These ppl are ignorant, as well as racist and ugly. Harris lost because 14M Dem voters who turned out in 2020 refused to vote for her. They stayed home or voted for Trump/3rd party. Notable that in several states where Harris lost to Trump, Dems won big downballot. Michigan for example.
This is an excellent essay. What’s amazed me, as a long-term Democrat, is how little self-analysis my fellow Democrats (of the type you show above) seem capable of. I say “seem” because I don’t know!
This election was Harris’s to lose. I couldn’t possibly vote for genocide Joe, but I wanted to vote for her. All she had to do was state, firmly and clearly, that she would stop arms shipments to Israel, and she would have had my vote—and that of thousands of others. But she didn’t.
And now we’re stuck with the Donald, a petty, racist, sexist, and unpredictable man. It really is scary, and it was, I think, totally avoidable.
I think this next month will be crucial in determining the trajectory of the Democratic Party after this period of reset. Unlike the GOP in 2012, it appears Democratic politicians, operatives and strategists are invested in dissecting this election result and what went wrong. I fear that they will derive erroneous answers from flawed input, but we’ll see.
As for the folks at the grassroots level, I sincerely fear for the kinds of internal changes they may be feeling at this moment.
Liberals before November 5: Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy, who threatens the life and welfare of racial minorities, non-Christians, and LGBT people.
Liberals after November 5: Anyone who fails the paper bag test needs to be put in a death camp, as do trans people of any race because they’re gross. For good measure, the minorities who pass the paper bag test also need to be put to death so they don’t ruin our glorious “racial community.”
I knew that the backlash against minorities would be intense, but I’m shocked at how klanned out liberals have been these last few days. If this is their attitude towards losing, the Democrats deserve to lose in perpetuity. No examining the many leadership failures, no turning away from bland centrism, no bold visions for the future, just blame and scorn for unpopular minority groups. This just illustrates how liberal concern for minorities is all performative and based on the extent they’re willing to support the status quo. If these people were the same age they are now back in 1968, they would have cheered MLK’s assassination.
I agree that some erstwhile liberals are really showing their ass. I’m just amazed that they’re willing to type out their thoughts — and post them on a forum that doesn’t allow for editing. These comments are forever.
I’m sure some of them will regret being so hot-headed at some point in the future. They’ll chalk it up to “blowing off steam” or somesuch. However, what I fear is that there may come a critical mass of likemindedness, where people won’t take an opportunity to reflect. They’ll be urged on by their small band of buddies, and then their anger will cement itself and become lodged indefinitely. An intervention is needed.
I daresay that if this trend does calcify and leads to an exodus of folks otherwise classed in those “unpopular” minority groups from the Democratic Party (I don’t yet see this but it’s a possibility), that will either swell the GOP (a remote possibility) or will actually engender a viable third party. That would be to the Democrats’ detriment, and I hope some folks higher up the foodchain realize this.
Thank you for your reply. I guess the question at this point is what do liberals find offensive about Trump. Given their own sudden eruptions of racism, it can’t be that. Since they have no sympathy for women in red states, it must not be misogyny. Transphobia doesn’t explain it, as they’re eagerly throwing trans people under the bus. They claim that Trump will cause an unspecified genocide, while complaining about people who are protesting an actual genocide. From my vantage point, the only point of contention is that 1. Trump isn’t on “their side” 2. He’s open about his bigotry and American chauvinism, rather than couching this is bland platitudes, which is bad optics.
Well, I want to stress that I didn’t pull these examples randomly. These are deliberately selected so as to make a point. I’m not trying to paint the entire Democratic voting base as being this callous. So I ask that you keep that in mind and not extrapolate from the examples given here.
I will say that the fact that I was able to dip into online conversations and come up with a fair handful of examples is warning enough. I wrote this essay not because I think that liberals are already so far gone that they are irretrievable but to raise the alarm so as to perhaps get some to look around and take a second glance at what’s bubbling.
(I also think that some are so oblivious that they think they are narrowcasting their schadenfreude onto that sliver of pseudo-race traitors [someone actually used the word ‘kapo’ to describe the turncoats] and are completely unaware of how they look and sound to the rest of the world. They’re immersed in provincialism and are accordingly myopic.)
So yes, please, don’t generalize and then extrapolate. That’s precisely the thought process behind bigotry in the first place, and I try to combat bad thought processes. It is significant, though, that you reacted in this way, as it reveals just how much of a black eye these folks are bringing to liberals as a group. It’s really unfortunate, and I hope people come back to themselves.
Thank you for your reply. The thing is that these eruptions of racism aren’t just limited to the Other Site. They’re also on Xitter, Blue Sky, Reddit, NYT comment sections, etc. Of course, there’s no way to know how much random social media comments map onto the actual population. But it is alarming, nonetheless.
I’m sure it’s bursting through like pus in various places, just as you say. I’m not on a lot of those platforms, so I’m not exposed to them. I can just guess how Musk’s online klavern is shaping up at this hour.
What these erstwhile liberals don’t realize is that if they wallow in hate in this moment, they leave themselves open for recruitment into actual hate groups later down the line. They’re opening the wrong door.
I read those comments and I have seen other examples of this way of thinking and this rhetoric on another social media platform. I suspect some of it is an angry reaction that people will regret and not revealing of their true selves. And some of it reveals their true character.
People express themselves during trauma. You could most likely give us the underpinnings of it and all the psychological aspects that go into these expressions, whether or not they reveal the true self. I am not sure. I am still in shock. Not so much disbelief. But I have been giving a lot of thought to why things have turned out this way.
I am leaning into the belief, that no matter what people say, what they DID was find justification to HELP Trump rise to the most powerful position in the world. Not voting for Harris, brought that outcome.’
Low taxes, Gaza, misogyny, racism, inflation, who plays volleyball at the high school, whatever the justification… Trump has been given the most powerful position in the world.
I hope he uses that power for good. I hope he stops the genocide, creates peace, prosperity, and security. I hope he turns into a champion of democracy.
We will see. We will see. I could be wrong because I have a long record of being very wrong. But I think he will bring great harm and tremendous suffering. I think he will continue his unlawful actions. I think he will mobilize his violent cultists and set them onto those who oppose him. I think his presidency will be more catastrophic than anything we have experienced before. Those who helped him get where he is might be feeling victorious or morally superior. Today. But here shortly, I predict they feel regret. We will see.
Thanks for commenting, FC. Some preliminary thoughts:
First, I'd like to point out that I notice that you pivot directly to why people may be feeling vindictive, whereas I was noting what may happen to these people for embracing their vindictiveness. These are two very different concerns.
But, what I really want to examine is your statement that "no matter what people say, what they DID was find justification to HELP Trump rise tot he most powerful position in the world. Not voting for Harris brought that outcome."
There's a lot of problems with that statement, some of which I may be able to articulate now and some I may have to think on and come back with better answers.
First and foremost, who are we ultimately blaming here? The first people to blame are the GOP and the RNC, for bringing Trump back onto the ticket. That's number one.
Second, you must hold his cult responsible. I say that with a caveat that those people, too, have been manipulated in fundamental ways. But they are his base, and they turned out for him.
Third, as far as MAGA is concerned, the fact that Trump has a cult was known and needed to be accounted for. Did the Democrats do that? Given the result, I would have to say that they did not.
That's just where the blame lies in that other camp, not in terms of what Democrats could have done to attract votes. But that was their responsibility. The party's job is to get people to vote in its favor. It failed to do that. I don't say that with pleasure -- I've voted for Democrats my entire life. Indeed, the only reason I voted for them this time was for the party itself (and, in retrospect, I will need to inspect my own sense of affiliation, because for months I had seriously contemplated a completely different action).
But to point to myself as an example, I have had that long history with the party. Young voters haven't. Those who would normally lean Democratic -- the idealists -- and who are outraged by what is going on in Gaza (and possibly elsewhere) see that what's going on there is a clear wrong, and that Democrats are perpetrating that wrong by directly aiding it. There's a direct connection. And so, seeing that link, idealists will see that and see fault with the party in power. That's it. I'm not sure if I can explain that very direct line any other way. Had Republicans been in office and engaged in such a carte blanche policy toward Israel, I believe those young voters would have turned away from them in a similar way. That response is completely reasonable and rational.
I've tried to express this several different ways over the course of this year: it's not whether Trump would have continued the genocide AND THUS the Democrats get a pass. No. That is not and cannot be the calculus. The point is that MY PARTY IS ENGAGING IN WRONGDOING. This is about cleaning one's own house. I hold my leaders to a standard. And as I've said, it's not too much to ask that people not engage in genocide. It's a reasonable ask.
Harris, for whatever reason, decided that she could not meet that standard. Thus, many people in various parts of the Democratic base, had to take that into account.
Harris made the calculation that she could win without these votes. She bet wrong. Who's to blame there? Harris and her team. You cannot blame voters for using their votes -- just as they said they would, months in advance -- to not endorse genocide. As I've said, a vote is an affirmation. It's saying, "I believe you should do these things" (especially when those things are policy). People couldn't countenance that. Harris knew that, apparently crunched some numbers, and decided that she could leave those votes on the table.
There are other issues that occurred over the course of this extremely compressed election, including unheard of levels of racism and sexism. I mean, just off the charts. I may write an essay about this, but what Trump was selling here with his disdain and utter lack of respect for Harris was an attitude. He never debated her on substance. He never even addressed her or referred to her by name in their debate. He signaled to his base that they didn't need to respect her not only as a Black woman but BECAUSE she's a Black woman. They bought that and they internalized it. And that's not even addressing all of the other forms of disinformation (such as the rumor that Tim Walz molested a male student at his school, which was utterly false but reached millions before being exposed).
So you had some people who were raring to vote for Trump. You had people who had imbibed the racism and sexism and were ready to vote against Harris (some even believed her to be a demon). You had young people seeing a moral wrong in very black or white terms (some of whom were bludgeoned with truncheons earlier this year in the student protests, something that would not have endeared them to the state in general or this administration in particular). And you had people so demoralized or uninterested that they simply stayed home -- they were not given a strong enough reason to cast their vote.
Some of this happens every cycle (people staying home or voting third party, for instance). Some of it was unique to this cycle. And the Democrats did not adjust adroitly enough to chart a course to victory.
I do think some people were short-sighted, don't get me wrong. I saw a panel on ABC News where the anchor asked three people from the Arab-American community why they were voting the way they were. One was a Harris supporter, one was going for Trump, and one was (like me) holding onto her ballot until the very last minute to see if Harris would make a change on Gaza. The guy who was supporting Trump had all of his data wrong, and even the woman sitting by had some incorrect information. The only one who was on the ball in terms of having his information correct and aligned with his voting decision was the guy voting for Harris. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOuo23AJv4U
Now, that was just a sliver, but it was interesting to see their thought processes. At the same time, this was two days out from the election, and by then pretty much everything was already baked into the cake.
Thanks for your response. I was unclear in my blame assignment. I do most certainly blame MAGAs for supporting Trump. They are wrong. I was mostly referring to them when I went through the list of reasons they give for supporting Trump even though he is a rapist, says racist things every day, and tried to overthrow the government. The MAGAS and finance bankers SAY they support him because he will reduce taxes. And spout off about him managing the economy. That is just what they say. I think they are just not going to vote for a Black woman. Same with the scores of white women who voted for Trump. Even though they might have to carry a dead fetus in their womb, they say they support Trump because he will be good for the economy. Nope. They are racists and are making a decision to protect white male supremacy because that white male, if he can keep his position at the top, that protects their position as next in line. The white women who voted for Trump did so in order to advance white supremacy.
As for the white women who did not vote or who voted third party, helped Trump. I suspect that some of the white women or men, who made this choice to not vote or vote third party, are unable to vote for a Black woman. If it wasn’t Gaza, a different justification would be found. And SOME of the white men and women who voted third party or did not vote hoped or figured Harris could win without them but they could have this wiggle room and hold true to their moral sensibilities. In short, (I am rarely concise), I am pretty much rejecting this idea, that in this election, you can claim any moral high ground by making decisions that helped Trump win. It is just impossible to reconcile - “I made a moral decision” and “I helped Trump win”. Those two don’t go together in my mind.
I do think you are right to make the points about young voters. If they are just starting out as voters, idealistic, had their heads bashed in and got kicked out of college… I think the reasonable choice would be to make decisions that keep Trump out of the White House. But if they sat this one out or voted third party… youth. They get a pass.
As I stated in my first comment, I am in shock still. And trying to figure stuff out. I am sore. Mad. So my reasoning is being influenced by that I am sure.
As for your take about the Democratic Party… lordy. We are in big trouble. I hate looking at all that red on the map. Wow! Obviously we have major major problems. Foreign and domestic. Messaging. Leadership. Before we figure out messaging, we have to decide who we are. Right now, what we are is confused, fractured, and most importantly defeated. Sorry for this long comment.
No, thank you so much for this long response. It was clarifying and very interesting. I enjoy hearing from you.
It’s a time of mourning, I know. I’m trying to be respectful of that while still firmly pointing out what I see that we Democrats got wrong. We’ll be smarting for some time to come — not just us in the party, not just us in this country, but around the world. Some sowed the wind, and we’re about to reap the whirlwind.
Novapsyche, I am sorry you are now seeing what many of us have known for a very long time - and what Malcolm X warned us about more than 50 years ago.
“Liberals” love to see them selves in a positive light; they pretend to enlightenment and kindness and goodness - so long as it doesn’t cost them anything. Their sympathy was always skin deep, and only for the current socially acceptable victim. It was liberals who brought us the notion of the ‘super predator,’ who told skilled (and unskilled) laborers that they weren’t worth a living wage unless they learned to code. It was the liberal who made the price of admission to the middle class contingent on a college degree (soon worthless) and burdened that admission with a lifetime of debt. Liberals thrive on ‘feeling holy’ - but the streak of conservative calvinism that runs in the American bloodstream finds it’s peak expression in this group.
Liberals like to pretend that when America starts a war, it’s about spreading peace. At least conservatives have the grace to be honest - it’s to fuck Russia, or take the oil, or to prevent China’s mixed capitalist/communist economy from being more successful than our own. The dead babies are dead either way, but liberals feel good about it. Madeline Albright, storied liberal, felt good about 500000 dead Iraqis - it was totally worth it to free Iraq!
You'll have to excuse me if I take a more nuanced look at history. For example, you bring up college degrees and what goes along with them (entrance to the middle class, debt, etc.). From my vantage point, it's clear that in the late '60s, early '70s, the social contract got redrawn. One of the things that changed was the higher education system. In the '50s, much of the college admission system is inexpensive, some free. This changes by the '70s, and this coincides not only with the switch in recognition of rights for African Americans but also with the emergence of women in the labor market. So these things made it so that many, many more people needed to attend college. This meant there was an enormous opportunity to make money off of these people. Colleges became far more exclusive; they raised tuition. I must admit that I am still researching the ins and outs of this time period, but it's clear to me that administrators of higher educational systems took advantage of this period of transition to fundamentally change the system so as to derive profit.
As for middle class admission, well, my point of departure in this country makes it so that I appreciated the fact that college conferred middle class status, because I didn't come from the middle class. There are multiple ways by which one can become middle class. The easiest is to be born into it. One's parents instructs one in the manners, folkways and rituals that comprise middle classhood. Other ways include the finishing school of higher education, as we just said, as well as graduating into the middle class by dint of socioeconomics -- landing a job and/or entering a profession that confers class status. So I would not place "admission to the middle class" as "contingent on a college degree." I think that is a very limited view.
As for 'superpredator', that was really Hillary Clinton who popularized that term. Perhaps some other person thought it up, but it was she who pushed the idea into the mainstream. Hillary Clinton came from a conservative background. She's never shed that in its entirety. I voted for Clinton in 2016 (though she was not my choice in the primary--Bernie Sanders was my choice in the primary.) But, as I recall, Clinton called herself a Goldwater girl. That's damning. I've no doubt that some of those ideas are still percolating in her head, especially considering her abject blockheaded response to the student protests earlier this year. We need new thought leaders in the Democratic Party -- I think most of us can agree with that.
As for your statement "Liberals like to pretend that when America starts a war, it's about spreading peace," I think you have liberals mixed up with neoconservatives. That's a George W. Bush type of worldview. Now, has there been some blending of some foreign policy ideas among neoconservatives and neoliberals? I would venture yes, but that I think has more to do with ends, those ends being more places for market activity. That some in power would use the idea of peace to invade other lands is an old story, one that goes back at least to seafaring missionaries looking to make natives convert or die. We've simply got better technology now, under a state that professes to be secular.
In its original 1960s iteration, neoconservatism was mild social progressivism on domestic matters combined with an aggressive foreign policy. This was to distinguish them from the paleo conservatives, who married social conservatism with a certain degree of isolationism. The best example of this is probably Pat Buchanan, whom I believe was defenestrated from the Republican Party precisely because he wasn’t interested in signing onto the forever wars, despite coining the phrase “culture war.” In comparison, neocons don’t care if you want to have an abortion, if you want to get a same sex marriage, have gender reassignment surgery, etc. They have their eye on the prize, which is total world domination. Recall that Dick Cheney was not only in favor of gay marriage before GWB, but also before Obama or the Clintons. This means that neocons can switch parties at will, depending on which one is more bellicose at any given time. However, it seems like the underlying belief in perpetual American unipolarity is a default assumption in Washington, regardless of party or ideological affiliation.
These ppl are ignorant, as well as racist and ugly. Harris lost because 14M Dem voters who turned out in 2020 refused to vote for her. They stayed home or voted for Trump/3rd party. Notable that in several states where Harris lost to Trump, Dems won big downballot. Michigan for example.
This is an excellent essay. What’s amazed me, as a long-term Democrat, is how little self-analysis my fellow Democrats (of the type you show above) seem capable of. I say “seem” because I don’t know!
This election was Harris’s to lose. I couldn’t possibly vote for genocide Joe, but I wanted to vote for her. All she had to do was state, firmly and clearly, that she would stop arms shipments to Israel, and she would have had my vote—and that of thousands of others. But she didn’t.
And now we’re stuck with the Donald, a petty, racist, sexist, and unpredictable man. It really is scary, and it was, I think, totally avoidable.
Yes, entirely avoidable.
I think this next month will be crucial in determining the trajectory of the Democratic Party after this period of reset. Unlike the GOP in 2012, it appears Democratic politicians, operatives and strategists are invested in dissecting this election result and what went wrong. I fear that they will derive erroneous answers from flawed input, but we’ll see.
As for the folks at the grassroots level, I sincerely fear for the kinds of internal changes they may be feeling at this moment.
Liberals before November 5: Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy, who threatens the life and welfare of racial minorities, non-Christians, and LGBT people.
Liberals after November 5: Anyone who fails the paper bag test needs to be put in a death camp, as do trans people of any race because they’re gross. For good measure, the minorities who pass the paper bag test also need to be put to death so they don’t ruin our glorious “racial community.”
I knew that the backlash against minorities would be intense, but I’m shocked at how klanned out liberals have been these last few days. If this is their attitude towards losing, the Democrats deserve to lose in perpetuity. No examining the many leadership failures, no turning away from bland centrism, no bold visions for the future, just blame and scorn for unpopular minority groups. This just illustrates how liberal concern for minorities is all performative and based on the extent they’re willing to support the status quo. If these people were the same age they are now back in 1968, they would have cheered MLK’s assassination.
I agree that some erstwhile liberals are really showing their ass. I’m just amazed that they’re willing to type out their thoughts — and post them on a forum that doesn’t allow for editing. These comments are forever.
I’m sure some of them will regret being so hot-headed at some point in the future. They’ll chalk it up to “blowing off steam” or somesuch. However, what I fear is that there may come a critical mass of likemindedness, where people won’t take an opportunity to reflect. They’ll be urged on by their small band of buddies, and then their anger will cement itself and become lodged indefinitely. An intervention is needed.
I daresay that if this trend does calcify and leads to an exodus of folks otherwise classed in those “unpopular” minority groups from the Democratic Party (I don’t yet see this but it’s a possibility), that will either swell the GOP (a remote possibility) or will actually engender a viable third party. That would be to the Democrats’ detriment, and I hope some folks higher up the foodchain realize this.
Thank you for your reply. I guess the question at this point is what do liberals find offensive about Trump. Given their own sudden eruptions of racism, it can’t be that. Since they have no sympathy for women in red states, it must not be misogyny. Transphobia doesn’t explain it, as they’re eagerly throwing trans people under the bus. They claim that Trump will cause an unspecified genocide, while complaining about people who are protesting an actual genocide. From my vantage point, the only point of contention is that 1. Trump isn’t on “their side” 2. He’s open about his bigotry and American chauvinism, rather than couching this is bland platitudes, which is bad optics.
Well, I want to stress that I didn’t pull these examples randomly. These are deliberately selected so as to make a point. I’m not trying to paint the entire Democratic voting base as being this callous. So I ask that you keep that in mind and not extrapolate from the examples given here.
I will say that the fact that I was able to dip into online conversations and come up with a fair handful of examples is warning enough. I wrote this essay not because I think that liberals are already so far gone that they are irretrievable but to raise the alarm so as to perhaps get some to look around and take a second glance at what’s bubbling.
(I also think that some are so oblivious that they think they are narrowcasting their schadenfreude onto that sliver of pseudo-race traitors [someone actually used the word ‘kapo’ to describe the turncoats] and are completely unaware of how they look and sound to the rest of the world. They’re immersed in provincialism and are accordingly myopic.)
So yes, please, don’t generalize and then extrapolate. That’s precisely the thought process behind bigotry in the first place, and I try to combat bad thought processes. It is significant, though, that you reacted in this way, as it reveals just how much of a black eye these folks are bringing to liberals as a group. It’s really unfortunate, and I hope people come back to themselves.
Thank you for your reply. The thing is that these eruptions of racism aren’t just limited to the Other Site. They’re also on Xitter, Blue Sky, Reddit, NYT comment sections, etc. Of course, there’s no way to know how much random social media comments map onto the actual population. But it is alarming, nonetheless.
I’m sure it’s bursting through like pus in various places, just as you say. I’m not on a lot of those platforms, so I’m not exposed to them. I can just guess how Musk’s online klavern is shaping up at this hour.
What these erstwhile liberals don’t realize is that if they wallow in hate in this moment, they leave themselves open for recruitment into actual hate groups later down the line. They’re opening the wrong door.
I read those comments and I have seen other examples of this way of thinking and this rhetoric on another social media platform. I suspect some of it is an angry reaction that people will regret and not revealing of their true selves. And some of it reveals their true character.
People express themselves during trauma. You could most likely give us the underpinnings of it and all the psychological aspects that go into these expressions, whether or not they reveal the true self. I am not sure. I am still in shock. Not so much disbelief. But I have been giving a lot of thought to why things have turned out this way.
I am leaning into the belief, that no matter what people say, what they DID was find justification to HELP Trump rise to the most powerful position in the world. Not voting for Harris, brought that outcome.’
Low taxes, Gaza, misogyny, racism, inflation, who plays volleyball at the high school, whatever the justification… Trump has been given the most powerful position in the world.
I hope he uses that power for good. I hope he stops the genocide, creates peace, prosperity, and security. I hope he turns into a champion of democracy.
We will see. We will see. I could be wrong because I have a long record of being very wrong. But I think he will bring great harm and tremendous suffering. I think he will continue his unlawful actions. I think he will mobilize his violent cultists and set them onto those who oppose him. I think his presidency will be more catastrophic than anything we have experienced before. Those who helped him get where he is might be feeling victorious or morally superior. Today. But here shortly, I predict they feel regret. We will see.
Thanks for commenting, FC. Some preliminary thoughts:
First, I'd like to point out that I notice that you pivot directly to why people may be feeling vindictive, whereas I was noting what may happen to these people for embracing their vindictiveness. These are two very different concerns.
But, what I really want to examine is your statement that "no matter what people say, what they DID was find justification to HELP Trump rise tot he most powerful position in the world. Not voting for Harris brought that outcome."
There's a lot of problems with that statement, some of which I may be able to articulate now and some I may have to think on and come back with better answers.
First and foremost, who are we ultimately blaming here? The first people to blame are the GOP and the RNC, for bringing Trump back onto the ticket. That's number one.
Second, you must hold his cult responsible. I say that with a caveat that those people, too, have been manipulated in fundamental ways. But they are his base, and they turned out for him.
Third, as far as MAGA is concerned, the fact that Trump has a cult was known and needed to be accounted for. Did the Democrats do that? Given the result, I would have to say that they did not.
That's just where the blame lies in that other camp, not in terms of what Democrats could have done to attract votes. But that was their responsibility. The party's job is to get people to vote in its favor. It failed to do that. I don't say that with pleasure -- I've voted for Democrats my entire life. Indeed, the only reason I voted for them this time was for the party itself (and, in retrospect, I will need to inspect my own sense of affiliation, because for months I had seriously contemplated a completely different action).
But to point to myself as an example, I have had that long history with the party. Young voters haven't. Those who would normally lean Democratic -- the idealists -- and who are outraged by what is going on in Gaza (and possibly elsewhere) see that what's going on there is a clear wrong, and that Democrats are perpetrating that wrong by directly aiding it. There's a direct connection. And so, seeing that link, idealists will see that and see fault with the party in power. That's it. I'm not sure if I can explain that very direct line any other way. Had Republicans been in office and engaged in such a carte blanche policy toward Israel, I believe those young voters would have turned away from them in a similar way. That response is completely reasonable and rational.
I've tried to express this several different ways over the course of this year: it's not whether Trump would have continued the genocide AND THUS the Democrats get a pass. No. That is not and cannot be the calculus. The point is that MY PARTY IS ENGAGING IN WRONGDOING. This is about cleaning one's own house. I hold my leaders to a standard. And as I've said, it's not too much to ask that people not engage in genocide. It's a reasonable ask.
Harris, for whatever reason, decided that she could not meet that standard. Thus, many people in various parts of the Democratic base, had to take that into account.
Harris made the calculation that she could win without these votes. She bet wrong. Who's to blame there? Harris and her team. You cannot blame voters for using their votes -- just as they said they would, months in advance -- to not endorse genocide. As I've said, a vote is an affirmation. It's saying, "I believe you should do these things" (especially when those things are policy). People couldn't countenance that. Harris knew that, apparently crunched some numbers, and decided that she could leave those votes on the table.
There are other issues that occurred over the course of this extremely compressed election, including unheard of levels of racism and sexism. I mean, just off the charts. I may write an essay about this, but what Trump was selling here with his disdain and utter lack of respect for Harris was an attitude. He never debated her on substance. He never even addressed her or referred to her by name in their debate. He signaled to his base that they didn't need to respect her not only as a Black woman but BECAUSE she's a Black woman. They bought that and they internalized it. And that's not even addressing all of the other forms of disinformation (such as the rumor that Tim Walz molested a male student at his school, which was utterly false but reached millions before being exposed).
So you had some people who were raring to vote for Trump. You had people who had imbibed the racism and sexism and were ready to vote against Harris (some even believed her to be a demon). You had young people seeing a moral wrong in very black or white terms (some of whom were bludgeoned with truncheons earlier this year in the student protests, something that would not have endeared them to the state in general or this administration in particular). And you had people so demoralized or uninterested that they simply stayed home -- they were not given a strong enough reason to cast their vote.
Some of this happens every cycle (people staying home or voting third party, for instance). Some of it was unique to this cycle. And the Democrats did not adjust adroitly enough to chart a course to victory.
I do think some people were short-sighted, don't get me wrong. I saw a panel on ABC News where the anchor asked three people from the Arab-American community why they were voting the way they were. One was a Harris supporter, one was going for Trump, and one was (like me) holding onto her ballot until the very last minute to see if Harris would make a change on Gaza. The guy who was supporting Trump had all of his data wrong, and even the woman sitting by had some incorrect information. The only one who was on the ball in terms of having his information correct and aligned with his voting decision was the guy voting for Harris. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOuo23AJv4U
Now, that was just a sliver, but it was interesting to see their thought processes. At the same time, this was two days out from the election, and by then pretty much everything was already baked into the cake.
Thanks for your response. I was unclear in my blame assignment. I do most certainly blame MAGAs for supporting Trump. They are wrong. I was mostly referring to them when I went through the list of reasons they give for supporting Trump even though he is a rapist, says racist things every day, and tried to overthrow the government. The MAGAS and finance bankers SAY they support him because he will reduce taxes. And spout off about him managing the economy. That is just what they say. I think they are just not going to vote for a Black woman. Same with the scores of white women who voted for Trump. Even though they might have to carry a dead fetus in their womb, they say they support Trump because he will be good for the economy. Nope. They are racists and are making a decision to protect white male supremacy because that white male, if he can keep his position at the top, that protects their position as next in line. The white women who voted for Trump did so in order to advance white supremacy.
As for the white women who did not vote or who voted third party, helped Trump. I suspect that some of the white women or men, who made this choice to not vote or vote third party, are unable to vote for a Black woman. If it wasn’t Gaza, a different justification would be found. And SOME of the white men and women who voted third party or did not vote hoped or figured Harris could win without them but they could have this wiggle room and hold true to their moral sensibilities. In short, (I am rarely concise), I am pretty much rejecting this idea, that in this election, you can claim any moral high ground by making decisions that helped Trump win. It is just impossible to reconcile - “I made a moral decision” and “I helped Trump win”. Those two don’t go together in my mind.
I do think you are right to make the points about young voters. If they are just starting out as voters, idealistic, had their heads bashed in and got kicked out of college… I think the reasonable choice would be to make decisions that keep Trump out of the White House. But if they sat this one out or voted third party… youth. They get a pass.
As I stated in my first comment, I am in shock still. And trying to figure stuff out. I am sore. Mad. So my reasoning is being influenced by that I am sure.
As for your take about the Democratic Party… lordy. We are in big trouble. I hate looking at all that red on the map. Wow! Obviously we have major major problems. Foreign and domestic. Messaging. Leadership. Before we figure out messaging, we have to decide who we are. Right now, what we are is confused, fractured, and most importantly defeated. Sorry for this long comment.
No, thank you so much for this long response. It was clarifying and very interesting. I enjoy hearing from you.
It’s a time of mourning, I know. I’m trying to be respectful of that while still firmly pointing out what I see that we Democrats got wrong. We’ll be smarting for some time to come — not just us in the party, not just us in this country, but around the world. Some sowed the wind, and we’re about to reap the whirlwind.
Novapsyche, I am sorry you are now seeing what many of us have known for a very long time - and what Malcolm X warned us about more than 50 years ago.
“Liberals” love to see them selves in a positive light; they pretend to enlightenment and kindness and goodness - so long as it doesn’t cost them anything. Their sympathy was always skin deep, and only for the current socially acceptable victim. It was liberals who brought us the notion of the ‘super predator,’ who told skilled (and unskilled) laborers that they weren’t worth a living wage unless they learned to code. It was the liberal who made the price of admission to the middle class contingent on a college degree (soon worthless) and burdened that admission with a lifetime of debt. Liberals thrive on ‘feeling holy’ - but the streak of conservative calvinism that runs in the American bloodstream finds it’s peak expression in this group.
Liberals like to pretend that when America starts a war, it’s about spreading peace. At least conservatives have the grace to be honest - it’s to fuck Russia, or take the oil, or to prevent China’s mixed capitalist/communist economy from being more successful than our own. The dead babies are dead either way, but liberals feel good about it. Madeline Albright, storied liberal, felt good about 500000 dead Iraqis - it was totally worth it to free Iraq!
Thanks for the feedback, S.L.
You'll have to excuse me if I take a more nuanced look at history. For example, you bring up college degrees and what goes along with them (entrance to the middle class, debt, etc.). From my vantage point, it's clear that in the late '60s, early '70s, the social contract got redrawn. One of the things that changed was the higher education system. In the '50s, much of the college admission system is inexpensive, some free. This changes by the '70s, and this coincides not only with the switch in recognition of rights for African Americans but also with the emergence of women in the labor market. So these things made it so that many, many more people needed to attend college. This meant there was an enormous opportunity to make money off of these people. Colleges became far more exclusive; they raised tuition. I must admit that I am still researching the ins and outs of this time period, but it's clear to me that administrators of higher educational systems took advantage of this period of transition to fundamentally change the system so as to derive profit.
As for middle class admission, well, my point of departure in this country makes it so that I appreciated the fact that college conferred middle class status, because I didn't come from the middle class. There are multiple ways by which one can become middle class. The easiest is to be born into it. One's parents instructs one in the manners, folkways and rituals that comprise middle classhood. Other ways include the finishing school of higher education, as we just said, as well as graduating into the middle class by dint of socioeconomics -- landing a job and/or entering a profession that confers class status. So I would not place "admission to the middle class" as "contingent on a college degree." I think that is a very limited view.
As for 'superpredator', that was really Hillary Clinton who popularized that term. Perhaps some other person thought it up, but it was she who pushed the idea into the mainstream. Hillary Clinton came from a conservative background. She's never shed that in its entirety. I voted for Clinton in 2016 (though she was not my choice in the primary--Bernie Sanders was my choice in the primary.) But, as I recall, Clinton called herself a Goldwater girl. That's damning. I've no doubt that some of those ideas are still percolating in her head, especially considering her abject blockheaded response to the student protests earlier this year. We need new thought leaders in the Democratic Party -- I think most of us can agree with that.
As for your statement "Liberals like to pretend that when America starts a war, it's about spreading peace," I think you have liberals mixed up with neoconservatives. That's a George W. Bush type of worldview. Now, has there been some blending of some foreign policy ideas among neoconservatives and neoliberals? I would venture yes, but that I think has more to do with ends, those ends being more places for market activity. That some in power would use the idea of peace to invade other lands is an old story, one that goes back at least to seafaring missionaries looking to make natives convert or die. We've simply got better technology now, under a state that professes to be secular.
In its original 1960s iteration, neoconservatism was mild social progressivism on domestic matters combined with an aggressive foreign policy. This was to distinguish them from the paleo conservatives, who married social conservatism with a certain degree of isolationism. The best example of this is probably Pat Buchanan, whom I believe was defenestrated from the Republican Party precisely because he wasn’t interested in signing onto the forever wars, despite coining the phrase “culture war.” In comparison, neocons don’t care if you want to have an abortion, if you want to get a same sex marriage, have gender reassignment surgery, etc. They have their eye on the prize, which is total world domination. Recall that Dick Cheney was not only in favor of gay marriage before GWB, but also before Obama or the Clintons. This means that neocons can switch parties at will, depending on which one is more bellicose at any given time. However, it seems like the underlying belief in perpetual American unipolarity is a default assumption in Washington, regardless of party or ideological affiliation.