's because of the danger it represents.

 

You are welcome to clarify your stance rather than taking it personally. Perhaps you'd like to share if you embrace that term.

 

Careful though, there is always someone further out on the fringe ready to label you an "apologist" or "enabler".

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm sorry there is no echo chamber here for you, but "freedom fighter" is not a term to be taken lightly. If you are being criticized for it, maybe it's because of the danger it represents.

You are welcome to clarify your stance rather than taking it personally. Perhaps you'd like to share if you embrace that term.

Careful though, there is always someone further out on the fringe ready to label you an "apologist" or "enabler".

Craig used the term "freedom fighter," not me; there may be some connotation of the use of the phrase that I am unaware (i guess there is given your push back, and ashbury's response that I couldn't tell was sarcastic or not), but given the context of the discussion, I'm pretty sure Craigh wasn't referring to ANTIFA, but rather pushing back against the civility narrative.

 

I'll be sure to define my terms prior to any posts, as not to give you strawmen to knock down (though, really, you hardly need my help in that endeavor).

[TheLeviathan]

Freedom Fighters are typically associated with violent resistance to a government.

 

You appear to have completely missed the relevant context. That isn't a strawman, it's the crux of what generated the discussion.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Freedom Fighters are typically associated with violent resistance to a government.

You appear to have completely missed the relevant context. That isn't a strawman, it's the crux of what generated the discussion.

No, the civility narrative is the crux.  You're ignoring that and focusing on semantics.