Can you imagine what an affront it was to Palestinians and pro-Palestinian anti-genocide folks to see Kamala supporting the funding and arming of Israel and campaigning with a theme of 'joy'? It's beyond insensitive.
That, along with the sending of Bill Clinton to SE Michigan (specifically Dearborn) to mansplain that Israel has a right to what it’s doing in the region because of millennia-old land rights, was so tone-deaf that I am leaning toward the idea that she had already scotched such voters (the ones for whom Gaza was a major priority). She had no plan to try to bring them back into the fold. Because, yes, some of those moves were just repugnant.
The inflexibility in her position also allowed a lane for Trump to make his ridiculous and empty claims of being the “anti-war” candidate. This was a man who wanted to nuke a hurricane. But, by leaving open this lane, Harris basically rolled out the red carpet for Trump to waltz into Dearborn and meet face-to-face with the community leaders there, which earned him their vote, because he paid them basic respect. I don’t understand how she and her advisers could not have foreseen that.
"These people don’t realize that, in this election cycle, the emotion affecting many Democratic non-voters...was demoralization, not apathy." Well put and dead on!
I praise your continued deconstruction of these event's. And I know that your words are true. However, the more time I spend on such considerations the less fruitful it becomes, when I all ready know that the two "traditional" parties at the national level have long ago forfeited any ability to lead or guide us. We must think of our nation and the world it inhabits in a new light. Both parties give unflinching support to the predatory capitalist elites expansion policies. They are literally "killing" us!
Consider this information from my friend- Jack@veprjack, Jack's newsletter at Substack.com-
"Desmet's work on Mass Formation (Psychosis ) has helped me understand the insane behaviors we are witnessing. I'm told that people have committed suicide because Trump won. Let that sink in!"
I appreciate your feedback about my continued efforts. Honestly, when you phrase it that way, it makes me wonder why I am so invested. I think it's a persistent sense of being unheard this entire election season. I identified with the Uncommitted movement (having called for Biden to step aside in the contest before Uncommitted had even formed as its own movement), but ultimately I voted for the Democrats for my own reasons. It's imperative, to me, that Democrats learn the correct (or at least the best) lessons they can from this loss so as to not make a wrong turn into a blind alley. That's such a prevalent danger right now.
Of course, my tendency is to examine things from a social science point of view, so my ability to give a full accounting will be limited. But I will still try.
I know also that some of my frustration comes from seeing people on different platforms, including one where I participated for a long while, come to incongruous conclusions and to descend into abject scapegoating. As a humanist, I feel the need to push back against that, even though they're speaking in a different conversation space that what's going on here at Substack. It's unclear -- I may have only an oblique success, if that, to influence other conversations. But it's still all part of what Democrats / liberals / progressives are talking about, so I continue....
This was written before any chatter about "mass formation psychosis," which is a right-wing term meant to disparage those who were adamant about Covid prevention and mitigation techniques. When the right wing adopted the phrase, it was just as "mass psychosis" was beginning to get picked up by the left to describe the GOP as being cult-like, and so as I see it the parlance was adopted by the right to neutralize the potency of the phrase in general. A rhetorical turn like that is meant to obscure a corresponding tendency or phenomenon in a different camp and/or "the other side of the aisle."
As for that rumor that your friend referenced: Well, I have not heard of anyone on the left who actually completed the act. I did encounter people online who threatened -- very publicly! -- to harm themselves. On the one hand, of course, people rushed to that person and attempted to dissuade him; on the other, that type of behavior is manipulative. If someone is that much in the doldrums, they usually are aware that there are professional groups and organizations that can assist them. Often, these are temporary emotional crises, and just as often people simply need someone to whom to vent. Anyway, that particular person followed up (again, publicly) and said that they had changed their mind. So, crisis averted.
Still, the episode speaks to an unintended consequence of this very rigid, absolutist rhetoric on the Democratic side that, as far as I can see, was employed to corral their own voters to get to the ballot box. "Democracy is at stake"; "fascism is on the ballot". Well, what is one to do when the fight for democracy fails? Isn't it hopeless at that point? So, retrospectively, I think that type of language had elements of blowback that I think even Democratic strategists and leaders did not anticipate. The ennui that swallowed the party that first week after Harris's loss was unlike anything I'd ever seen -- much worse than what Democrats endured after the loss in 2016. It's remarkable.
I think I am going to have to repeat myself here. (Similar to what you did in your current article.) In your last article "An increasing number of Democratic partisans are assigning blame to avoid it," the information you provided there was unequivocal, and I was jealous of the writing! Clear, concise, and to the point, plenty of back up doc's to support your analysis. What's not to love? The current article is relatively similar but, with additional post from people who basically expressed, "vote blue or forget you." Well, that's who Harris catered to and that's what she got. Hell, that could have been a Harris campaign slogan! So, the question that comes to my mind is, are people still pushing back against your narrative on Kos, Stack. or wherever? I tell people where I am at with it and basically move on. Those who stick around and still want to verbally slug it out have lost my attention. By the way, Democracy doesn't die until you, I, and the rest of the working class decides that it's dead. The political, economic, and religious elites have never practiced Democracy so they don't care if it dies.
Heh, thanks for the rejoinder. I do sometimes get ahold of a theme and run through it a couple of times. I suppose here I was trying to elucidate a difference in the types of non-voters. And I'm sure I didn't enumerate them all -- this was kind of dashed off during the Thanksgiving weekend. But I felt it was still relevant somewhat, because I'm still seeing scapegoating about these people in particular, the non-voters.
I think also I'm devoting time to the general theme of the election in this short window, because after a few weeks we'll be welcoming in a new year, and then it'll be the inauguration, and then this type of examination will be old news. There are times I will write something, have the best of intentions of expanding or deepening it but letting it sit on the backburner too long, and then the moment has passed and I don't feel it's worth posting anymore. So I definitely feel this time window effect.
To round this out, I'll note that you use the word 'elite' kind of sneeringly, which I think is in pretty widespread use these days. I have a more ambivalent relationship with that word! I come from an indigent background but was able to attend and earn a degree from a selective and well-bred private college. It's an elite school. I take pride in that. I've also edited or been on the boards of several literary magazines in my day (though none recently); that's a gatekeeper role, one for the 'elite'. I don't know. I think I'm glad to have this ambiguous relationship to the word.
And I say that because fascism uses catchwords and catchphrases. Theodor Adorno talks about this; Erich Fromm and Joost Meerloo also talk about this. We'd call such words today buzzwords or loaded language (cf. Robert Lifton) where the mention of it sets off an entire litany of associations. Fascists historically have liked to blame "the elite" so that the working class would target whomever was labeled that, while the fascists themselves set themselves up as an untouchable, elevated class. So I see a danger with that word, because of that history.
I understand where you are coming from, though. At least I believe so. The story of classes kind of cuts against the story of democracy, which is leveling.
I'm certainly not being concise here but rather overly chatty, so I'll wrap up! I do appreciate you stopping back by.
I too was fortunate enough to attend an elite private university. It would be a shame for me to not use the tools that education provided to help those who have been marginalized. I get and agree with your point on the use of some words to manipulate public opinion. In other venues, when I am discussing in depth "the elites" I define what that word means in context. In our discussions, the word "elite" or "economic elites" refers to what the the sociologists Peter Phillips and William Robinson call the -Transnational Capitalist Class. Robinson's writing in particular parallel with your understandings of fascism. This is one of the reasons I brought it up. Peace, G
Western political science has been trying to ascertain why so many Westerners are so apathetic about liberal democracy for sixty plus years. The fact is that I think most people think of elections as a team sport at best and a particularly dreary (and rigged) reality show at worst. The message is that the only legitimate form of political engagement is voting and other activities pertaining to electoral politics (eg phone banking, door to door campaigns, get out the vote), none of which is particularly empowering. The media continually tells us that we have the best political system that can or will ever exist, but most of us understand how depressing that notion is. We don’t get to vote on things that actual matter, like whether we should be sending weapons to Israel or Medicare for all. In many locales in the US, the families who were in charge before the Civil War are still in charge in 2024. In much of Europe, the families that were in charge during the medieval period are still in charge in 2024.
The simple fact is that most people don’t vote because their lives stay the same, regardless of who wins. The founding fathers’ notion that only property holding men needed the right to vote because only they had a real stake in society is kind of true in a way. The people who are most likely to vote today are those who have a stake in society, and that typically entails having a certain level of economic attainment that gives you an interest in political affairs (even so, most people vote on vibes or team affiliation). I think this is also why voting days are on Tuesday during business hours, as I think the view is that if you really want to vote, you’ll find a way to inconvenience yourself to do it.
I have some disparate thoughts on this I'd like to corral before I try to offer them for public consumption. I think what you underline about property ownership may have been generally true in the 18th century, but the Industrial Revolution had to have changed that in ways that led to all sorts of social tumult. What strikes me is that we in the States are back to the same atmosphere (except for the extreme social Darwinism, though that's trying to make a comeback as well) as what we had in the late 1880s, '90s & 1900s, with an economic contraction paired with a huge wave of xenophobia. Now, the latter was rather manufactured by the ruling class at the time (which can be pieced together if one reads Walter Lippmann's work, among others). What we have now is a parallel structure -- which is pretty remarkable, considering all of the ins and outs Americans went through in the 20th century.
Of course, now we're de-industrializing, with the added knock-on effects of AI sending even more people out of work. I have thoughts about this, but I haven't placed them in the context of voting! So I guess I need to think about that more.
I suppose, in terms of voting behavior, we really did go through a mini-revolution when the Moral Majority arose in the late '70s and created a new voting bloc out of thin air. There's been nothing comparable on the left in any sense. I'm not sure if that phenomenon aligns with your hypothesis: Do they have a greater ideological stake in society? Before the '70s, those folks just didn't vote at all. Yet I'm guessing that their financial outlook probably has been steady, just as you say. (I'd need to delve into the stats to be sure.)
Also, in terms of "a real stake in society," I'm skeptical of the idea that such a thing has to be material. I think lots of people were encouraged to vote out of duty or obligation, when they were so inculcated in civics class (but now those classes are generally cut from the curriculum). I also think this sense of civic duty explains some of the fury coming from the Democratic rank and file, where they feel the non-voters shirked their duties and basically betrayed their "office" as citizens. Their anger is a form of patriotism, I guess, in that respect -- partisan, but patriotic just the same.
I do think making Election Day a holiday -- even an unpaid holiday -- would increase turnout. At the very least, it's an experiment that should be tried.
Thank you for your reply. Some months ago, I wrote that there isn’t a concept for a model citizen in the American political mind. I realized afterwards that that isn’t true, as the Jeffersonian yeoman farmer/small business owner was and continues to be the ideal. This concept was further refined and weaponized during the Cold War with the idea that homeownership gave Americans their own stake in the continuation of capitalism. This vision contributes to the problem we have now, where lots of people, especially millennials and Gen Z are never going to own homes and feel angry that they can’t live as well as their boomer/Gen X parents. Astronomical rents also cut into the ability to participate in consumerism. Simply put, the ability for the US to recreate the next generation of yeomen/business owners isn’t there anymore.
I do think that Christian fundamentalists do have more of an ideological stake than secular liberals. They see themselves as “saving America” from spiritual and political demons and are willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In comparison, I think that too many liberals assume that fundamentalist activists are ignorant, silly, and only found in red states, and can be safely ignored. Or alternately, that their supposedly sensible centrist views will be born out in the so called marketplace of ideas. While it’s true that finding insane stories about fundamentalist shenanigans is like shooting fish in a barrel, the bottom line is that these Christian nationalists have power and liberals don’t. So who’s really the stupid one in this scenario?
Take Jerry Falwell Sr for example. He first became politically active as a segregationist, then a general anti-communist preacher, before assuming his final form as a leader of the religious right. He did not care if he was mocked on SNL, he didn’t take off for brunch, and he never moderated his stance. If a progressive is that principled in their beliefs, liberals will sneer at them for being part of the “purity police.” But Jerry Falwell never compromised and I would say he won on many levels in the end. The difference is that Christian fundamentalists are warmly welcomed in the GOP just as they are, while Democrats mock and despise progressive activists (but still expect them to vote blue no matter who).
Christian fundamentalists were never political quietists, at least not as a group (it depended a lot on the denomination and local circumstances). Rather, they were the ones in charge in many instances until their power was challenged by the social movements of the 1960s and they fought back. Separation from the world might mean not going to the movies, wearing modern fashions, listening to whatever form of Black music that happened to be popular at the time, but it didn’t mean not being politically active. Bob Jones I was not part of the Klan, but he was “Klan curious,” if you get the drift.
As you said, the changes the Religious Right wants aren’t material per se, but they do have material consequences for wider society. Many sects of Christian fundamentalism promote debt-free living and small business ownership (no working the 9-5 under non-believers) so a good chunk of them are doing okay. However, there also others who live in poverty or just straight up grift with dubious “ministries,” but are committed to their lifestyle for political and religious reasons.
I had planned to respond to this Wednesday night or sometime during the day Thursday, but again I find that you've given some thoughts here that require some chewing. So I may revisit this at another time in a longer format.
I'll say that the model of competitive small businessperson became obviated in the early-to-mid 20th century. Big business was the proverbial shark in the food chain. The problem that arose from that eventual yet decisive change was that our mythology didn't change to fit the situation. So now we have still this overwhelming cultural script that encourages pinnacle individual achievement in the form of owning a business, and the ersatz form of that these days is the "entreprenurial" spirit as embodied in the gig economy. There's a huge discrepancy between what people are promised or sold and what is actually possible when the pond is stocked with predators. Neoliberalism, as I understand it, only exacerbates this situation.
You speak of Christian fundamentalism and power, and I would be apt to reply that I would expect that to fall according to denomination and background. It's well-known that branches of Protestantism in the United States, historically speaking, accords with classes (as cross-referenced with region, of course). So, the fundamentalism of today would be a function of its capacity to obtain and hold power. The thing about Christian nationalism as it has risen under Trump is that those sects that have charismatic or ecstatic services are coming to gain power, and that's rather new. Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, is of the New Apostolic Reformation, for example. I can't speak to what branch he might belong, but the movement as a whole embraces ecstatic practices. I think about the ramifications of this rather often, as one of the practices charismatic churches tend to perform, speaking in tongues, is to me a form of altered perception.
Now, the part about the Moral Majority bringing into force an otherwise inactive portion of the voting electorate: I didn't make that up! I wouldn't create that out of whole cloth. However, I haven't yet been able to pin down precisely where I heard that information. I can report I've heard it more than once. That was the whole revolution of that shift in electoral politics. Jimmy Carter may have been the first president to come from an evangelical background, but it was the Moral Majority that shaped that sector of the American populace into a voting force. In a way, MM stole that newly awakened voting bloc away from the Democrats at a crucial time (i.e., just as the bloc was establishing its voting behavior).
Post script: Jack mentioned people committing suicide over the election. He indicated that that's what he was hearing. I have never heard anyone offing themselves over an election. However, common folk do commit suicide over predatory capitalist economic policies levied against the domestic population:
"-Over 420,000 people in problem debt consider taking their own life in England each year, and more than 100,000 people in debt actually attempt suicide
-People in problem debt are three times more likely to have considered suicide than people who are not in problem debt
-Long-term factors such as persistent poverty and financial insecurity can put people in at risk of becoming suicidal, as can sudden triggers like the intimidating and threatening letters people receive from lenders."
Can you imagine what an affront it was to Palestinians and pro-Palestinian anti-genocide folks to see Kamala supporting the funding and arming of Israel and campaigning with a theme of 'joy'? It's beyond insensitive.
That, along with the sending of Bill Clinton to SE Michigan (specifically Dearborn) to mansplain that Israel has a right to what it’s doing in the region because of millennia-old land rights, was so tone-deaf that I am leaning toward the idea that she had already scotched such voters (the ones for whom Gaza was a major priority). She had no plan to try to bring them back into the fold. Because, yes, some of those moves were just repugnant.
The inflexibility in her position also allowed a lane for Trump to make his ridiculous and empty claims of being the “anti-war” candidate. This was a man who wanted to nuke a hurricane. But, by leaving open this lane, Harris basically rolled out the red carpet for Trump to waltz into Dearborn and meet face-to-face with the community leaders there, which earned him their vote, because he paid them basic respect. I don’t understand how she and her advisers could not have foreseen that.
Beyond tone deaf. I can't even think of a strong enough word for it.
"These people don’t realize that, in this election cycle, the emotion affecting many Democratic non-voters...was demoralization, not apathy." Well put and dead on!
I praise your continued deconstruction of these event's. And I know that your words are true. However, the more time I spend on such considerations the less fruitful it becomes, when I all ready know that the two "traditional" parties at the national level have long ago forfeited any ability to lead or guide us. We must think of our nation and the world it inhabits in a new light. Both parties give unflinching support to the predatory capitalist elites expansion policies. They are literally "killing" us!
Consider this information from my friend- Jack@veprjack, Jack's newsletter at Substack.com-
"Desmet's work on Mass Formation (Psychosis ) has helped me understand the insane behaviors we are witnessing. I'm told that people have committed suicide because Trump won. Let that sink in!"
Thanks for writing, Guy!
I appreciate your feedback about my continued efforts. Honestly, when you phrase it that way, it makes me wonder why I am so invested. I think it's a persistent sense of being unheard this entire election season. I identified with the Uncommitted movement (having called for Biden to step aside in the contest before Uncommitted had even formed as its own movement), but ultimately I voted for the Democrats for my own reasons. It's imperative, to me, that Democrats learn the correct (or at least the best) lessons they can from this loss so as to not make a wrong turn into a blind alley. That's such a prevalent danger right now.
Of course, my tendency is to examine things from a social science point of view, so my ability to give a full accounting will be limited. But I will still try.
I know also that some of my frustration comes from seeing people on different platforms, including one where I participated for a long while, come to incongruous conclusions and to descend into abject scapegoating. As a humanist, I feel the need to push back against that, even though they're speaking in a different conversation space that what's going on here at Substack. It's unclear -- I may have only an oblique success, if that, to influence other conversations. But it's still all part of what Democrats / liberals / progressives are talking about, so I continue....
So, as for your last point: it's interesting. An essay I wrote on that other platform that got an enormous response was one I wrote in 2021 about the Republican Party's decision to axe Liz Cheney from its leadership: "'Mass Psychosis' May Follow Liz Cheney's Ouster" https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/5/8/2029624/--Mass-Psychosis-May-Follow-Cheney-s-Ouster
This was written before any chatter about "mass formation psychosis," which is a right-wing term meant to disparage those who were adamant about Covid prevention and mitigation techniques. When the right wing adopted the phrase, it was just as "mass psychosis" was beginning to get picked up by the left to describe the GOP as being cult-like, and so as I see it the parlance was adopted by the right to neutralize the potency of the phrase in general. A rhetorical turn like that is meant to obscure a corresponding tendency or phenomenon in a different camp and/or "the other side of the aisle."
As for that rumor that your friend referenced: Well, I have not heard of anyone on the left who actually completed the act. I did encounter people online who threatened -- very publicly! -- to harm themselves. On the one hand, of course, people rushed to that person and attempted to dissuade him; on the other, that type of behavior is manipulative. If someone is that much in the doldrums, they usually are aware that there are professional groups and organizations that can assist them. Often, these are temporary emotional crises, and just as often people simply need someone to whom to vent. Anyway, that particular person followed up (again, publicly) and said that they had changed their mind. So, crisis averted.
Still, the episode speaks to an unintended consequence of this very rigid, absolutist rhetoric on the Democratic side that, as far as I can see, was employed to corral their own voters to get to the ballot box. "Democracy is at stake"; "fascism is on the ballot". Well, what is one to do when the fight for democracy fails? Isn't it hopeless at that point? So, retrospectively, I think that type of language had elements of blowback that I think even Democratic strategists and leaders did not anticipate. The ennui that swallowed the party that first week after Harris's loss was unlike anything I'd ever seen -- much worse than what Democrats endured after the loss in 2016. It's remarkable.
I think I am going to have to repeat myself here. (Similar to what you did in your current article.) In your last article "An increasing number of Democratic partisans are assigning blame to avoid it," the information you provided there was unequivocal, and I was jealous of the writing! Clear, concise, and to the point, plenty of back up doc's to support your analysis. What's not to love? The current article is relatively similar but, with additional post from people who basically expressed, "vote blue or forget you." Well, that's who Harris catered to and that's what she got. Hell, that could have been a Harris campaign slogan! So, the question that comes to my mind is, are people still pushing back against your narrative on Kos, Stack. or wherever? I tell people where I am at with it and basically move on. Those who stick around and still want to verbally slug it out have lost my attention. By the way, Democracy doesn't die until you, I, and the rest of the working class decides that it's dead. The political, economic, and religious elites have never practiced Democracy so they don't care if it dies.
Heh, thanks for the rejoinder. I do sometimes get ahold of a theme and run through it a couple of times. I suppose here I was trying to elucidate a difference in the types of non-voters. And I'm sure I didn't enumerate them all -- this was kind of dashed off during the Thanksgiving weekend. But I felt it was still relevant somewhat, because I'm still seeing scapegoating about these people in particular, the non-voters.
I think also I'm devoting time to the general theme of the election in this short window, because after a few weeks we'll be welcoming in a new year, and then it'll be the inauguration, and then this type of examination will be old news. There are times I will write something, have the best of intentions of expanding or deepening it but letting it sit on the backburner too long, and then the moment has passed and I don't feel it's worth posting anymore. So I definitely feel this time window effect.
To round this out, I'll note that you use the word 'elite' kind of sneeringly, which I think is in pretty widespread use these days. I have a more ambivalent relationship with that word! I come from an indigent background but was able to attend and earn a degree from a selective and well-bred private college. It's an elite school. I take pride in that. I've also edited or been on the boards of several literary magazines in my day (though none recently); that's a gatekeeper role, one for the 'elite'. I don't know. I think I'm glad to have this ambiguous relationship to the word.
And I say that because fascism uses catchwords and catchphrases. Theodor Adorno talks about this; Erich Fromm and Joost Meerloo also talk about this. We'd call such words today buzzwords or loaded language (cf. Robert Lifton) where the mention of it sets off an entire litany of associations. Fascists historically have liked to blame "the elite" so that the working class would target whomever was labeled that, while the fascists themselves set themselves up as an untouchable, elevated class. So I see a danger with that word, because of that history.
I understand where you are coming from, though. At least I believe so. The story of classes kind of cuts against the story of democracy, which is leveling.
I'm certainly not being concise here but rather overly chatty, so I'll wrap up! I do appreciate you stopping back by.
I too was fortunate enough to attend an elite private university. It would be a shame for me to not use the tools that education provided to help those who have been marginalized. I get and agree with your point on the use of some words to manipulate public opinion. In other venues, when I am discussing in depth "the elites" I define what that word means in context. In our discussions, the word "elite" or "economic elites" refers to what the the sociologists Peter Phillips and William Robinson call the -Transnational Capitalist Class. Robinson's writing in particular parallel with your understandings of fascism. This is one of the reasons I brought it up. Peace, G
Western political science has been trying to ascertain why so many Westerners are so apathetic about liberal democracy for sixty plus years. The fact is that I think most people think of elections as a team sport at best and a particularly dreary (and rigged) reality show at worst. The message is that the only legitimate form of political engagement is voting and other activities pertaining to electoral politics (eg phone banking, door to door campaigns, get out the vote), none of which is particularly empowering. The media continually tells us that we have the best political system that can or will ever exist, but most of us understand how depressing that notion is. We don’t get to vote on things that actual matter, like whether we should be sending weapons to Israel or Medicare for all. In many locales in the US, the families who were in charge before the Civil War are still in charge in 2024. In much of Europe, the families that were in charge during the medieval period are still in charge in 2024.
The simple fact is that most people don’t vote because their lives stay the same, regardless of who wins. The founding fathers’ notion that only property holding men needed the right to vote because only they had a real stake in society is kind of true in a way. The people who are most likely to vote today are those who have a stake in society, and that typically entails having a certain level of economic attainment that gives you an interest in political affairs (even so, most people vote on vibes or team affiliation). I think this is also why voting days are on Tuesday during business hours, as I think the view is that if you really want to vote, you’ll find a way to inconvenience yourself to do it.
I have some disparate thoughts on this I'd like to corral before I try to offer them for public consumption. I think what you underline about property ownership may have been generally true in the 18th century, but the Industrial Revolution had to have changed that in ways that led to all sorts of social tumult. What strikes me is that we in the States are back to the same atmosphere (except for the extreme social Darwinism, though that's trying to make a comeback as well) as what we had in the late 1880s, '90s & 1900s, with an economic contraction paired with a huge wave of xenophobia. Now, the latter was rather manufactured by the ruling class at the time (which can be pieced together if one reads Walter Lippmann's work, among others). What we have now is a parallel structure -- which is pretty remarkable, considering all of the ins and outs Americans went through in the 20th century.
Of course, now we're de-industrializing, with the added knock-on effects of AI sending even more people out of work. I have thoughts about this, but I haven't placed them in the context of voting! So I guess I need to think about that more.
I suppose, in terms of voting behavior, we really did go through a mini-revolution when the Moral Majority arose in the late '70s and created a new voting bloc out of thin air. There's been nothing comparable on the left in any sense. I'm not sure if that phenomenon aligns with your hypothesis: Do they have a greater ideological stake in society? Before the '70s, those folks just didn't vote at all. Yet I'm guessing that their financial outlook probably has been steady, just as you say. (I'd need to delve into the stats to be sure.)
Also, in terms of "a real stake in society," I'm skeptical of the idea that such a thing has to be material. I think lots of people were encouraged to vote out of duty or obligation, when they were so inculcated in civics class (but now those classes are generally cut from the curriculum). I also think this sense of civic duty explains some of the fury coming from the Democratic rank and file, where they feel the non-voters shirked their duties and basically betrayed their "office" as citizens. Their anger is a form of patriotism, I guess, in that respect -- partisan, but patriotic just the same.
I do think making Election Day a holiday -- even an unpaid holiday -- would increase turnout. At the very least, it's an experiment that should be tried.
Thank you for your reply. Some months ago, I wrote that there isn’t a concept for a model citizen in the American political mind. I realized afterwards that that isn’t true, as the Jeffersonian yeoman farmer/small business owner was and continues to be the ideal. This concept was further refined and weaponized during the Cold War with the idea that homeownership gave Americans their own stake in the continuation of capitalism. This vision contributes to the problem we have now, where lots of people, especially millennials and Gen Z are never going to own homes and feel angry that they can’t live as well as their boomer/Gen X parents. Astronomical rents also cut into the ability to participate in consumerism. Simply put, the ability for the US to recreate the next generation of yeomen/business owners isn’t there anymore.
I do think that Christian fundamentalists do have more of an ideological stake than secular liberals. They see themselves as “saving America” from spiritual and political demons and are willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In comparison, I think that too many liberals assume that fundamentalist activists are ignorant, silly, and only found in red states, and can be safely ignored. Or alternately, that their supposedly sensible centrist views will be born out in the so called marketplace of ideas. While it’s true that finding insane stories about fundamentalist shenanigans is like shooting fish in a barrel, the bottom line is that these Christian nationalists have power and liberals don’t. So who’s really the stupid one in this scenario?
Take Jerry Falwell Sr for example. He first became politically active as a segregationist, then a general anti-communist preacher, before assuming his final form as a leader of the religious right. He did not care if he was mocked on SNL, he didn’t take off for brunch, and he never moderated his stance. If a progressive is that principled in their beliefs, liberals will sneer at them for being part of the “purity police.” But Jerry Falwell never compromised and I would say he won on many levels in the end. The difference is that Christian fundamentalists are warmly welcomed in the GOP just as they are, while Democrats mock and despise progressive activists (but still expect them to vote blue no matter who).
Christian fundamentalists were never political quietists, at least not as a group (it depended a lot on the denomination and local circumstances). Rather, they were the ones in charge in many instances until their power was challenged by the social movements of the 1960s and they fought back. Separation from the world might mean not going to the movies, wearing modern fashions, listening to whatever form of Black music that happened to be popular at the time, but it didn’t mean not being politically active. Bob Jones I was not part of the Klan, but he was “Klan curious,” if you get the drift.
As you said, the changes the Religious Right wants aren’t material per se, but they do have material consequences for wider society. Many sects of Christian fundamentalism promote debt-free living and small business ownership (no working the 9-5 under non-believers) so a good chunk of them are doing okay. However, there also others who live in poverty or just straight up grift with dubious “ministries,” but are committed to their lifestyle for political and religious reasons.
Thanks for the in-depth response, LC.
I had planned to respond to this Wednesday night or sometime during the day Thursday, but again I find that you've given some thoughts here that require some chewing. So I may revisit this at another time in a longer format.
I'll say that the model of competitive small businessperson became obviated in the early-to-mid 20th century. Big business was the proverbial shark in the food chain. The problem that arose from that eventual yet decisive change was that our mythology didn't change to fit the situation. So now we have still this overwhelming cultural script that encourages pinnacle individual achievement in the form of owning a business, and the ersatz form of that these days is the "entreprenurial" spirit as embodied in the gig economy. There's a huge discrepancy between what people are promised or sold and what is actually possible when the pond is stocked with predators. Neoliberalism, as I understand it, only exacerbates this situation.
You speak of Christian fundamentalism and power, and I would be apt to reply that I would expect that to fall according to denomination and background. It's well-known that branches of Protestantism in the United States, historically speaking, accords with classes (as cross-referenced with region, of course). So, the fundamentalism of today would be a function of its capacity to obtain and hold power. The thing about Christian nationalism as it has risen under Trump is that those sects that have charismatic or ecstatic services are coming to gain power, and that's rather new. Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, is of the New Apostolic Reformation, for example. I can't speak to what branch he might belong, but the movement as a whole embraces ecstatic practices. I think about the ramifications of this rather often, as one of the practices charismatic churches tend to perform, speaking in tongues, is to me a form of altered perception.
Now, the part about the Moral Majority bringing into force an otherwise inactive portion of the voting electorate: I didn't make that up! I wouldn't create that out of whole cloth. However, I haven't yet been able to pin down precisely where I heard that information. I can report I've heard it more than once. That was the whole revolution of that shift in electoral politics. Jimmy Carter may have been the first president to come from an evangelical background, but it was the Moral Majority that shaped that sector of the American populace into a voting force. In a way, MM stole that newly awakened voting bloc away from the Democrats at a crucial time (i.e., just as the bloc was establishing its voting behavior).
Post script: Jack mentioned people committing suicide over the election. He indicated that that's what he was hearing. I have never heard anyone offing themselves over an election. However, common folk do commit suicide over predatory capitalist economic policies levied against the domestic population:
"-Over 420,000 people in problem debt consider taking their own life in England each year, and more than 100,000 people in debt actually attempt suicide
-People in problem debt are three times more likely to have considered suicide than people who are not in problem debt
-Long-term factors such as persistent poverty and financial insecurity can put people in at risk of becoming suicidal, as can sudden triggers like the intimidating and threatening letters people receive from lenders."
https://www.moneyandmentalhealth.org/publications/suicide-and-debt/