TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2024
Maureen Dowd pours it on: Imaginably, it could be better that we in Blue America took our (two-point) shellacking now.
Obviously, it depends, in part, on what the incoming president does. On the other hand, consider this:
If Candidate Harris had squeaked out a win, she'd already be under a vicious attack. Almost surely, she would have experienced a very bad four years—a very bad four years in which the tribal antagonism would only have grown.
It might be better to have it out now. There is, of course, no way to tell—and then again, there's this:
In part, the way of the future will depend, in part, on Blue America's ability to evaluate the causes of this year's defeat. Is it possible that we "earned our way out"—that there could have been things we said and did that contributed to, even caused, this defeat
Is it possible that we earned our way out? For better or worse, we must report this:
Tribal denial is part of the deal. Such denial is bred in the bone.
What do we mean by "tribal denial?" Tribal denial involves a pair of well-know, ancient beliefs:
If our tribe did it, it has to be right. If their tribe did it, it's wrong.
Such prehistoric beliefs are bred in the bone. Over here in Blue America, our ability to rebound from this year's potential disaster will turn on our ability to resist the effects of such wiring.
Is it possible that we the Blues have somehow earned our way out? In yesterday's reports, we focused on Tim Alberta's statement on last Friday evening's Washington Week.
Alberta has long been anti-Trump. Culturally, though, he hails from Red America.
In our view, what he said is very important. For the third and final time, this is what he said:
ALBERTA (11/8/24): As someone who has spilled a lot of ink on Donald Trump's lies over the past decade, I just want to say this when we talk about propaganda. Arguably, the three most determinative things in this election were propaganda from the Democratic Party.
Number one: "Joe Biden is fine and totally fit to be president for another four years." He wasn't.
Number two: "The border is closed. It's under control. There's nobody coming in." That was not true.
And number three: "Hey, don't worry about inflation. Prices are fine. Bidenomics! Everything's great. You guys don't know what you're talking about. Actually, the economy is in great shape."
This is propaganda to millions of Americans who said, "None of that is true, and therefore, I don't trust you."
They might not trust Trump, but they don't trust Democrats either.
Almost surely, Alberta knows more of Red America's voters that the average Blue American does. Setting aside the word "propaganda," he was saying that we Blues helped earn our way out through our behaviors in three basic areas:
Ways we allegedly earned our way out:
1) Denial concerning the southern border
2) Denial concerning the economy
3) Denial concerning President Biden's fitness
Last Friday evening, Alberta cited those three areas. In Sunday morning's New York Times, Maureen Dowd added a fourth. Putting it a different way, Maureen Dowd poured it on:
Democrats and the Case of Mistaken Identity Politics
Some Democrats are finally waking up and realizing that woke is broke.
Donald Trump won a majority of white women and remarkable numbers of Black and Latino voters and young men.
Democratic insiders thought people would vote for Kamala Harris, even if they didn’t like her, to get rid of Trump. But more people ended up voting for Trump, even though many didn’t like him, because they liked the Democratic Party less.
We could do without the rhyme-time word play, but Dowd had added a fourth point of concern to Alberta's list:
"Woke is [now] broke," she alleged.
Along the way, it's been known as "political correctness," but also as "identity politics." In recent years, the terms "wokeness" and "woke" has been dumped in the mix.
Did Blue America earn its way out through some manifestation of this cultural stance? Did "many people" vote for Candidate Trump because they disliked us woke Democrats even more than they disliked him?
Could that possibly be true? Continuing directly, Dowd said this:
I have often talked about how my dad stayed up all night on the night Harry Truman was elected because he was so excited. And my brother stayed up all night the first time Trump was elected because he was so excited. And I felt that Democrats would never recover that kind of excitement until they could figure out why they had turned off so many working-class voters over the decades, and why they had developed such disdain toward their once loyal base.
Democratic candidates have often been avatars of elitism—Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and second-term Barack Obama. The party embraced a worldview of hyper-political correctness, condescension and cancellation, and it supported diversity statements for job applicants and faculty lounge terminology like “Latinx,” and “BIPOC” (Black, Indigenous, People of Color).
This alienated half the country, or more...
Was Candidate Dukakis somehow an "avatar of elitism," while his opponent (George Bush the Elder) wasn't?
(We'll grant you: Dowd doesn't explicitly say that.)
Also, how was Obama an avatar of elitism—but only the second time around?
We're slightly puzzled by that overall formulation. But is it possible that Dowd's larger claims are accurate?
Is it possible that Democrats really have developed an unmistakable sense of disdain toward working-class voters—and not just recently, but "over the decades?"
Is it possible that Democrats actually have "turned off many working-class voters" through their exhibition of that disdain? Is it possible that the Democratic Party has "embraced a worldview of" correctness and condescension in such a way as to "alienate half the country, or more?"
Is it possible that those claims could possibly even be true? Is that part of the way we managed to lose a (fairly close) race to a candidate who was basically unelectable as judged by traditional standards? Is that part of the way we managed to lose a fairly close election to someone like Candidate Trump?
Will Blue America be able to make a comeback from this year's defeat? In large part, that depends on our ability to cast off the chains of tribal denial and look at ourselves in the mirror.
Given the way our brains are wired, there's absolutely no reason to think that we'll be inclined to do that. Still, a person can dream.
Yesterday morning, Mika read the entire text of Dowd's column during Morning Joe. On that tribally pleasing "cable news" program, viewers had been told—again and again and again and again—that there was no possible way a candidate like Donald J. Trump could possibly win.
That statement never made any sese, but it felt good going down. At any rate, Dowd (and others) have now added to Alberta's list of concerns:
Ways we allegedly earned our way out:
1) Denial concerning the southern border
2) Denial concerning the economy
3) Denial concerning President Biden's fitness
4) Hyper-political correctness, otherwise known as high woke
Tomorrow, we'll add an item or two to that list. Sometimes, it's hard to believe that Candidate Harris ever got any votes at all!
We've posted a list of four allegations. Tomorrow, we'll add to the list.
Full disclosure:
As a resident of Blue America, you aren't required to believe that there's any merit in any of those allegations.
It's always possible that your denial is right—or it may just be bred in the bone.
Tomorrow: At least one other fairly obvious point
Race is a part of woke. The idea that blacks should not be criticized. They should get preferences, although the preferences must never be acknowledged. The idea that using a word that is not the N-word, but which sounds something like the N-word invalidates a person.
ReplyDeleteblacks should not be criticized.
DeleteThat is trivially true: blacks should not be criticized. I will leave it to you to discern why.
Labeling any criticism of a black politician or leader as bigoted solely due to the their race shields that politician from any critique at all. Same with other identity categories. People have the right to criticize black public figures without identity-based accusations being used as a blanket defense against their criticism.
Delete
ReplyDelete"people ended up voting for Trump, even though many didn’t like him"
How can anyone not like him, Bob? Please. He is Donald Trump, he's a legend. Everyone loves him. Every real American, that is.
Somerby types: "Such prehistoric beliefs are bred in the bone"
ReplyDeleteBut this is patently false, which Somerby would know (in all likelihood he does in fact know, and is being willfully ignorant to push an agenda), if Somerby bothered to learn the science.
Since this is Somerby's underlying principle, all his other clams are similarly incoherent and irrelevant.
Somerby lists 4 points that clearly did not significantly contribute to Harris losing, yet in a seeming attempt to prove his misguided narrative about human nature, Somerby doubles down in the hopes of manufacturing ignorance.
You tell us that Somerby is trying to manufacture ignorance - but ignorance of what, exactly? What fact about the world is he trying to make us ignorant of?
DeletePP providing a tangible example for 12:43's accurate point, may be amusing to some, but it seems more sad than funny.
DeleteYou feel sad because you head is shaved, Borby.
Delete12:43 - Somerby says that the beliefs that our tribe is right and theirs is wrong are bred in the bone. You say "science" has proven that this is false. But you're just some rando anon - should we take your word for this, or do you have any citation to the "science"?
DeleteScience can be looked up in publications where you can assess the methods of research and strength of findings. It is supported by evidence. You can look things up as easily as any rando anon, but you guys never do.
DeleteThe Republican Party has been successfully running on (White, anti people of color) identity politics for decades, a point so obvious it just whistles on past Dopey Somerby.
ReplyDeleteIf only we soros-bots called Republicans "racists" more often, everything would've been fine now.
DeleteAlso seems the fact of increased black and latin support for Trump may have sailed past your own ears, 12:49.
DeleteLittle snowflake got triggered.
DeleteHarris got the same percent of the overall Black and Latin women vote as Dems always gets.
Trump's overall support actually decreased from 2020.
That you consistently get facts wrong only increases the degree to which you are a crybaby.
Whatever you say, Mr. Soros. But you sound like you're lost again.
DeleteYour confusion manifests itself when you respond to my statement of Harris' overall support with data about her support from women only.
DeleteLest you confuse anyone else, as of now:
Harris' share of the black vote dropped from 91% that Biden got to 83%.
Harris' share of latino vote dropped from 63% that Biden got to 55%.
https://apnews.com/article/election-harris-trump-women-latinos-black-voters-0f3fbda3362f3dcfe41aa6b858f22d12
I think the subject matter of the four points Our Host cites are on target, but I'd quarrel with how Alberta presents them.
ReplyDelete1) Was Joe Biden "just fine" or was he incometent? I'd say neither. He's a man in his 80s. He'd be exceptional if he showed no signs of reduced mental agility or memory. At the same time, he's not the drooling, pants-pooping vegetable the Reds tell us he is. His age is a major risk for someone who aspired to sit in the Oval Office. Trump's age is too.
2) and 3) I think the Dem position on these two issues was essentially correct. I also think Biden and the Dems did a lousy job of communicating those positions. They essentially yielded the field to Trump and the worst of the right wing crazies. Biden's team responded to border and inflation hysteria with...well, basically nothing.
4) "Woke" is a collection of imitations of issues, many of them conjured up by guys like Christopher Rufo. However, I think the Republicans' were able to batter the Dems on this issue because they exploited the way Dems go about trying to build a coalition of interest groups (and yes, call that "identity politics" if you like). The Dem method is to show their support for antiracism, for LGBTQ+ rights, for reproductive rights, the environment, and so on. The party tries to cobble together a patchwork of varied interests, all of whom demand to be heard. The problem is, anyone who doesn't fit into one of these groups can feel unheard and forgotten. The Dems fail to fit all the separate interests into a unified framework, a core belief system that can be much larger than the collection.
Anyway, there's my nickel's worth. Now stand by for my pal Sunshine to pop up and tell me I'm stupid and boring.
Defensive much?
DeleteQuaker - far be it from me to figure out with any certainty why the vote went the way it did. I voted for Harris, and don't have good feelings about the upcoming Trump Regime II. I'm a lifelong dem (first voted for Mcgovern) - and I think the 4 factors listed by TDH make good sense. (I could name other likely factors). TDH is almost always rational, unlike some of his obsessively clueless detractors. While I could go on and on, I'll address just your # 4 point. I think the Blues have gone off the rails on race and gender. I'm pretty sure this contributes to their loss of the presidency and both the House & Senate. for example, I don't see why we're insisting there are several "genders." Being asked by my new PCP doctor "what gender was I assigned when as I was born" - good god! If the position is simply that "wokeness" is just upholding people's rights and is on the side of the angels, the reality is that most people don't see it that way, and they're not without reason and are not all bigots -
ReplyDeleteAmen to both QiB and AC. And let me expand a bit on 4 - wokeness. It's painful for me to take issue with people on my (Dem) side of the aisle who feel almost-religiously driven to root out racism, sexism, etc., because one, they are well-meaning, and two, they're right, at least a lot of the time. But I feel that they might think about tempering their name-calling, just a tad, because it pisses people off so much and drives them to the other side.
DeleteI think this is all nonsense. Harris and her campaign hardly mentioned anything that could be considered "woke." The Republicans took a short clip of her from 2019 voicing support for prisoners' right to trans gender care and paid over $200,000,000 to play it in ads over and over and over again in battleground states.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/3Xe2dhPZC5E?si=4pqnDPp_kWveTvZv&t=1
The question presented is not if Harris and her campaign hardly mentioned anything that could be considered "woke." It is "did the Democratic Party "embrace a worldview of" correctness and condescension in such a way as to "alienate half the country, or more?".
DeleteThe conventional wisdom is that Democrats are too focused on “identity politics.” Can anyone provide evidence that any democratic candidate actually preached “wokeness” or focused on that as a primary campaign tactic? Clinton? Kerry? Obama? Biden? Harris?
DeleteHow about Sherrod Brown, who was laser focused on jobs and the working class, and yet lost? Or Jon tester, who lost to a man who lied about his military record?
If the conventional wisdom is that Democrats lost an election because the party, in general, focused too much on identity politics - characterized by a perceived worldview of “hyper-political correctness” and “condescension,” (e.g. the 2022 Transgender Bill of Rights), would evidence of individual candidates “preaching wokeness” in their campaigns refute this claim?
DeleteThe party tries to do things that benefit specific vulnerable groups. That doesn’t mean that is their only or main focus. The national Democratic Party took up the cause of civil rights in the 1960’s, the right thing to do. It didn’t mean that civil rights for black Americans became the sole focus of the party. Gay rights are worth fighting for, as a progressive cause, but support for it doesn’t exclude support for labor unions, for example, which could also be seen as a “special interest” group. I think the idea that the Democratic Party is “hyper” focused on “identity politics” to the exclusion of all else is pretty much bunk, a point of propaganda promoted by right wingers and disgruntled leftists.
Delete"Hyper-political correctness" suggests a level of political correctness that goes beyond what many might consider reasonable. The critique isn’t that these issues have replaced all other priorities.
DeleteTo repeat, the question is "did the Democratic Party "embrace a worldview of" correctness and condescension in such a way as to "alienate half the country, or more?".
DeleteI smell the stank of Hector's stupidity wafting into the comments. Two straw man comments in a row. Hector, can you make it a trifecta?
DeleteMike L @7:20
DeleteYeah, I think you're putting your finger on an important point here. Did the people whose posts ended up on "Libs of Tik Tok" go out and hassle conservatives about so-called woke issues? Or did the Libs of Tik Tok comb through social media looking for a low-reach message they could promote as outrageous and scary?
Somehow, an unknown leftie with 20 followers becomes the voice of the party, but Nick Fuentes or Laura Looma can hang out at MaL and they're still just a couple of randos.
And that, Quaker, is part of my diagnosis of the issue we face: the Republican Party chose 30 years ago to make demonizing Democrats their number one priority, and pursued it relentlessly. It leads them to do just what you suggested. But then, one beef I have had with Somerby is that he does it too. He finds some outlier liberal voice, criticizes it, and then says “this is why we lose.” Negative campaigning works, unfortunately. And at this stage, Republicans are willing to simply lie about Democrats, as they have done here repeatedly about transgender issues, for example. Their media amplifies the messaging, and “blue media” often critiques Democrats rather than debunking the nonsense.
Delete“ I feel that they might think about tempering their name-calling, just a tad, because it pisses people off so much and drives them to the other side.”
DeleteWhy is it that Republican name calling of liberals is never supposed to factor into the equation? Because that’s pretty much all they do.
Democrats did not embrace a worldview of "correctness and condescension in such a way as to "alienate half the country, or more". Democrats never developed a sense of disdain toward working-class voters "over the decades". The issue is not Democrats. Tribal denial, which involves believing that one's own tribe is always right and the other tribe is always wrong, did not play a role in the defeat. The causes of this year's defeat was Republicans, who demonize and simply lie about Democrats and their media who amplify the messaging, and “blue media” who fail to debunk the nonsense. Somerby does it too. Our defeat was because of them. There is no need for self-reflection.
DeleteYou seem to be exercising the intelligence that was assigned to you at birth
Delete2:06,
DeleteI hide in your closet at night, too.
9:02 - You’re asking the wrong question, I think. The better question is whether it affected the votes of 2-3% of the people.
ReplyDeleteIt's not my question.
Delete“ Being asked by my new PCP doctor "what gender was I assigned when as I was born" - good god!”
ReplyDeleteGee, AC. It’s a simple question with a simple answer. It’s asked so that the doctor can correctly treat transgender patients. Why does this upset you so much? I find your reaction genuinely puzzling.
Shaving your head didn't help you much, Zorby.
Deleteconventional wisdom - until the very recent time, no one would ever have thought to ask someone what gender they were assigned at birth. It implies that there was some type of choice as to what gender someone belonged to at birth. Like a child's parents assign their child a "gender" just like they give their child a name. Doctors can easily figure out how to treat transgender patients without asking such a stupid question.
Delete