[Discussion] What comes next? Liber-all

American liberals and progressives now face their biggest challenge in a generation: What do we do with 4 years of a trump presidency, a republican congress, a likely conservative supreme court and most states under complete republican control?

This thread is not meant as a forum for discussing HOW or WHY democrats got destroyed in the 2016 election. It's meant for finding a way forward.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

I think my solution is pretty much what Demyx has already said several times. All politics is local, so build your ground game. Know your audiences and how to talk to them honestly, but also with a focus the things that they think they about. e.g. talk to less educated racists/bigots about the benefits of liberal economics for social mobility, not people in general. Talk to those who suffer from racism/bigotry about the importance of human rights and equality under the law, and the party's commitment to upholding liberal values/positions. These things are not mutually exclusive and will overlap in several areas.

+1

Chairman_Mao wrote:

I think my solution is pretty much what Demyx has already said several times. All politics is local, so build your ground game. Know your audiences and how to talk to them honestly, but also with a focus the things that they think they about. e.g. talk to less educated racists/bigots about the benefits of liberal economics for social mobility, not people in general. Talk to those who suffer from racism/bigotry about the importance of human rights and equality under the law, and the party's commitment to upholding liberal values/positions. These things are not mutually exclusive and will overlap in several areas.

I'm serving on a city commission now and it's eye opening seeing how the dogfood is made on a local level. A lot of the stuff you take for granted as "just working" has so many moving parts behind it. Our systems of government are very complex and any kind of change is difficult.

I'm trying to chart a course to run for city council, maybe some higher office at some point. I'm a bit late to the game as I'm almost 40 already, so nobody is going to confuse me for a rising star. But you've got to start somewhere, I guess.

Demyx wrote:

Yeah, this election forced me to rethink my position on incremental advances. I thought I was so progressive and smart because I didn't fall for that silly "post-racial society" stuff and realized we had a long way to go, and yet I was still vastly underestimating how much fight was left and how much could be rolled back.

Thank you for this viewpoint. I really want to think on the fact that incremental advances may/should be a thing of the past.

I think a lot of minorities may already feel this way of course. How do we get the "white workers" we are supposed to be courting to feel the same way?

gore wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

I think my solution is pretty much what Demyx has already said several times. All politics is local, so build your ground game. Know your audiences and how to talk to them honestly, but also with a focus the things that they think they about. e.g. talk to less educated racists/bigots about the benefits of liberal economics for social mobility, not people in general. Talk to those who suffer from racism/bigotry about the importance of human rights and equality under the law, and the party's commitment to upholding liberal values/positions. These things are not mutually exclusive and will overlap in several areas.

I'm serving on a city commission now and it's eye opening seeing how the dogfood is made on a local level. A lot of the stuff you take for granted as "just working" has so many moving parts behind it. Our systems of government are very complex and any kind of change is difficult.

I'm trying to chart a course to run for city council, maybe some higher office at some point. I'm a bit late to the game as I'm almost 40 already, so nobody is going to confuse me for a rising star. But you've got to start somewhere, I guess.

That's outstanding. I think it's never too late to start. How much time of your week does the city commission role take?

The same thing for both groups. You help them. You advance policies that help them get jobs that are better than working at the local big box store. You help with education. You help with health care.

The last thing you do is ignore them.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
gore wrote:

I can't recall if this was posted in this thread before, but it's probably worth revisiting this piece from the Primary season entitled The Smug style in American liberalism.

They really don't bury the lede, here's the opening paragraph, but the whole thing is worth a read - especially for those inclined to blame "the voters."

There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them.

I really wish we had an eyeroll emoji. That's a whole lot of words boiling down to "white people fee fees"

Sorry to drag this back into the ring, and while I don't believe the article is above reproach but, wouldn't an eyeroll emoji and talking about "white people fee fees" be exactly what this article is saying is the problem?

///

I found this part of the article fascinating:

The trouble is that stupid hicks don't know what's good for them. They're getting conned by right-wingers and tent revivalists until they believe all the lies that've made them so wrong. They don't know any better. That's why they're voting against their own self-interest.

This is what I hear from people writers/pundits on the right, but about the Black vote (ie. welfare queens, in their parlance). Guess I should just re-write the quote:

The trouble is that stupid Blacks don't know what's good for them. They're getting conned by left-wingers and the media until they believe all the lies that've made them so wrong. They don't know any better. That's why they're voting against their own self-interest.

This statement is as wrong as the one above.

///

Prescient:

Trump capturing the nomination will not dispel the smug style; if anything, it will redouble it. Faced with the prospect of an election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the smug will reach a fever pitch: six straight months of a sure thing, an opportunity to mock and scoff and ask, How could anybody vote for this guy? until a morning in November when they ask, What the f*ck happened?

Don't get me wrong, I was right there with you all, smug as sh*t that there's no way this country would elect Trump. The polls were in favor of that idea! 538 always hedged their bets, but they were still strongly showing a Clinton win. Sure, I had a fear that turnout would be stronger for Trump than Clinton, but there's just no way enough people buy into his backwards language and policies. So many reasons Trump shouldn't win. So many! Even now I can list off over a hundred without pause.

Outside of moral rectitude I can't name many things Hillary stood for. That right there is likely what fuels the "Bernie would've won" talk and it's a persuasive argument. Two outsiders in an outsider election would've energized me more than what we ended up with. I could have easily stood for Bernie instead of simply standing against Trump.

But all this ignores that Trumps message wasn't just about building walls and banning Muslims. That's where the smugness focuses us. My own mother said to me "don't listen to what he says in the debate, that's Hillary pushing him, go look at his website." I honestly thought she was wrong. I wanted her to be wrong.

Still, I went to Trump's website and what I saw was pretty normal, somewhat moderate even in the sense that things like tax cuts, Veteran's benefits and infrastructure were also on Hillary's agenda (what wasn't?). So, I was still left feeling like the negative things Trump said, the negative bits the commercials and media repeated, outweighed the underlying message of his candidacy that things aren't quite as good as they could be. Then there's how many on the right didn't like Trump too, many of them friends on Facebook and such.

But I discounted my parents, my-inlaws and all the other White working class or started-out-White-working-class-and-is-now-white-collar people in my family, generally a generation above, generally no college degrees. Clearly, after Obama's two victories the Boomers were marginalized, right? Apparently not. Clearly not. In the end, well, this:

The wages of smug is Trump.
Chairman_Mao wrote:

That's outstanding. I think it's never too late to start. How much time of your week does the city commission role take?

This commission has formal meetings twice a month and opportunities for volunteer events. If you can commit to at least 5 hours a month, you can take part. Some members are much more active than others, with dozens of hours a month volunteered on top of the mandatory meetings. I personally spend a few hours a week; it's not much but it's something.

For a long time I was reluctant to join anything like this because I have a small child and my wife travels a lot. Granted those limitations have caused me to miss out on lots of opportunities, but what I've found is that if you want to do something in government, people will be glad to have you, in whatever capacity you can contribute.

And I should say, I'm not showing up and pushing for universal basic income or socialized health care. This is a transportation related commission. But it turns out there are economic and social justice issues to be addressed at all levels of governance. I think it's important to think big, about large changes to the big structures of society, but you can also work for small things that materially improve peoples' lives at the same time.

Oddly enough, some of the seemingly trivial things we discuss (sidewalks, bus stops, whatever) can have more direct, immediate impact on peoples' lives than big federal legislation. Something like NAFTA sends huge ripples through society, but people are so far removed from them. Something like a sheltered bench at a bus stop in an underserved community can have a real impact immediately, even if small.

garion333 wrote:

Still, I went to Trump's website and what I saw was pretty normal, somewhat moderate even in the sense that things like tax cuts, Veteran's benefits and infrastructure were also on Hillary's agenda (what wasn't?).

Pretty normal and moderate?

A simple Google of Trump's tax plan would show that it's the same old trickle down conservative bullsh*t of massively cutting the taxes of the rich and giving the middle class a few dollars back. All while causing the deficit and debt--which conservatives only seem to worry about when they aren't in power--to explode by trillions and trillions of dollars.

The only way Trump's tax and budget plan can become remotely break-even is if he slashes government spending by about half. And if that happens then you can kiss veteran's benefits, infrastructure, and just about everything else the government does that's not on budgetary autopilot goodbye.

OG_slinger wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Still, I went to Trump's website and what I saw was pretty normal, somewhat moderate even in the sense that things like tax cuts, Veteran's benefits and infrastructure were also on Hillary's agenda (what wasn't?).

Pretty normal and moderate?

A simple Google of Trump's tax plan would show that it's the same old trickle down conservative bullsh*t of massively cutting the taxes of the rich and giving the middle class a few dollars back. All while causing the deficit and debt--which conservatives only seem to worry about when they aren't in power--to explode by trillions and trillions of dollars.

The only way Trump's tax and budget plan can become remotely break-even is if he slashes government spending by about half. And if that happens then you can kiss veteran's benefits, infrastructure, and just about everything else the government does that's not on budgetary autopilot goodbye.

I mean it's pretty normal and moderate in that it's "same old trickle down conservative bullsh*t" and was therefore palatable to many.

I wasn't attempting a dissection of his policies in my post.

OG_slinger wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Still, I went to Trump's website and what I saw was pretty normal, somewhat moderate even in the sense that things like tax cuts, Veteran's benefits and infrastructure were also on Hillary's agenda (what wasn't?).

Pretty normal and moderate?

A simple Google of Trump's tax plan would show that it's the same old trickle down conservative bullsh*t of massively cutting the taxes of the rich and giving the middle class a few dollars back. All while causing the deficit and debt--which conservatives only seem to worry about when they aren't in power--to explode by trillions and trillions of dollars.

The only way Trump's tax and budget plan can become remotely break-even is if he slashes government spending by about half. And if that happens then you can kiss veteran's benefits, infrastructure, and just about everything else the government does that's not on budgetary autopilot goodbye.

The worst part of it is, his current plan will likely raise taxes on unmarried lower + middle class people. Need to dig up where I found that analysis, but the plan is basically a big middle finger to working people.

You don't even have to get into government to make a difference that matters. And you don't need specialized skills.

Two opportunities just in my own community that I've engaged in via volunteer efforts:

1) Iowa Justice for our Neighbors - runs monthly intake clinics (pretty much entirely from volunteer efforts) to help those seeking to navigate the maze of immigrations in the US get started with the process. They need community members willing and able to help get intake forms filled out, provide a meal, and give a genuinely friendly face to some of our vulnerable community members.

2) His Hands free clinic - serves uninsured and underinsured people with surprisingly broad scope of care for such a tiny clinic. Medical, dental, medications, physical therapy, and more; they provide a range of services and are basically entirely volunteer-run.

Chairman_Mao wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Still, I went to Trump's website and what I saw was pretty normal, somewhat moderate even in the sense that things like tax cuts, Veteran's benefits and infrastructure were also on Hillary's agenda (what wasn't?).

Pretty normal and moderate?

A simple Google of Trump's tax plan would show that it's the same old trickle down conservative bullsh*t of massively cutting the taxes of the rich and giving the middle class a few dollars back. All while causing the deficit and debt--which conservatives only seem to worry about when they aren't in power--to explode by trillions and trillions of dollars.

The only way Trump's tax and budget plan can become remotely break-even is if he slashes government spending by about half. And if that happens then you can kiss veteran's benefits, infrastructure, and just about everything else the government does that's not on budgetary autopilot goodbye.

The worst part of it is, his current plan will likely raise taxes on some unmarried lower + middle class people. Need to dig up where I found that analysis, but the plan is basically a big middle finger to working people.

People have been talking about it for months, so I'm not sure which analysis you're looking for. The loss of Head of Household is a big deal to many.

garion333 wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Still, I went to Trump's website and what I saw was pretty normal, somewhat moderate even in the sense that things like tax cuts, Veteran's benefits and infrastructure were also on Hillary's agenda (what wasn't?).

Pretty normal and moderate?

A simple Google of Trump's tax plan would show that it's the same old trickle down conservative bullsh*t of massively cutting the taxes of the rich and giving the middle class a few dollars back. All while causing the deficit and debt--which conservatives only seem to worry about when they aren't in power--to explode by trillions and trillions of dollars.

The only way Trump's tax and budget plan can become remotely break-even is if he slashes government spending by about half. And if that happens then you can kiss veteran's benefits, infrastructure, and just about everything else the government does that's not on budgetary autopilot goodbye.

The worst part of it is, his current plan will likely raise taxes on some unmarried lower + middle class people. Need to dig up where I found that analysis, but the plan is basically a big middle finger to working people.

People have been talking about it for months, so I'm not sure which analysis you're looking for. The loss of Head of Household is a big deal to many.

Cool. I'd only heard it from Planet Money, I think?

Robert Reich's 8-Point Plan for a New Democratic Party

1. Overhaul the DNC
2. Embrace populism
3. Mobilize, energize and educate the base
4. Expose Trump as a fraud
5. Focus on 2018 now
6. Look to the state and local level
7. Protect groups threatened by Trump
8. Failing all else, look outside the party

My only real objection to his ideas: he should strike out 'failing all else'. Point #8 needs to happen, period. It's not a fallback position, it should be part of the platform.

And the democrat's response will be that #7 isn't high enough, so it's a racist plan.

Sigh.

I agree that #7 isn't high enough, though, if you really think about it, it should be part of #2.

On Rural America: Understanding Isn’t The Problem

As the aftermath of the election of Donald Trump is being sorted out, a common theme keeps cropping up from all sides-”Democrats failed to understand white, working class, fly-over America.” Trump supports are saying this. Progressive pundits are saying this. Talking heads across all forms of the media are saying this. Even some Democratic leaders are saying this. It doesn’t matter how many people say it, it is complete bullsh*t. It is an intellectual/linguistic sleight of hand meant to throw attention away from the real problem. The real problem isn’t east coast elites don’t understand or care about rural America. The real problem is rural America doesn’t understand the causes of their own situations and fears and they have shown no interest in finding out. They don’t want to know why they feel the way they do or why they are struggling because the don’t want to admit it is in large part because of choices they’ve made and horrible things they’ve allowed themselves to believe.
I grew up in rural, Christian, white America. You’d be hard-pressed to find an area in the country that has a higher percentage of Christians or whites. I spent most of the first twenty-four years of my life deeply embedded in this culture. I religiously (*pun intended) attended their Christian services. I worked off and on, on their rural farms. I dated their calico skirted daughters. I camped, hunted, and fished with their sons. I listened to their political rants at the local diner and truck stop. I winced at their racist/bigoted jokes and epithets that were said more out of ignorance than animosity. I have also watched the town I grew up in go from a robust economy with well-kept homes and infrastructure turn into a struggling economy with shuttered businesses, dilapidated homes, and a broken down infrastructure over the past thirty years. The problem isn’t that I don’t understand these people. The problem is they don’t understand themselves, the reasons for their anger/frustrations, and don’t seem to care to know why.
For us “coastal elites” who understand evolution, genetics, science…nothing we say to those in fly-over country is going to be listened to because not only are we fighting against an anti-education belief system, we are arguing against God. You aren’t winning a battle of beliefs with these people if you are on one side of the argument and God is on the other. No degree of understanding this is going to suddenly make them less racist, more open to reason and facts. Telling “urban elites” they need to understand rural Americans isn’t going to lead to a damn thing because it misses the causes of the problem.

I predict violent retaliation from a lot of people on the left. Loss of hope will feed this. People who have spent their lives using facts and reason and non violent protest are now in no doubt that the right are never going to compromise and that truth, reason and the political process not only don't work but also make things worse when the other side are intent on lying and happy to block the work of government if it means keeping power.

People will see the harm happening to themselves, their friends, their families, their community and snap.

There will be bricks thrown through Republican supporting windows. Cars with bumper stickers will be damaged. Fights will move from verbal to literal.

The Republican response to this will be predictable.

Yep, it will. And it will be "Dump Trump!".

Robear wrote:

Yep, it will. And it will be "Dump Trump!".

I doubt it.

I agree. The country has been divided irrevocably. I hope the Electoral College votes to elect Clinton. If that leads to civil war by Trump's supporters so be it. They were never going to accept modernity anyway.

bekkilyn wrote:

On Rural America: Understanding Isn’t The Problem

As the aftermath of the election of Donald Trump is being sorted out, a common theme keeps cropping up from all sides-”Democrats failed to understand white, working class, fly-over America.” Trump supports are saying this. Progressive pundits are saying this. Talking heads across all forms of the media are saying this. Even some Democratic leaders are saying this. It doesn’t matter how many people say it, it is complete bullsh*t. It is an intellectual/linguistic sleight of hand meant to throw attention away from the real problem. The real problem isn’t east coast elites don’t understand or care about rural America. The real problem is rural America doesn’t understand the causes of their own situations and fears and they have shown no interest in finding out. They don’t want to know why they feel the way they do or why they are struggling because the don’t want to admit it is in large part because of choices they’ve made and horrible things they’ve allowed themselves to believe.

But they voted for Obama.

cube wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:

On Rural America: Understanding Isn’t The Problem

As the aftermath of the election of Donald Trump is being sorted out, a common theme keeps cropping up from all sides-”Democrats failed to understand white, working class, fly-over America.” Trump supports are saying this. Progressive pundits are saying this. Talking heads across all forms of the media are saying this. Even some Democratic leaders are saying this. It doesn’t matter how many people say it, it is complete bullsh*t. It is an intellectual/linguistic sleight of hand meant to throw attention away from the real problem. The real problem isn’t east coast elites don’t understand or care about rural America. The real problem is rural America doesn’t understand the causes of their own situations and fears and they have shown no interest in finding out. They don’t want to know why they feel the way they do or why they are struggling because the don’t want to admit it is in large part because of choices they’ve made and horrible things they’ve allowed themselves to believe.

But they voted for Obama.

That just lends even more credence to the main thrust of the article. That those voters are so out of touch with the functions and responsibilities of government that they're basically picking at random?

Or, an alternative reading - those voters have been very consistent in voting for the change candidate, regardless of what constitutes that change.

Or they're voting for the candidate who actually listened to their priorities and made promises. Like Obama. And Sanders. And Bill Clinton.

cube wrote:

But they voted for Obama.

*Some* rural white voters voted for Obama.

And that was enough in combination with most urban and college-educated whites voters--and overwhelming majorities of black, Hispanic, and Asian voters--to win him the Oval Office.

Obama got 39% of the overall white vote compared to 37% for Hillary. And the initial analysis shows that that 2% gap wasn't remotely all white rural voters.

No, less voters in every single group you mentioned voted for Hiliary compared to Obama.

Which kinda is a problem, right?

cube wrote:

No, less voters in every single group you mentioned voted for Hiliary compared to Obama.

Which kinda is a problem, right?

I'm going to confidently say, no, not necessarily a problem.

Unless you're suggesting that any politician who gains fewer votes than their predecessor is "kinda problem". Which is patently absurd.

Never mind the fact that voteshare is a monstrously noisy signal. If it was easy to pull the signal out of the noise, modern politics wouldn't exist.

Jonman wrote:
cube wrote:

No, less voters in every single group you mentioned voted for Hiliary compared to Obama.

Which kinda is a problem, right?

I'm going to confidently say, no, not necessarily a problem.

Long as you ain't wanna win.

boogle wrote:
Jonman wrote:
cube wrote:

No, less voters in every single group you mentioned voted for Hiliary compared to Obama.

Which kinda is a problem, right?

I'm going to confidently say, no, not necessarily a problem.

Long as you ain't wanna win.

Son, I am disappoint.

You of all people, Boogle, should beware over-interpreting regression to the mean. Obama was the outlier there, not Clinton.