Meanwhile, the BBC has an article noting the same trend in Germany as the USA saw last November: "Why more young men in Germany are turning to the far right"
Agreed. I suspect a lot of the young male support for right-wing politicians, including Trump, is due to economic pessimism and hopelessness, anger, and the perceived threat to familiar gender roles.
Imho, the Left everywhere lost a lot of support when it shifted too much focus away from economics to identity politics. A fundamental mistake!
Whether it was the party or the donor class at the tip of the spear of the shift, the party got tagged with it and it stuck. Once again, I point to those 2019 Presidential debates as the moment when there was no longer any daylight between the party and the online identitarian left
May or may not be true, but I think it's interesting to contrast that with republicans right now. However social issue centric we want to say democratic officials are, there's no denying that republicans have dove headfirst into that topic and devote damn near all of their messaging to it.
They will not shut up about trans people. Their messaging on immigration is heavily social issue based. Everything they hate is now "DEI" or "Woke" and they expend an enormous amount of energy on it. Christian identity politics are used constantly. Even stuff like their work against public education focuses on this messaging. I'd say a solid 90% of republican messaging is either explicitly about social issues or identity politics, or it's another topic focused through that lens instead.
We might want to consider that the issue isn't that we've gone too far on identity politics and instead that politics is now identity politics dominated. Our problems would then be (a) our messaging on it is more difficult to make due to being a big-tent party, and (b) our messaging becomes half-hearted as we abandon it and attempt to get back to economic topics — hurting us rather than helping us.
When republicans embrace an issue to mainstream voters and we only embrace it to the base in primaries, normal people are only going to hear one side of the debate and will tend to agree with that side by default.
Well I think we (and parties of the left generally) have to accept the political reality that when it comes to fomenting social and cultural change, the backlash is almost always gonna be larger than the movement. Pushing for social change is more often than not the right thing to do but it's gonna be rocket fuel for the opposition seeking to exploit the majority's inherent cultural conservatism, which is why conservatives tend to win more elections than liberals not just in the U.S. but around the world.
The conservatives "not shutting up about trans people, DEI, and woke" was always baked into the cake and it doesn't seem like Democrats are ever fully prepared for that when it comes time for people to vote.
I broadly agree (or I want to agree?) but I'm not seeing that reflected in voting behavior. Republicans are the ones pushing for change right now, trying to go backwards on most social rights and general level of societal acceptance. If they're paying a price for it I'm not seeing it.
Though, that gives great insight into how we should be making a case on these topics. Assign republicans as the ones trying to upturn the state of society, and democrats as the protectors of the status quo.
I think this is a pretty complex issue. I'd argue that a lot of the reactionary fervor demonstrated last November came from a lot of the rhetoric circa 2019-2022-ish, if not policy, definitely being way beyond what most people were comfortable with re: gender, criminal justice, Israel etc.
A lot of the activist base, which doesn't necessarily correlate with the voter base, circa 2021 was WAY to the left of where they were in the Obama years, let alone during Bush, especially on culture issues.
I'm not so sure. Voters by and large didn't even include the far more recent 2022 Dobbs abortion ruling in their calculus.
Why would they have included the less recent 2019-2021 time frame in their thinking, especially when so much of that time period in particular has been wiped out by Covid's impact on society's collective memory?
Edit: To clarify, I am not disputing that parts of the rhetoric from base democrats has been further to the left than the general populace is comfortable with. Nor am I disputing that this could have hurt us. I am disputing that rhetoric up to five years in the past was able to do that. All while the far more recent and at least equally far-from-center — and far louder — rhetoric from republicans was not able to do so.
It wasn't openly advocating those views (outside of fringe House reps) but falure to push back on the activist "groups" who hold disproportionate sway over party politics and platforms. Dems get hit by with guilt by association way worse than Republicans do . . and that's just the breaks.
Sounds like a no-win situation. Any type of pushback would have both alienated parts of the base, and the reps would change their message to "look how the dem party censors its own voters!".
I think a lot of Dem pols vastly over-estimate how much voter pull a lot of these groups have, especially outside of deep blue districts. Look at how the Justice Democrat/DSA "take over the apparatus from the inside" strategy, after a handful of wins in 2018, just completely petered out.
Yes, I have noticed. Some commenters above seem to give the impression that this is a recent development. In my opinion, Democrats started drifting away from giving economic issues prime prominence decades ago.
Correct. Democrats' overarching message should be that billionaires and CEOs have too much power in this country, and that there needs to be a fundamental shift in power away from billionaires and CEOs and towards normal everyday working people like us.
Someone here mentioned just after the election that Republicans had effectively positioned themselves as being opposed to a small, unpopular segment of American society - in their case, elitists and the "woke mob". Democrats need to do the same, but the small, unpopular segment that we should position ourselves against is billionaires and CEOs.
There's plenty of room for opportunities on economic issues.
Regular layoffs that have been going on for the last several years (including this year) from companies like Google and Salesforce after the pandemic are examples of such. Democrats should be fighting hard to be on the side of white collar workers who are being displaced and want to have job stability in their lives instead of having to deal with layoffs all the time.
This is an example of why billionaires, CEOs and corporations have too much power.
This weekend there were two elections:
ECUADOR: election ends in a tie – will require a second round.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4mnznmwlvo
KOSOVO: PM Albin Kurti's party is leading the count. It will, however, fall short of a majority and thus be compelled to form a coalition government.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c23ny33jlmjo
Meanwhile, the BBC has an article noting the same trend in Germany as the USA saw last November: "Why more young men in Germany are turning to the far right"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy082dn7rkqo
imo it's not all racism; Trump increased his votes in black men and Hispanic men
Agreed. I suspect a lot of the young male support for right-wing politicians, including Trump, is due to economic pessimism and hopelessness, anger, and the perceived threat to familiar gender roles.
Imho, the Left everywhere lost a lot of support when it shifted too much focus away from economics to identity politics. A fundamental mistake!
Did they really make that shift, though?
Whether it was the party or the donor class at the tip of the spear of the shift, the party got tagged with it and it stuck. Once again, I point to those 2019 Presidential debates as the moment when there was no longer any daylight between the party and the online identitarian left
May or may not be true, but I think it's interesting to contrast that with republicans right now. However social issue centric we want to say democratic officials are, there's no denying that republicans have dove headfirst into that topic and devote damn near all of their messaging to it.
They will not shut up about trans people. Their messaging on immigration is heavily social issue based. Everything they hate is now "DEI" or "Woke" and they expend an enormous amount of energy on it. Christian identity politics are used constantly. Even stuff like their work against public education focuses on this messaging. I'd say a solid 90% of republican messaging is either explicitly about social issues or identity politics, or it's another topic focused through that lens instead.
We might want to consider that the issue isn't that we've gone too far on identity politics and instead that politics is now identity politics dominated. Our problems would then be (a) our messaging on it is more difficult to make due to being a big-tent party, and (b) our messaging becomes half-hearted as we abandon it and attempt to get back to economic topics — hurting us rather than helping us.
When republicans embrace an issue to mainstream voters and we only embrace it to the base in primaries, normal people are only going to hear one side of the debate and will tend to agree with that side by default.
Well I think we (and parties of the left generally) have to accept the political reality that when it comes to fomenting social and cultural change, the backlash is almost always gonna be larger than the movement. Pushing for social change is more often than not the right thing to do but it's gonna be rocket fuel for the opposition seeking to exploit the majority's inherent cultural conservatism, which is why conservatives tend to win more elections than liberals not just in the U.S. but around the world.
The conservatives "not shutting up about trans people, DEI, and woke" was always baked into the cake and it doesn't seem like Democrats are ever fully prepared for that when it comes time for people to vote.
I broadly agree (or I want to agree?) but I'm not seeing that reflected in voting behavior. Republicans are the ones pushing for change right now, trying to go backwards on most social rights and general level of societal acceptance. If they're paying a price for it I'm not seeing it.
Though, that gives great insight into how we should be making a case on these topics. Assign republicans as the ones trying to upturn the state of society, and democrats as the protectors of the status quo.
I think this is a pretty complex issue. I'd argue that a lot of the reactionary fervor demonstrated last November came from a lot of the rhetoric circa 2019-2022-ish, if not policy, definitely being way beyond what most people were comfortable with re: gender, criminal justice, Israel etc.
A lot of the activist base, which doesn't necessarily correlate with the voter base, circa 2021 was WAY to the left of where they were in the Obama years, let alone during Bush, especially on culture issues.
I'm not so sure. Voters by and large didn't even include the far more recent 2022 Dobbs abortion ruling in their calculus.
Why would they have included the less recent 2019-2021 time frame in their thinking, especially when so much of that time period in particular has been wiped out by Covid's impact on society's collective memory?
Edit: To clarify, I am not disputing that parts of the rhetoric from base democrats has been further to the left than the general populace is comfortable with. Nor am I disputing that this could have hurt us. I am disputing that rhetoric up to five years in the past was able to do that. All while the far more recent and at least equally far-from-center — and far louder — rhetoric from republicans was not able to do so.
Yes but the larger issue is that Democrats don't fight hard enough and moderate the rhetoric that comes from the crazy left side of the base.
I also don't think the U.S. is as conservative as it used to be. However, that doesn't mean the such forces don't have control over the narrative.
It wasn't openly advocating those views (outside of fringe House reps) but falure to push back on the activist "groups" who hold disproportionate sway over party politics and platforms. Dems get hit by with guilt by association way worse than Republicans do . . and that's just the breaks.
Sounds like a no-win situation. Any type of pushback would have both alienated parts of the base, and the reps would change their message to "look how the dem party censors its own voters!".
I think a lot of Dem pols vastly over-estimate how much voter pull a lot of these groups have, especially outside of deep blue districts. Look at how the Justice Democrat/DSA "take over the apparatus from the inside" strategy, after a handful of wins in 2018, just completely petered out.
The Trump government has been playing up identity politics constantly with their attacks on DEI. Will see if there is any backlash.
I think we are overestimating how motivated young or any men are by preservation of the social safety net.
I suspect a very high percentage of them are on their parents' health care plan....and would discover that quickly if Obamacare was repealed.
Mark here has been commenting on this for a very long time; so have I by the way
Yes, I have noticed. Some commenters above seem to give the impression that this is a recent development. In my opinion, Democrats started drifting away from giving economic issues prime prominence decades ago.
That has to stop. Democrats need to start showing their spine again.
Correct. Democrats' overarching message should be that billionaires and CEOs have too much power in this country, and that there needs to be a fundamental shift in power away from billionaires and CEOs and towards normal everyday working people like us.
Someone here mentioned just after the election that Republicans had effectively positioned themselves as being opposed to a small, unpopular segment of American society - in their case, elitists and the "woke mob". Democrats need to do the same, but the small, unpopular segment that we should position ourselves against is billionaires and CEOs.
There's plenty of room for opportunities on economic issues.
Regular layoffs that have been going on for the last several years (including this year) from companies like Google and Salesforce after the pandemic are examples of such. Democrats should be fighting hard to be on the side of white collar workers who are being displaced and want to have job stability in their lives instead of having to deal with layoffs all the time.
This is an example of why billionaires, CEOs and corporations have too much power.
Though they can still be xenophobic, and certainly sexist.