Why identity politics benefits the right more than the left

[Civil War Man]

Some of the biggest wins from the "progressive" elements in elections was when they were able to bridge the divide and capture a wide spectrum of the American voting public.

Attracting a wide spectrum of the voting public is a completely different beast than the argument that Democrats should stay away from identity politics, which has long been code for "cater specifically to conservative white men."

And how many people are actually prepared to do this? Because talk is cheap. I highly doubt any progressive is able to tear down the system by 2020.

Because they, along with me, think they can win elections without having to forsake their principles in pursuit of power.

Has the democrats moved to the right or have they always been quite centre-right? Actual progressives have always been a small minority in the US.

Except for, you know, when they had enough political power to get us the 8-hour work day, minimum wage laws, worker's compensation, women's suffrage, direct election of senators, and Social Security. At their peak as an independent third party, they were about 27% of the electorate. Not enough to win an election by themselves, but as Taft found out in 1912, also big enough to ensure that the major party that more closely aligned with them could also not win without their support (and, in that particular case, were actually more numerous than the major party that more closely aligned with them). Conservative interests have been able to marginalize progressive for a while, but don't mistake that for them being a tiny minority. A lot of people who do not otherwise consider themselves progressive would be singing a different tune once you threaten to take away things that were won by the blood, sweat, and tears of progressives. But apparently Democrats are supposed to bend over backwards to appease the Trumpists but should ignore the progressives.

Should the Democrats compromise? Morally speaking, that's a firm no. But at some point, we have to recognise there is an actual need to win back the swing votes that went for Trump. Tell me, how exactly are you going to win back the presidency in the next election?

None of your points so far have actually addressed the issue. How are you going to win elections as a progressive? If appealing to people's morality is not going to convince a significant portion of the electorate and swing votes, how are you going to win an election?

Put it this way. The whole election system in the US is set against progressives. The Guardian article suggests how society behaves is something that is set against progressives as well. A progressive will start with far more disadvantages than a conservative in a place like the US. The rulebook is set in favour of the conservatives.

Anyone who continues to stand by Trump at this point cannot be swayed by concessions or reasonable arguments. Any Trump voter with legitimate buyer's remorse is already part of the resistance. Democrats could sell out every single principle they have, and turn themselves into a carbon copy of the Republicans, and they'd still lose because the cultists won't vote for anyone with a D after their name.

Democrats can't win elections by selling out their base. They win by going the extra mile to make sure the people who already support them can vote and do vote. They have to get people who otherwise wouldn't vote due to apathy or voter obstruction to, to quote Ted Cruz, be willing to crawl over broken glass to get to the polls.

If society as a whole, or those that do form the electorate moved further to the right and begins to tolerate all those policies implemented by Trump and the Republicans, what are you going to do about it?

At that point, we go back to the "burn it down and hope something better replaces it" alternative, because at that point the United States, no matter what it claims to be, is a fascist oligarchy that openly supports, advocates, and commits crimes against humanity, which makes it an existential threat to global stability and the future survival of the human race.

However, there is much more evidence that points to the fact that the general population does not support those policies. It's simply a matter of making their voices loud enough to overcomes the obstacles that have been put in their way.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't buy that. We'll lose far more support than we'll gain doing that, and more importantly, it wouldn't fucking matter: we would already have conceded our most fundamental values in advance. This argument is essentially saying "You need to surrender to avoid being defeated." And the Left has done too much surrendering already.

So: I'm opposed to identity politics in the sense of viewing certain races/genders/etc. collectively as the enemy, or pitting one group against another. However, we need to be able to keep talking about the very real injustices confronted by women and minorities, and keep working to address them, without being afraid of a political backlash for doing so.

As much it would make sense from our POV, the article is suggesting our methods will simply not have the change we are hoping for.

So what do you propose? I'm honestly asking? Do you think that we should stop talking about those issues, pretend that racism and sexism and xenophobia and so forth are no longer problems when in fact they are bigger problems than they have been in decades(which implicitly plays into the Alt. Reich narrative that they are just something made up by "SJWs" to persecute the real victims, ie white men)? Do we stop trying to redress injustice because it might further fire up the angry white male conservative base if we do?

Again, that seems to me like saying "We need to surrender to avoid being beaten." If its true, then it doesn't matter what we do- fascism has won. So we might as well go down swinging, and at least stand for something. Personally, though, I'm not that cynical. I think what we're seeing now is a backlash by an angry minority against trends which even Trump and Putin will find very hard to permanently reverse, not an ultimate repudiation of progressive views on race and gender.

[ray245]

I dont live in the US, so it doesn't impact me as much directly. At least until the US demands Canada become a puppet state like the Nazi puppet states in WW2.

If this were happening in my country atm, I would certainly resist it for as long as possible via all legal means, and hope that's enough. Get out there and vote, get others to do so. Have hope that there's enough sane people left to put a stop to this before there is a full repeat of 1930s Germany.

If that fails, then the only alternatives are captitulate to facism, which would inevitably still end in disaster, or actively resist. Active resistance, while having a low chance of success, is still preferable to at best being a completely subservient slave class, or at worst being shoved into a concentration camp and/or killed, since I would be one of the targets.

I don't think it's quite reached the point of active resistance or complete capitulation yet in the USA but it will if moderates and Democrats throw in the towel on basic issues like the idea of a democratic republic and rule of law, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

The thing is there's already a significant voting bloc that has already gone down the rabbit hole. And if your election strategy is not about trying to chase the crucial swing votes back, are you (meaning Americans) really prepared to conduct active resistance?

Attracting a wide spectrum of the voting public is a completely different beast than the argument that Democrats should stay away from identity politics, which has long been code for "cater specifically to conservative white men."

We still need to acknowledge they are still a powerful voting bloc that have control over the various swing states in the US.

Because they, along with me, think they can win elections without having to forsake their principles in pursuit of power.

Again, how? How are you going to recapture the lost states?

Except for, you know, when they had enough political power to get us the 8-hour work day, minimum wage laws, worker's compensation, women's suffrage, direct election of senators, and Social Security. At their peak as an independent third party, they were about 27% of the electorate. Not enough to win an election by themselves, but as Taft found out in 1912, also big enough to ensure that the major party that more closely aligned with them could also not win without their support (and, in that particular case, were actually more numerous than the major party that more closely aligned with them). Conservative interests have been able to marginalize progressive for a while, but don't mistake that for them being a tiny minority. A lot of people who do not otherwise consider themselves progressive would be singing a different tune once you threaten to take away things that were won by the blood, sweat, and tears of progressives. But apparently Democrats are supposed to bend over backwards to appease the Trumpists but should ignore the progressives.

The author of the article is suggesting that it's easier for people to turn into a Trumpists than a progressive. So if the Trumpists can grow far larger and faster than the progressives, what's your counter-solution to the problem?

Anyone who continues to stand by Trump at this point cannot be swayed by concessions or reasonable arguments. Any Trump voter with legitimate buyer's remorse is already part of the resistance. Democrats could sell out every single principle they have, and turn themselves into a carbon copy of the Republicans, and they'd still lose because the cultists won't vote for anyone with a D after their name.

Democrats can't win elections by selling out their base. They win by going the extra mile to make sure the people who already support them can vote and do vote. They have to get people who otherwise wouldn't vote due to apathy or voter obstruction to, to quote Ted Cruz, be willing to crawl over broken glass to get to the polls.

The question is how many of the Trump voters actually have a legitimate buyer's remorse? Because from what you're suggesting, these are the people too far gone to win back in an election.

At that point, we go back to the "burn it down and hope something better replaces it" alternative, because at that point the United States, no matter what it claims to be, is a fascist oligarchy that openly supports, advocates, and commits crimes against humanity, which makes it an existential threat to global stability and the future survival of the human race.

However, there is much more evidence that points to the fact that the general population does not support those policies. It's simply a matter of making their voices loud enough to overcomes the obstacles that have been put in their way.

Whether the general population condones these policies is far less important than whether the electorate supports or turn a blind eye to such policies. The presidential election is not decided by the popular vote. It is decided by a system that grants rural areas a voice that is far bigger than what the population may suggest. It is decided by several core swing states that had voted for Trump and bought into his rhetoric. It was decided in 2016 by people that don't mind or fear what Trump and the Republicans will do once they are in power.

I'm asking you whether your approach actually recapture those states? How is "attracting a wide spectrum of the voting public" able to recapture those swing states that had gone to Trump?

So what do you propose? I'm honestly asking? Do you think that we should stop talking about those issues, pretend that racism and sexism and xenophobia and so forth are no longer problems when in fact they are bigger problems than they have been in decades(which implicitly plays into the Alt. Reich narrative that they are just something made up by "SJWs" to persecute the real victims, ie white men)? Do we stop trying to redress injustice because it might further fire up the angry white male conservative base if we do?

Again, that seems to me like saying "We need to surrender to avoid being beaten." If its true, then it doesn't matter what we do- fascism has won. So we might as well go down swinging, and at least stand for something. Personally, though, I'm not that cynical. I think what we're seeing now is a backlash by an angry minority against trends which even Trump and Putin will find very hard to permanently reverse, not an ultimate repudiation of progressive views on race and gender.

I'm saying win the election first, then build a coalition strong enough that will actually weaken the conservative hold on the US politics over the course of time through election system and constitutional reform. I disagreed with the idea that people will become more progressive over the course of time/generations. If anything, Trump and co are trying to entrench their ideas onto the next generation.

I'm not opposed to talking about those issues as a key part of the progressive strategy to win back the White House and the other houses of government. I am interested in knowing whether talking about those issues would actually translate into electoral victory.

The question I am confronted with is this: What if doing the morally right thing to do is the very thing that's keeping the progressive out from power?

[The Romulan Republic]

So what do you propose? I'm honestly asking? Do you think that we should stop talking about those issues, pretend that racism and sexism and xenophobia and so forth are no longer problems when in fact they are bigger problems than they have been in decades(which implicitly plays into the Alt. Reich narrative that they are just something made up by "SJWs" to persecute the real victims, ie white men)? Do we stop trying to redress injustice because it might further fire up the angry white male conservative base if we do?

Again, that seems to me like saying "We need to surrender to avoid being beaten." If its true, then it doesn't matter what we do- fascism has won. So we might as well go down swinging, and at least stand for something. Personally, though, I'm not that cynical. I think what we're seeing now is a backlash by an angry minority against trends which even Trump and Putin will find very hard to permanently reverse, not an ultimate repudiation of progressive views on race and gender.

I'm saying win the election first, then build a coalition strong enough that will actually weaken the conservative hold on the US politics over the course of time through election system and constitutional reform. I disagreed with the idea that people will become more progressive over the course of time/generations. If anything, Trump and co are trying to entrench their ideas onto the next generation.

I'm not opposed to talking about those issues as a key part of the progressive strategy to win back the White House and the other houses of government. I am interested in knowing whether talking about those issues would actually translate into electoral victory.

The question I am confronted with is this: What if doing the morally right thing to do is the very thing that's keeping the progressive out from power?

I agree: win the election first. The question is, how do we best do that? By doing what the Democratic leadership has often done in the past, and responding to defeat by running toward the Centre Right? Or by adopting strong and unapologetic progressive positions on a range of issues (including both "identity politics"/social justice and economic justice)?

Personally, I think that we are unlikely to win over a lot of people from the Right at this point. It might make a difference in how many Centrists stay home, but Centrists seem to be increasingly rare in our political system these days, and anyone who is still actively supporting Trump after children in cages is someone we are not going to win over, and frankly not someone who I want to try to appeal to. We are never going to be better and appealing to those people than the Republicans, and the only way we ever could be is by selling our souls.

This election, and likely 2020, is going to be won or lost on turning out the base, more than anything else. That's traditionally been hard for Democrats, especially in midterms, in part because we are widely perceived as not actually standing FOR anything (this was certainly a problem for Hillary Clinton in particular). Whereas the Democrats' most shocking success since 2016, the defeat of Roy Moore in Alabama, was accomplished largely through high turnout by African Americans, particularly African American women (or look at the shocking primary upset in New York by Ocasio-Cortez, a Lantina woman campaigning on shutting down ICE, or any number of other examples).

So you tell me which is more likely to hurt us more: Adopting strong progressive positions that make Centre Right voters uneasy? Or abandoning those positions, and the very legitimate concerns of a large portion of our base, in exchange for trying to compromise with the Right again?

It seems to me like you are suggesting that the Democrats should just keep repeating a mistake for which we have already paid a very steep price.

[ray245]

I agree: win the election first. The question is, how do we best do that? By doing what the Democratic leadership has often done in the past, and responding to defeat by running toward the Centre Right? Or by adopting strong and unapologetic progressive positions on a range of issues (including both "identity politics"/social justice and economic justice)?

Personally, I think that we are unlikely to win over a lot of people from the Right at this point. It might make a difference in how many Centrists stay home, but Centrists seem to be increasingly rare in our political system these days, and anyone who is still actively supporting Trump after children in cages is someone we are not going to win over, and frankly not someone who I want to try to appeal to. We are never going to be better and appealing to those people than the Republicans, and the only way we ever could be is by selling our souls.

As the article suggests, the centrists might actually turn further right and jump down the rabbit-hole. And it's those "centrists" that controls the crucial swing states.

This election, and likely 2020, is going to be won or lost on turning out the base, more than anything else. That's traditionally been hard for Democrats, especially in midterms, in part because we are widely perceived as not actually standing FOR anything (this was certainly a problem for Hillary Clinton in particular). Whereas the Democrats' most shocking success since 2016, the defeat of Roy Moore in Alabama, was accomplished largely through high turnout by African Americans, particularly African American women (or look at the shocking primary upset in New York by Ocasio-Cortez, a Lantina woman campaigning on shutting down ICE, or any number of other examples).

So you tell me which is more likely to hurt us more: Adopting strong progressive positions that make Centre Right voters uneasy? Or abandoning those positions, and the very legitimate concerns of a large portion of our base, in exchange for trying to compromise with the Right again?

It seems to me like you are suggesting that the Democrats should just keep repeating a mistake for which we have already paid a very steep price.

That will work if the American election system is actually decided by the popular vote and not via the electoral colleges. The question is whether the progressive can better mobilise their core progressive and minority bases than the Republicans could convince the "center-right" to continue supporting Trump out of fear of the progressive.

[Zaune]

I'm saying win the election first, then build a coalition strong enough that will actually weaken the conservative hold on the US politics over the course of time through election system and constitutional reform. I disagreed with the idea that people will become more progressive over the course of time/generations. If anything, Trump and co are trying to entrench their ideas onto the next generation.

And how the fuck are progressive Americans supposed to do that if they've tossed out any part of their agenda that is actually progressive for the sake of power? All the people they would be abandoning to suffer every form of discrimination and bigotry short of extermination with Zyklon-B with nothing but a hollow promise of their legal rights and freedoms "eventually, when everyone's got used to the idea" would not be terribly interested in cooperating, to put it mildly.

I'm not opposed to talking about those issues as a key part of the progressive strategy to win back the White House and the other houses of government. I am interested in knowing whether talking about those issues would actually translate into electoral victory.

The question I am confronted with is this: What if doing the morally right thing to do is the very thing that's keeping the progressive out from power?

Then they might as well resort to a completely different set of morally wrong tactics and go with the "burn it all down and hope whatever comes afterwards is less of a dumpster fire" option, because if American society has reached the point that racism and homophobia are so culturally ingrained in a majority of the population that they might as well be genetic then it's not worth trying to salvage anything.

[The Romulan Republic]

As the article suggests, the centrists might actually turn further right and jump down the rabbit-hole. And it's those "centrists" that controls the crucial swing states.

I think at this point you're simply repeating your assertions- namely, the assumption that Centrists hold the power in all elections and that victory depends on always playing to the Centre (which in America means the Centre Right).

This ignores both the specific examples that I cited (Clinton 2016, Ocasio-Cortez, Roy Moore*), and the fact that the Right in America has made an art form of forever pushing the "centre" further and further Right-ward.

I mean, the "centre" on immigration now is what? "We won't separate children from their parents and lock them in cages, we'll just put them in indefinite detention together."? Not a lot of middle ground when we've gotten to the point of putting children in cages for the crime of being foreign and brown.

You are essentially repeating the assumptions that have caused the Democratic Party to alienate progressives to the extent that a little-known socialist from Vermont nearly took the nomination from Hillary Clinton.

That will work if the American election system is actually decided by the popular vote and not via the electoral colleges. The question is whether the progressive can better mobilise their core progressive and minority bases than the Republicans could convince the "center-right" to continue supporting Trump out of fear of the progressive.

I repeat: Anyone who is still willing to vote Trump is either completely ignorant of the issues to a genuinely frightening degree, or is a committed follow of the Cult of Trump and is probably never going to be won over. I am not interested in trying to appeal to the wishes of people who are okay with locking children in cages for being brown and foreign.

As to your argument about our election system, while I do favor a national popular vote system, it is also possible to win under the current system by turning out the base. Hell, that's pretty much exactly what Republicans did in the 2010 midterms, and they basically hobbled the Obama administration for the rest of his Presidency as a result.

*And yes, I'm aware that Roy Moore's opponent was a fairly Right-wing Democrat. At the same time, he could not have won without strong turn out from female and minority voters who the Democratic Party cannot afford to throw under the bus, even leaving the morality of doing so out of the equation.

[ray245]

And how the fuck are progressive Americans supposed to do that if they've tossed out any part of their agenda that is actually progressive for the sake of power? All the people they would be abandoning to suffer every form of discrimination and bigotry short of extermination with Zyklon-B with nothing but a hollow promise of their legal rights and freedoms "eventually, when everyone's got used to the idea" would not be terribly interested in cooperating, to put it mildly.

And the people would suffer even more, with people like Trump in power.

Then they might as well resort to a completely different set of morally wrong tactics and go with the "burn it all down and hope whatever comes afterwards is less of a dumpster fire" option, because if American society has reached the point that racism and homophobia are so culturally ingrained in a majority of the population that they might as well be genetic then it's not worth trying to salvage anything.

And are they prepared to do so?

I think at this point you're simply repeating your assertions- namely, the assumption that Centrists hold the power in all elections and that victory depends on always playing to the Centre (which in America means the Centre Right).

This ignores both the specific examples that I cited (Clinton 2016, Ocasio-Cortez, Roy Moore*), and the fact that the Right in America has made an art form of forever pushing the "centre" further and further Right-ward.

I mean, the "centre" on immigration now is what? "We won't separate children from their parents and lock them in cages, we'll just put them in indefinite detention together."? Not a lot of middle ground when we've gotten to the point of putting children in cages for the crime of being foreign and brown.

You are essentially repeating the assumptions that have caused the Democratic Party to alienate progressives to the extent that a little-known socialist from Vermont nearly took the nomination from Hillary Clinton.

It's easier to push the "centre" further and further right than it is to push to the "centre" further left (that seems to be what the article is saying). Yes , Roy Moore lost his seat in Alabama. Does that mean Alabama will flip and become a Democrat state in the next election? Ocasio-Cortez won a seat in New York, a state that's always been leaning very strongly for Democrats when it comes to nationwide elections.

It's states like Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Florida and etc that the Democrats needs to win back. How will your strategy actually be able to win back those states?

I repeat: Anyone who is still willing to vote Trump is either completely ignorant of the issues to a genuinely frightening degree, or is a committed follow of the Cult of Trump and is probably never going to be won over. I am not interested in trying to appeal to the wishes of people who are okay with locking children in cages for being brown and foreign.

Even if they form the crucial swing votes that will guarantee a Republican victory?

As to your argument about our election system, while I do favor a national popular vote system, it is also possible to win under the current system by turning out the base. Hell, that's pretty much exactly what Republicans did in the 2010 midterms, and they basically hobbled the Obama administration for the rest of his Presidency as a result.

*And yes, I'm aware that Roy Moore's opponent was a fairly Right-wing Democrat. At the same time, he could not have won without strong turn out from female and minority voters who the Democratic Party cannot afford to throw under the bus, even leaving the morality of doing so out of the equation.

The thing is female and minority voters alone arent' enough. You still need votes from the traditional, white majority. Or right-wing Democrats as you put it.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's easier to push the "centre" further and further right than it is to push to the "centre" further left (that seems to be what the article is saying). Yes , Roy Moore lost his seat in Alabama. Does that mean Alabama will flip and become a Democrat state in the next election?

Probably not. Roy Moore was an exceptionally awful candidate even by Republican standards. But it does show that strong turnout and a broad coalition including strong turnout from women and minorities can win in even the reddest of red states.

Ocasio-Cortez won a seat in New York, a state that's always been leaning very strongly for Democrats when it comes to nationwide elections.

It's states like Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Florida and etc that the Democrats needs to win back. How will your strategy actually be able to win back those states?

I'm a Colorado voter. Colorado is closely-split between Left and Right (trending blue by a slight margin). But a lot of the blue voters in Colorado are very progressive. Colorado was one of the first states to legalize marijuana, and the current Democratic candidate for governor is a supporter of single-payer and if elected will be the country's first openly gay governor.

So that'll be an interesting test case.

Even if they form the crucial swing votes that will guarantee a Republican victory?

Yes.

To win over people who are cool with locking children in cages, we would have to basically become Trumpers. And even then, they'd be better at it than us, because they have more practice being amoral, hateful fuckers.

Mind you, its largely a theoretical question in my opinion, because people who are still backing Trump after he locked children in cages generally aren't swing voters, and trying to win them over is a fool's errand.

But tell me: if the only way to "win" is to become collaborators, then what is the fucking point? Why not just vote for Trump/Republicans, and at least be honest about what you're doing? Keep in mind that "They're no different from the Republicans, they don't actually stand for anything" is one of the most common and damaging attacks on Democrats? Are you really saying that we should go out of our way to live down to the stereotype?

The thing is female and minority voters alone arent' enough. You still need votes from the traditional, white majority. Or right-wing Democrats as you put it.

Actually, female and minority voters are enough if you turn them out in large enough numbers, at least in many parts of the country. But I'm not saying the Democrats shouldn't try to appeal to white men- I'm saying they shouldn't try to appeal to Right-wing bigots. The two are not synonymous: there are progressive white men in America, even if they're a distinct minority. Combine them with female and minority voters who support the Dems., and enthusiastic turnout, and we have a winning coalition without needing to sell our souls.

Edits: Certainly, this seems a more viable coalition than alienating minority and female voters, and progressives of all races and genders (ie, the vast majority of Democratic voters) in exchange for the possibility of winning over a couple percentage points of moderately bigoted conservative white voters. In addition to not being a morally-bankrupt betrayal of our principles and supporters.

[ray245]

Probably not. Roy Moore was an exceptionally awful candidate even by Republican standards. But it does show that strong turnout and a broad coalition including strong turnout from women and minorities can win in even the reddest of red states.

That does not necessarily mean it will be enough to flip key states in 2020.

I'm a Colorado voter. Colorado is closely-split between Left and Right (trending blue by a slight margin). But a lot of the blue voters in Colorado are very progressive. Colorado was one of the first states to legalize marijuana, and the current Democratic candidate for governor is a supporter of single-payer and if elected will be the country's first openly gay governor.

So that'll be an interesting test case.

Colorado is also a state that remained Democrat and did not vote for Trump. Those other states did.

Yes.

To win over people who are cool with locking children in cages, we would have to basically become Trumpers. And even then, they'd be better at it than us, because they have more practice being amoral, hateful fuckers.

Mind you, its largely a theoretical question in my opinion, because people who are still backing Trump after he locked children in cages generally aren't swing voters, and trying to win them over is a fool's errand.

But tell me: if the only way to "win" is to become collaborators, then what is the fucking point? Why not just vote for Trump/Republicans, and at least be honest about what you're doing? Keep in mind that "They're no different from the Republicans, they don't actually stand for anything" is one of the most common and damaging attacks on Democrats? Are you really saying that we should go out of our way to live down to the stereotype?

Would the damage be even greater if Republicans and Trump hold onto power?

Actually, female and minority voters are enough if you turn them out in large enough numbers, at least in many parts of the country. But I'm not saying the Democrats shouldn't try to appeal to white men- I'm saying they shouldn't try to appeal to Right-wing bigots. The two are not synonymous: there are progressive white men in America, even if they're a distinct minority. Combine them with female and minority voters who support the Dems., and enthusiastic turnout, and we have a winning coalition without needing to sell our souls.

Edits: Certainly, this seems a more viable coalition than alienating minority and female voters, and progressives of all races and genders (ie, the vast majority of Democratic voters) in exchange for the possibility of winning over a couple percentage points of moderately bigoted conservative white voters. In addition to not being a morally-bankrupt betrayal of our principles and supporters.

As the article is implying, it's easier to convince a white man to be a right-wing bigot than it is to convince them to support the progressive cause. And the fear of a progressive ( or what people called it identity politics) take over is enough to push more people into the right-wing arms. The Republicans and the far-right aren't going to take it lying down as well. They are and will try to recruit more people to their side over the next few years as well.

Edit: There is also whether this voting bloc can remain consistently reliable to turn up in every elections. The strength of the far-right is they are extremely consistent and reliable when it comes to turning up for elections.

[The Romulan Republic]

That does not necessarily mean it will be enough to flip key states in 2020.

This is starting to become a broken record.

What makes you believe that the Democrats (who are frequently attacked for supposedly lacking spine or principles) will gain more votes from pandering to people who support locking children in cages than they will lose by alienating their base? Please provide specific arguments.

Also, why do you believe that support for social justice was the likely cause of Democratic defeat, as opposed to, for example, a divisive primary, an uncharismatic candidate with a truckload of personal baggage, or widespread foreign interference?

Colorado is also a state that remained Democrat and did not vote for Trump. Those other states did.

It is, nonetheless, a valid example of a swing state, and one that the Democrats need to hold onto.

Or take Virginia (another swing state that narrowly went blue last time), where the black vote will be absolutely essential to Democratic hopes. Hell, an argument can be made that Clinton lost key swing states partly because fewer black voters turned out for her than for Obama.

Would the damage be even greater if Republicans and Trump hold onto power?

Would the damage have been greater if Vichy France had fought on instead of collaborating with the Nazis?

As the article is implying, it's easier to convince a white man to be a right-wing bigot than it is to convince them to support the progressive cause.

That is an overgeneralization which simply ignores my points.

Also, you need to provide more specific arguments than just saying "the article says" over and over. Why is this one article (from a British paper) the final word on American politics?

And the fear of a progressive ( or what people called it identity politics) take over is enough to push more people into the right-wing arms.

Those people, by and large, already went to Trump in 2016, and any who stayed with him after children in cages are likely going to stay with him regardless of what the Democrats do. Because to them, the mere presence of women and minorities as participants in society is a threat to their existence, and that is what we'd have to surrender in order to win them over. Only we still wouldn't win them over, because they're already loyal to the Cult of Trump, and he's better at playing to their fears and hatred than we ever would be.

The Republicans and the far-right aren't going to take it lying down as well. They are and will try to recruit more people to their side over the next few years as well.

Edit: There is also whether this voting bloc can remain consistently reliable to turn up in every elections. The strength of the far-right is they are extremely consistent and reliable when it comes to turning up for elections.

Then it seems to me that the answer is not to sell our souls to try to win over people who tend to consistently vote Republican, but to work on building a mobilized base of our own that will reliably turn out. Which we will NOT do by selling out our principles, and our base.

Your proposed solution, in contrast, seems almost perfectly tailored to cost us what support we have, for little gains.

[Tribble]

The thing is there's already a significant voting bloc that has already gone down the rabbit hole. And if your election strategy is not about trying to chase the crucial swing votes back, are you (meaning Americans) really prepared to conduct active resistance?

As others have pointed out, a majority of the American population don't support things like locking children into cages, openly supressing voters, viewing their own agencies and their own press as bigger enemies than openly hostile foreign powers etc. So ya, it's quite possible that a lot of swing voters have / will decide that they have had enough of America's experiment with fascism and change sides accordingly.

Also, as others have already noted, the real key is getting the Democrat's support base out and voting as much as possible.

And given the choice between actively resisting or capitulating to an openly fascist party / government which is already locking up children in cages... yes, as a last resort (which I don't think they have reached yet) I really do think that Americans should be fully prepared to conduct active resistance up into and including moderate / progressive states leaving the union whether its legal or not (Republicans love to claim how the south separating from the US was a just cause for "states rights" anyways).

Because (and this is the point you seem to be forgetting)... fascist parties / governments do not to moderate their behaviour over time, they get get progressively worse in order to keep their supporters in a frenzy. And the longer you put off confronting them, the worse it will be for you in the long run, and the harder it will be for you to stop them. No one is safe while under a fascist government (ultimately not even their die-hard supporters, as they could be killed on the whim of the Fuhrer), so you might as well actively resist when you can still potentially make a difference. Again I don't think that point has been reached yet, but they are getting close.

You seem to be suggesting that the Democrats should adopt fascism in order to try and bring over some swing voters. That is a) absurd b) not likely to work, since real fascists already know who the true party is and c) even if it does work, that just means that you are now facing two fascist parties battling over who will be on top.

You know, your suggestions so far remind me of this:

First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

-Martin Niemöller

NO THANKS.

[ray245]

This is starting to become a broken record.

What makes you believe that the Democrats (who are frequently attacked for supposedly lacking spine or principles) will gain more votes from pandering to people who support locking children in cages than they will lose by alienating their base? Please provide specific arguments.

Whether they will gain more votes is debatable. What matters is whether they will gain the key votes to win an election.

Also, why do you believe that support for social justice was the likely cause of Democratic defeat, as opposed to, for example, a divisive primary, an uncharismatic candidate with a truckload of personal baggage, or widespread foreign interference?

There are certainly other reasons for losing the elections. The problem is with the rise of Trump, the Republican machine and the far-right is doing their utmost best to demonise social justice and making it a new bogeyman that will scare the voters in the swing states.

It is, nonetheless, a valid example of a swing state, and one that the Democrats need to hold onto.

It's not enough to hold onto existing states. You need to win back those states as well.

Or take Virginia (another swing state that narrowly went blue last time), where the black vote will be absolutely essential to Democratic hopes. Hell, an argument can be made that Clinton lost key swing states partly because fewer black voters turned out for her than for Obama.

But it's still a swing state that finds no problem with supporting Trump. The Republicans will try and lock down those states, and if identity politics helps them in that regard, they will play it up for maximum gain.

Would the damage have been greater if Vichy France had fought on instead of collaborating with the Nazis?

I wasn't aware that there's an all-out conflict in the US.

That is an overgeneralization which simply ignores my points.

Also, you need to provide more specific arguments than just saying "the article says" over and over. Why is this one article (from a British paper) the final word on American politics?

It's written by an American Professor of Political Science from Columbia University if you want to be precise. Have you actually read the article in question? The author suggests people are more psychologically inclined towards right-wing positions if they feel their social position is under threat. So the "moderates" can be pushed further right, and quite easily.

Those people, by and large, already went to Trump in 2016, and any who stayed with him after children in cages are likely going to stay with him regardless of what the Democrats do. Because to them, the mere presence of women and minorities as participants in society is a threat to their existence, and that is what we'd have to surrender in order to win them over. Only we still wouldn't win them over, because they're already loyal to the Cult of Trump, and he's better at playing to their fears and hatred than we ever would be.

This also means those who might support progressive policies might keep on shrinking.

Then it seems to me that the answer is not to sell our souls to try to win over people who tend to consistently vote Republican, but to work on building a mobilized base of our own that will reliably turn out. Which we will NOT do by selling out our principles, and our base.

Your proposed solution, in contrast, seems almost perfectly tailored to cost us what support we have, for little gains.

1. Can this base be established given the history of this base? ( Clinton's defeat and the Bernie-or-burst crowd suggest this is NOT a reliable base)
2. Would this base be enough to overturn the base that the Republican is consistently mobilizing?
3. Would the "moderate-Democrats" feel disenfranchised that they will simply sit out the elections?

[ray245]

As others have pointed out, a majority of the American population don't support things like locking children into cages, openly supressing voters, viewing their own agencies and their own press as bigger enemies than openly hostile foreign powers etc. So ya, it's quite possible that a lot of swing voters have / will decide that they have had enough of America's experiment with fascism and change sides accordingly.

Would they? Because if they can tolerate Trump even after all the campaign against him back in 2016, I believe a significant portion will continue to tolerate Trump if they continue to believe their social position is under threat from foreigners/minorities/women.

Also, as others have already noted, the real key is getting the Democrat's support base out and voting as much as possible.

There's a lot of talk about doing this. But there hasn't been much change that this would change. Put it this way, a lot of Republicans talked about refusing to vote for Trump prior to the actual election. In the end, those Republican still turned up anyway and voted for Trump. When the Democrats talked about not turning up for election, they really just stayed at home.

And given the choice between actively resisting or capitulating to an openly fascist party / government which is already locking up children in cages... yes, as a last resort (which I don't think they have reached yet) I really do think that Americans should be fully prepared to conduct active resistance up into and including moderate / progressive states leaving the union whether its legal or not (Republicans love to claim how the south separating from the US was a just cause for "states rights" anyways).

Because (and this is the point you seem to be forgetting)... fascist parties / governments do not to moderate their behaviour over time, they get get progressively worse in order to keep their supporters in a frenzy. And the longer you put off confronting them, the worse it will be for you in the long run, and the harder it will be for you to stop them. No one is safe while under a fascist government (ultimately not even their die-hard supporters, as they could be killed on the whim of the Fuhrer), so you might as well actively resist when you can still potentially make a difference. Again I don't think that point has been reached yet, but they are getting close.

You seem to be suggesting that the Democrats should adopt fascism in order to try and bring over some swing voters. That is a) absurd b) not likely to work, since real fascists already know who the true party is and c) even if it does work, that just means that you are now facing two fascist parties battling over who will be on top.

You know, your suggestions so far remind me of this:

NO THANKS.

There's a difference between giving up the fight and actually winning the election. Because winning the election means you are in power. You're the one with the executive and legislative powers over the country. Those two are not the same thing. You can't reform the political system in the US if you are out of power. Simply saying you're going to resist is not enough to change the actual system.

[Tribble]

Would they? Because if they can tolerate Trump even after all the campaign against him back in 2016, I believe a significant portion will continue to tolerate Trump if they continue to believe their social position is under threat from foreigners/minorities/women.

And your suggestion seems to be: Democrats shouldn't criticize Trump for throwing foreigners and their children into cages (all the while calling them animals and rapists), openly treating minorities / women with contempt and try to strip them of their rights, openly calling for the jailing of political opponents etc.... because maybe, just maybe that might make some vote Democrat this time? That's ridiculous.

There's a lot of talk about doing this. But there hasn't been much change that this would change. Put it this way, a lot of Republicans talked about refusing to vote for Trump prior to the actual election. In the end, those Republican still turned up anyway and voted for Trump. When the Democrats talked about not turning up for election, they really just stayed at home.

All the more reason why the focus should be on getting Democrats out to vote because if a significant chunk of them stayed away last time, they might make the difference this time. And as others have pointed out to you several times already... the most motivated Republicans are also hard-core Trump supporters, whom there is no real point in trying to change their minds anyways.

There's a difference between giving up the fight and actually winning the election.

Then perhaps I'm more optimistic as that I think it's still possible to win by campaigning on the ideals of a democratic republic and rule of law.

Because winning the election means you are in power. You're the one with the executive and legislative powers over the country. Those two are not the same thing. You can't reform the political system in the US if you are out of power. Simply saying you're going to resist is not enough to change the actual system.

You also can't reform the political system in the USA by becoming the very thing that you are trying to oppose! I still don't understand why you fail to see that. "We're fascists too, but Democrat ones!" isn't offering a solution, it's simply offering a name change.

[Tribble]

Also, bear in mind that there is a possibility that even if the Democrats end up taking back one or both houses this election (no matter how far they sink in order to do so), the Republicans may still refuse to recognize it as legitimate.

[ray245]

And your suggestion seems to be: Democrats shouldn't criticize Trump for throwing foreigners and their children into cages (all the while calling them animals and rapists), openly treating minorities / women with contempt and try to strip them of their rights, openly calling for the jailing of political opponents etc.... because maybe, just maybe that might make some vote Democrat this time? That's ridiculous.

I didn't say that. I'm saying building an election campaign around issues "that stresses differences and creates a sense of “zero-sum” competition between groups and instead emphasizing common values and interests" might not be the best strategy.

All the more reason why the focus should be on getting Democrats out to vote because if a significant chunk of them stayed away last time, they might make the difference this time. And as others have pointed out to you several times already... the most motivated Republicans are also hard-core Trump supporters, whom there is no real point in trying to change their minds anyways.

What about the "moderates" that became hardcore Trump supporters? That's the Republican strategy right now, which is to push those "moderates" and "swing voters" right into the heart of their base by playing up their fears.

Then perhaps I'm more optimistic as that I think it's still possible to win by campaigning on the ideals of a democratic republic and rule of law.

With the election of Trump, I'm not sure that's enough.

You also can't reform the political system in the USA by becoming the very thing that you are trying to oppose! I still don't understand why you fail to see that. "We're fascists too, but Democrat ones!" isn't offering a solution, it's simply offering a name change.

An election strategy that shifts the focus away from identity politics isn't necessarily the same as becoming the Republicans. It's called shifting the focus, not abandoning your beliefs/ideology.

You can create policies and reform the election system that better protects the minorities AFTER you gain political power and control over the various houses of the US government.

[Tribble]

I didn't say that. I'm saying building an election campaign around issues "that stresses differences and creates a sense of “zero-sum” competition between groups and instead emphasizing common values and interests" might not be the best strategy.

If the very notion of supporting a democratic republic via rule of law has now become "identity politics" and shouldn't be discussed, what common values and interests are you referring to exactly?

What about the "moderates" that became hardcore Trump supporters? That's the Republican strategy right now, which is to push those "moderates" and "swing voters" right into the heart of their base by playing up their fears.

As others have pointed out, the ones who have buyers remorse would have already left the party at this point. The ones who are left will continue voting Republican no matter what the Democrats do at this stage, even if the Democrats started claiming Trump was herald sent directly from heaven to make America Great Again.

With the election of Trump, I'm not sure that's enough.

If it's true that supporting a democratic republic and rule of law is doomed to failure, then the USA as it currently stands is already broken beyond repair and it's time to burn the whole thing down and hope something better can be built from the ashes. Unless of course you're fine living under an openly fascist government (I'm not as I would inevitably be one of their targets so I may as well go down fighting rather than wait to be tossed into a concentration camp).

An election strategy that shifts the focus away from identity politics isn't necessarily the same as becoming the Republicans. It's called shifting the focus, not abandoning your beliefs/ideology.

You can create policies and reform the election system that better protects the minorities AFTER you gain political power and control over the various houses of the US government.

Again, if even the very idea of supporting a democratic republic and rule of law is now part of identity politics and is thus taboo... what exactly is there for you to work with? In what way would the Democrats be any different than the Republicans if they openly abandon those concepts just to get elected?

What exactly can they focus on if even basics like "we support due process" is seen as too extreme and controversial to say openly because it will alienate "moderate" Republicans?

[Civil War Man]

Others have covered the rebuttals I would have had pretty well, so I won't waste space arguing them all again since I would just be dog-piling at that point. However, there were a couple parts that I felt need to be addressed.

An election strategy that shifts the focus away from identity politics isn't necessarily the same as becoming the Republicans. It's called shifting the focus, not abandoning your beliefs/ideology.

You can create policies and reform the election system that better protects the minorities AFTER you gain political power and control over the various houses of the US government.

If, as you appear to be claiming, the only way for Democrats to win is to avoid identity politics during the election so Republicans will vote for them, what makes you think they will be free to bring it all back by passing laws and reforms afterwards? If the only way to win is to get conservative whites on your side by pretending to not care about minorities, then it implies that the only way to stay in power is to keep appeasing them, otherwise those white conservatives go right back to the Republicans in the next election, you get thrown out of power, and all of the reforms you just passed get repealed or sabotaged into uselessness.

As the article is implying, it's easier to convince a white man to be a right-wing bigot than it is to convince them to support the progressive cause. And the fear of a progressive ( or what people called it identity politics) take over is enough to push more people into the right-wing arms. The Republicans and the far-right aren't going to take it lying down as well. They are and will try to recruit more people to their side over the next few years as well.

Edit: There is also whether this voting bloc can remain consistently reliable to turn up in every elections. The strength of the far-right is they are extremely consistent and reliable when it comes to turning up for elections.

This speaks to something I've heard referred to as the infantilization of the white man. There is this pervasive belief that white men are so fragile that they must constantly be appeased and catered to exclusively at the expense of everyone else, otherwise they will throw a temper tantrum. Trying to fault them for their abhorrent beliefs or behaviors is futile, because they are so immature and animalistic that you might as well argue with the tides. You can't say Black Lives Matter, because otherwise white men will support fascists. That white kid grabbed an AR-15 and shot 20 people at his school because a girl didn't want to sleep with him. He raped her because she dressed provocatively and he simply couldn't control his own impulses.

You almost never see this with anyone else. Women, black people, Latinos, Muslims, the LGBTQ community, etc, are not only held accountable for their own actions, they are often considered responsible for the actions of others, whether it's because a member of their group that they never met before did something bad (see people calling for American Muslims to take responsibility for all terrorism committed by Muslims), or because they failed to adequately appease a white man to calm their animalistic instincts (black men shot by cops, women raped by men, "gay panic", etc).

How does this tie into this whole argument? By claiming that Democrats must avoid identity politics during the election because it might trigger white men and make them vote for fascists out of spite. But the same concern is not given for the minorities whose concerns you are now failing to address. Their support is taken for granted, because it's assumed that they will continue supporting you because they are mature and understanding enough to know that you are better for them even while you are ignoring them to coddle the fragile egos of white men.

[Nicholas]

This thread so surprised and confused me I decided to delurk in order to comment on it.

It seems to me that you all are completely misunderstanding the originally posted article. The article doesn't say that the Left needs to change its goals or the policies it seeks to advance. The article says the Left needs to change the arguments it makes for those policies. As I understood the article it says that if the Left wants to win it needs to argue for its desired policies by emphasizing the fact that people are the same instead of the fact that people are different.

Since support for a democratic republic and the rule of law has been repeatedly mentioned let me use that as an example. What I believe the article is saying is not that the Left needs to compromise its support for those things in order to win elections in the US. It is saying that if the Left wants to win elections it needs to stop arguing for those things by saying that people are different so we need to have a democratic republic and the rule of law because only those will let the very different people who live in the US live together in peace. Instead the Left needs to argue that people are basically the same and therefor justice requires that they all be treated the same and therefor justice requires a democratic republic and the rule of law because no other system of government as effectively guarantees people equal treatment.

Nicholas

[Tribble]

This thread so surprised and confused me I decided to delurk in order to comment on it.

It seems to me that you all are completely misunderstanding the originally posted article. The article doesn't say that the Left needs to change its goals or the policies it seeks to advance. The article says the Left needs to change the arguments it makes for those policies. As I understood the article it says that if the Left wants to win it needs to argue for its desired policies by emphasizing the fact that people are the same instead of the fact that people are different.

Since support for a democratic republic and the rule of law has been repeatedly mentioned let me use that as an example. What I believe the article is saying is not that the Left needs to compromise its support for those things in order to win elections in the US. It is saying that if the Left wants to win elections it needs to stop arguing for those things by saying that people are different so we need to have a democratic republic and the rule of law because only those will let the very different people who live in the US live together in peace. Instead the Left needs to argue that people are basically the same and therefor justice requires that they all be treated the same and therefor justice requires a democratic republic and the rule of law because no other system of government as effectively guarantees people equal treatment.

Nicholas

Overall I agree with that sentiment and I agree that's how it should be run. However, IMO the idea that everyone is basically the same and deserves equal treatment is in itself a form of identity politics, since there is a large fraction of the US population which clearly does not share that view and in fact actively opposes it and everyone who supports it at every opportunity.

I have hope that the ladder is still in the minority though.

[ray245]

If the very notion of supporting a democratic republic via rule of law has now become "identity politics" and shouldn't be discussed, what common values and interests are you referring to exactly?

Concerns over Russian interference in American politics? Economic policies that affect the working class?

As others have pointed out, the ones who have buyers remorse would have already left the party at this point. The ones who are left will continue voting Republican no matter what the Democrats do at this stage, even if the Democrats started claiming Trump was herald sent directly from heaven to make America Great Again.

The point is how many of those voters had buyer remorse. If it's only a small minority, then you need to do something about it to make sure you have a chance of winning the next election.

If it's true that supporting a democratic republic and rule of law is doomed to failure, then the USA as it currently stands is already broken beyond repair and it's time to burn the whole thing down and hope something better can be built from the ashes. Unless of course you're fine living under an openly fascist government (I'm not as I would inevitably be one of their targets so I may as well go down fighting rather than wait to be tossed into a concentration camp).

Those ideas need to be actually cultivated and you can't do so from a position of resistance (unless you actually win).

Again, if even the very idea of supporting a democratic republic and rule of law is now part of identity politics and is thus taboo... what exactly is there for you to work with? In what way would the Democrats be any different than the Republicans if they openly abandon those concepts just to get elected?

What exactly can they focus on if even basics like "we support due process" is seen as too extreme and controversial to say openly because it will alienate "moderate" Republicans?

It's not that those ideas are now taboo. It's how you go about discussing them. You need to bring people onboard and make sure they believe those ideas are worth defending (because they see it as part of their culture). You need to make sure they embrace those ideas as part of their identity.

If you cannot do that, well, it will be quite difficult to win the next major elections. ( This is a country that did re-elect Bush).

Others have covered the rebuttals I would have had pretty well, so I won't waste space arguing them all again since I would just be dog-piling at that point. However, there were a couple parts that I felt need to be addressed.

If, as you appear to be claiming, the only way for Democrats to win is to avoid identity politics during the election so Republicans will vote for them, what makes you think they will be free to bring it all back by passing laws and reforms afterwards? If the only way to win is to get conservative whites on your side by pretending to not care about minorities, then it implies that the only way to stay in power is to keep appeasing them, otherwise those white conservatives go right back to the Republicans in the next election, you get thrown out of power, and all of the reforms you just passed get repealed or sabotaged into uselessness.

Incremental reforms. Or you do it when you realise you have the political capital to spare to push through such reform (aka having a supermajority in all the various houses of government).

Would playing up identity politics help to make those reform stick? I'm not entirely sure.

This speaks to something I've heard referred to as the infantilization of the white man. There is this pervasive belief that white men are so fragile that they must constantly be appeased and catered to exclusively at the expense of everyone else, otherwise they will throw a temper tantrum. Trying to fault them for their abhorrent beliefs or behaviors is futile, because they are so immature and animalistic that you might as well argue with the tides. You can't say Black Lives Matter, because otherwise white men will support fascists. That white kid grabbed an AR-15 and shot 20 people at his school because a girl didn't want to sleep with him. He raped her because she dressed provocatively and he simply couldn't control his own impulses.

You almost never see this with anyone else. Women, black people, Latinos, Muslims, the LGBTQ community, etc, are not only held accountable for their own actions, they are often considered responsible for the actions of others, whether it's because a member of their group that they never met before did something bad (see people calling for American Muslims to take responsibility for all terrorism committed by Muslims), or because they failed to adequately appease a white man to calm their animalistic instincts (black men shot by cops, women raped by men, "gay panic", etc).

How does this tie into this whole argument? By claiming that Democrats must avoid identity politics during the election because it might trigger white men and make them vote for fascists out of spite. But the same concern is not given for the minorities whose concerns you are now failing to address. Their support is taken for granted, because it's assumed that they will continue supporting you because they are mature and understanding enough to know that you are better for them even while you are ignoring them to coddle the fragile egos of white men.

We cannot ignore they are still the most powerful political group in the US. You need a strategy that will actually bring them over and agree with your views about black lives matter, gender rights and etc. As it stands, the demographics of the US population is still largely their domain. We've seen progressive success with the old strategy. LGBT rights have improved after a very long and exhausting fight, but it is a fight that did manage to bring many cissexual white men over to the cause ( or at the least no longer oppose it actively).

[ray245]

This thread so surprised and confused me I decided to delurk in order to comment on it.

It seems to me that you all are completely misunderstanding the originally posted article. The article doesn't say that the Left needs to change its goals or the policies it seeks to advance. The article says the Left needs to change the arguments it makes for those policies. As I understood the article it says that if the Left wants to win it needs to argue for its desired policies by emphasizing the fact that people are the same instead of the fact that people are different.

Since support for a democratic republic and the rule of law has been repeatedly mentioned let me use that as an example. What I believe the article is saying is not that the Left needs to compromise its support for those things in order to win elections in the US. It is saying that if the Left wants to win elections it needs to stop arguing for those things by saying that people are different so we need to have a democratic republic and the rule of law because only those will let the very different people who live in the US live together in peace. Instead the Left needs to argue that people are basically the same and therefor justice requires that they all be treated the same and therefor justice requires a democratic republic and the rule of law because no other system of government as effectively guarantees people equal treatment.

Nicholas

Thank you. Because I find it quite frustrating that many of the participants in this thread are not engaging with the actual article itself.

[Starglider]

You're not going to get anywhere with this argument right now Ray. The US liberal consensus is that Trump is a freak anomoly that will surely be defeated at the next election, and ideological purges and a swing to the left can only help with that. Identity politics are ideal for a class of organisers and agitators that took a lot of mindshare from legacy organisations such as unions and churches (particularly within the liberal identity cloud; churches held more share within the conservative cloud), so that isn't going away without a massive realignment effort. If Trump manages to get re-elected, then you will start to see pragmatic electability moves from many Democrats; of course many more will just triple-down on their current tactics.

[The Romulan Republic]

This is starting to become a broken record.

What makes you believe that the Democrats (who are frequently attacked for supposedly lacking spine or principles) will gain more votes from pandering to people who support locking children in cages than they will lose by alienating their base? Please provide specific arguments.

Whether they will gain more votes is debatable. What matters is whether they will gain the key votes to win an election.

So you acknowledge that they might very well lose votes by doing this, but then just repeat (without really elaborating as to why) that the votes of Centre Right whites are the only votes that matter?

There are certainly other reasons for losing the elections. The problem is with the rise of Trump, the Republican machine and the far-right is doing their utmost best to demonise social justice and making it a new bogeyman that will scare the voters in the swing states.

More than that, they're trying to suppress the votes of the poor and minorities, so that middle and upper-class white peoples' votes are the only ones that matter.

I would contend that rather than accommodating that strategy, we work to a) challenge voter suppression and gerrymandering in court, and b) work on mobilizing enthusiastic turnout to help offset the suppression tactics.

Note also that which states are swing states is not necessarily fixed, and that winning a few swing states is only the be-all and end-all in Presidential elections- the Democrats' further alienating their base would potentially hurt them in down-ballot races all over the country.

It's not enough to hold onto existing states. You need to win back those states as well.

Of course, but winning new states will do you no good if you lose states you currently hold in the process. There are swing states that went to Hillary that might not go Democrat if the party takes a dump on its base, as you propose.

But it's still a swing state that finds no problem with supporting Trump.

Err, Virginia went Democrat, as I said.

The Republicans will try and lock down those states, and if identity politics helps them in that regard, they will play it up for maximum gain.

Were you aware that the key swing states that voted for Trump (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) and put him over the top all went to Obama? That alone calls into question the assumption that it was fear of the scary minorities that cost the Democrats those states.

Also, read these articles, which lay out a case for how it was not more voters turning out for Trump, but fewer voters turning out for Hillary (including black voters) that cost her those states:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/re ... -election/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... ction.html

In other words, a very strong argument can be made that it was not centrists or conservatives fleeing from identity politics and voting Trump, but disgruntled Leftists who simply stayed home or protest-voted, that cost Clinton the election. In which case, again, your proposed solution would in fact be pretty much guaranteed to make the problem worse.

I wasn't aware that there's an all-out conflict in the US.

Don't try to be cute. You know perfectly well what the point of that analogy is: that sometimes there is a moral imperative to defend a position which overrides short-term security- that some battles have to be fought even if they are costly. And that trading fundamental principles for advantage isn't compromising- its surrendering.

It's written by an American Professor of Political Science from Columbia University if you want to be precise.

My mistake, though I would still question why you apparently feel that this one article is the definitive word on the subject.

Have you actually read the article in question? The author suggests people are more psychologically inclined towards right-wing positions if they feel their social position is under threat. So the "moderates" can be pushed further right, and quite easily.

So in short, humans are naturally Right-wing bigots, so we shouldn't bother ever trying to stand up for Left-wing principles because we're certain to lose?

If that is the case (which I do not concede, but for the sake of argument), then again, why not just drop the pretense and vote Republican, if you've given up any hope of changing the world for the better?

You can bet a lot of voters will be asking that question if the Democratic Party abandons its base. I repeat that in 2016, perhaps the single most damaging argument against the Democrats was that they were "no different from the Republicans". Trump and Russia expertly capitalized on this cynicism to encourage angry Leftists and "anti-establishment" voters to protest vote or stay home, and that is likely one of the things that cost Hillary Clinton the election. This is all well-known and widely reported on.

It was largely a lie in 2016. What you advocate would be to give the lie credence.

This also means those who might support progressive policies might keep on shrinking.

Whatever I say, you just repeat your one talking point: an assumption, based on citing a single article, that the only voters who matter are bigoted voters on the Right, that the key cause of Trump's election was a backlash against identity politics, and that any attempt to defend progressive policies will cost votes while any abandonment of them will not (or at least, not votes that matter).

Point out that trying to pander the bigots won't work, because they're nearly all lifetime members of the Cult of Trump?

"But then progressive policies might continue to lose support."

Here's a fun fact from CNN last night: according to recent polling, Trump has, among Republicans, the highest approval rating of any Republican President in history. Higher than George W. Bush's approval rating the week after 9/11. This is post-locking children in cages, remember.

If you want to talk about winning over moderates who might stay home, alright. I still think you're wrong, but at least that's within the realm of reason. But you can forget about winning over Trump supporters. The Republican Party is a neo-fascist party built on a cult of the leader. Full stop. We are not winning over these people in any remotely significant numbers.

1. Can this base be established given the history of this base? ( Clinton's defeat and the Bernie-or-burst crowd suggest this is NOT a reliable base)

The Bernie-or-Bust crowd are not reliable Democratic voters, obviously, but the Bernie-or-Bust crowd is not synonymous with the Democratic base. There are a lot of voters on the Left, a lot of Democratic voters(largely women and minority voters) who were not part of the Bernie-or-Bust crowd but are absolutely essential to the Democrats being a viable political party at the national level, who would be alienated by what you propose.

As to Clinton's defeat, as I previously noted, a compelling case can be made that it occurred due to lower turnout from traditionally Democratic voters and the base- likely due partly to Hillary herself, but also due partly to the perception that the Democrats are just Republican-lite. A perception which you are essentially arguing that the party should double-down on.

In short, the course you are proposing is so tailor-made to benefit Trumpism, not the Democrats, that if I did not know better I would think that was your intent.

2. Would this base be enough to overturn the base that the Republican is consistently mobilizing?

The slow-motion blue wave in special elections over the last year and half would suggest so, though this November is the real test.

3. Would the "moderate-Democrats" feel disenfranchised that they will simply sit out the elections?

There are some Democrats who are "moderates" on many issues, but as women and minorities would be potentially alienated by this strategy. There are others who might indeed be alienated by a strong progressive/social justice platform- but I would contend that "moderates" are probably less likely to act on their disgruntlement than the base. Perhaps a strong Left-wing platform could cost moderate Democratic votes if there were a moderate alternative on the Right- but there isn't. No one who is actually "moderate" is going to jump ship now because the Democrats support social justice. Not considering who and what the alternative is.