Democrats spending millions to learn how to speak to 'American Men' and win back the working class

[Sympthsical]

79. Keeping it very simple - a question

I'm sorry, I know I ramble, but I will answer your question at the end.

Before I get to the question, have you seen the Catalist numbers on the 2024 election?

https://www.vox.com/politics/414370/2024-election-results-exit-polls-catalist

That's brutal. That white voters more or less remained the same, but that non-white communities significantly shifted. Mostly males, but not only males. These shifts are highly, highly visible in both culture and lived experience. You'd have to be actively hiding not see how the culture is shifting.

So here's my question: How do you square this idea of being champion of marginalized populations when those same populations are migrating towards your opponent? Are you really championing them if they look at you and go, "Nah, I'm good. Thanks," in increasing numbers? You say propaganda. But here's the thing. No one anywhere doesn't know what our message is. I know DU runs with that conceit that everything is a messaging problem. I don't think it is. Culture - particularly mass media culture - is steeped in every permutation of our messaging imaginable. What people cannot bring themselves to admit is that the content of the message is being rejected. Because that's a much harder thing to admit and wrestle with.

I don't think many on our side see this, and I think it's mainly an affluent white liberal problem, where racial politics have become very condescending and patronizing over time towards these communities. We don't talk to them, we talk at them. Then we congratulate ourselves on our ability to talk at them.

The signaling has become more important than the accomplishing.

Which leads me to answering your question.

You seem to be arguing that the biggest problem the Democratic Party faces is that nowadays there are too many people on dating apps telling gay men that if they don't want to have sex with trans men, they must be transphobes.

First. This is deeply dishonest and I think a little below either of us if we're having an earnest conversation. I never said anywhere close to any such thing about it being the biggest problem or even a big problem. I used it as a ready personal example of the cultural contours of the problem. Where the liberal position is usurped by an illiberal one formed from authoritarian dogmatism that characterizes many of the newer ideologies.

I'm not sure the Democratic Party solely has a political problem that can be solved politically. What we have is a cultural problem. I think you're being a little flippantly dismissive of my example, because you aren't living in that experience where there can be significant social implications. Being considered transphobic in the LGBT space can lead to significant ostracization. Which, particularly for young LGBT people, can be devastating. So when everyone's tripping over themselves to send up the right signals, they alienate what are natural allies. Furthermore, there becomes a lot more pressure on youth to be what they are not or accept what they do not wish to in order to avoid that ostracization.

And that's when you see people go, "You know what? This stuff isn't for me. I'm out."

Spread that across other groups. Men. Latinos. The Black community. AAPI.

Look at the numbers. And the answer is we're just not very good at YouTube? That is . . . an extremely self-flattering excuse. Maybe we just don't have anything to say. Do you see that thread about Harvard where people are pissing all over trade schools? What are you selling these communities other than "Not Republican!"

How to fix that? Probably tamping down on brainless virtue signalling would be an amazing start. Not every new idea is progress. Much of the time, it can be quite regressive once you give it even slight thought. Activists do not always reflect their communities, but in making them the Voice of the Community, you can start alienating what might be a significant majority of that community (see LatinX). That desire to signal is what lands us in situations where our politicians just say wild shit where the community they think they're addressing ends up side-eyeing them real hard.

Get rid of the dogmatism. We used to be liberals who had a "Just let people live their lives" philosophy. Now it's "You must think exactly the Correct Things in the Correct Ways always or else we'll come for you." And I know you're thinking, "But Republicans do that, too." Yeah, they do. And if the choice is only that attitude, you might as well go for the real thing. Particularly if you see it as beneficial to your personal sensibilities.

As long as I've been an adult, how we speak to marginalized communities has always struck me as very patronizing, condescending, and dripping with more than just a smidge of bigotry. Say what one will, but that Bush line "the soft bigotry of low expectations" slaps, and it's been striated throughout how we've formed both our political and cultural attitudes towards the marginalized.

Welp. They noticed. So now what?