Privileged people calling less privileged people "stupid" doesn't seem to be working...

[ferrelhadley]

Clinton failed to get enough of her vote out. Thats on her and her team.
A (relative) smaller number of voters in key states switched to trump. There are good, long standing reasons for a left wing attack the Democrat machine on this as they have failed to do enough for the workers in those areas.
Trump positively wallowed in racist and misogynist language and yet people voted for him, most, virtually all were likely long standing, regular Republican voters and a few others would have been Obama voters who switched in part over his immigration message.

Here are the closest races that went Trump.
Michigan, 0.27%
Obama 2012... Clinton 16
2,564,569 ... 2,264,807
Romney ... Trump
2,115,256 ... 2,277,914

Wisconsin, 0.93%
Obama ... Clinton
1,620,985 ... 1,383,926
Romney ... Trump
1,407,966 ... 1,411,432

Pennsylvania, 1.24%
Obama ... Clinton
2,990,274 ... 2,817,409
Romney ... Trump
2,890,633 ... 2,680,434

Florida, 1.27%
Obama ... Clinton
4,237,756 ... 4,487,657
Romney ... Trump
4,163,447 ... 4,607,146

With the exception of Florida all are states where Clinton polled worse than Obama.
Trump fell from Romney's numbers in Pennsylvania.

The actual "white working class rage" going over to Trump is a really small part of the story.
Despondent working class not being bothered by Clinton you can have.
But the biggest story is the number of Republicans who voted against their long standing beliefs in free trade and pro business in favour of a message of demonising Muslims, misogyny and anti-immigration.

Republicans have ditched their economics going back to Reagan. Small government? Trump promises them huge government spending. Low regulation, Trump promises them to clamp down on the banks (he wont), free enterprise he promises them Smoot Hawley. But they go for him.

The whole post trump narrative is defined as "Democrats say rude things about racists". Or the "forgotten white working class". Not the Republicans ditching their core economic message for a Nativist big state candidate.

 

[CrabbedOne]

Some of this wouldn't be amiss in the late 19th C when the concerned philanthropists' would go exploring and then recording in the East end, etc.

While they often came up with wildly distorted romantic idea of working class attitudes that patronised the plebs as noble savages to be improved. And that obviously that has not changed much for some despite the constant intrusion of harsher crooked timber realities battering their intellectual 21st century equivalents around the head when things come to a vote.

Go drink in blue collar US bars and you will often find a deep distrust educated folk. Moving up the food chain I know a few Republican Septics with PHDs selectively in denial of the scientific worldview in preference for partisan ideology. Far from stupid but convinced and frankly facts don't matter much to their opponents either. What I find distressing is they are pretty close to being entirely walled off from equally haughty perhaps more out of touch liberals in US which leaves no room for sense to prevail. You can't mention politics at work and most folk are staring into their cell for social media confirmation when briefly at leisure. At some point you have to get off your high horse and engage.

 

[bendeus]

Dougald wanted everyone to leave the cities and go back to pre-civilisation, even ran a festival based on it.

Dougald is a past simple tense verb, surely?

 

[butchersapron]

**

 

[butchersapron]

**

 

[bendeus]

You're not a big picture poster are you?

Hey, why not take another swig and post another swipe, you unpleasant cunt.

 

[butchersapron]

I wrote two posts above to bendeus - i got the wrong end of the stick - i shouldn't have binned them. I did. I am sorry for being a twat bendeus.

edit: it was also cowardice on my part to edit out the posts.

 

[bendeus]

Hey, why not take another swig and post another swipe, you unpleasant cunt.

Deleted? Why's that, then?

 

[bendeus]

I wrote two posts above to bendeus - i got the wrong end of the stick - i shouldn't have binned them. I did. I am sorry for being a twat bendeus.

edit: it was also cowardice on my part to edit out the posts.

Errr, that's fine, BA, and I appreciate the apology, though TBH I didn't think that was your MO.

As an aside I'll say this. I tend to keep my opinions to myself a lot on P&P, basically because I can't match the likes of you and Pickmans intellectually and in terms of breadth of knowledge, and I fear I'll write something that'll end up with me fighting a losing battle against superior opposition. What I will say, though, is that I read here all the time, increase my understanding of the world, broaden and hone my opinions and get better at understanding what the fuck is going on. People like you help that a lot, but I wish you wouldn't always be so bloody aggro about sharing the knowledge you have because it's valuable.

I don't just do rugby union rules, you know

 

[SaskiaJayne]

I think posters are cutting posters that seem to get off on points scoring & belittling other posters too much slack. Their mischief is off topic & spoils threads. It's the nature of urban that these posters exist. If it bothered me I would not post on here. Plenty of us might be put off posting by these posters not because we are bothered by them but because we simply cannot be arsed to argue with them when all we want to do is make a post that we see as relevant to the thread. As pointed out earlier the way forward on urban imo is just laugh at them & carry on posting anything you see as relevant.

 

[Pickman's model]

For me and I know you will disagree, the left right across the western world has largely abandoned the poor, the unemployed, etc for identity politics, plus the next big thing, epitomised by the SWP bandwagon jumping, but which has spread to the liberal left, it has been very interesting to see tens of thousands of the latter going to see I Daniel Blake and saying, "we didn't know it was this bad", well, to a point, but they largely didn't attend the meetings that were hosted around welfare, etc at the time. Some of us hosted a meeting on the Crisis In Social Care this weekend, a very topical issues, there were a number of service users, carers, etc, but a total absence of the sort of people, activists, etc who attend in large numbers events on refugees, EDl protests, migrants, anti-war, Syria, Climate Change,(add your own hot button issue)etc. This is what one attendee wrote.

"
I went to the 'Sheffield Adult Social Care in Crisis' meeting this afternoon. Hearing people speak, it quickly became clear that the session was aptly titled as the current system is undergoing a crisis which has left people without the care they need.

Many of us have been moved by the story of Daniel Blake and it's fair to say that service users in the meeting today had just as upsetting and troubling stories to tell. Severely ill and disabled people in Sheffield are trying to navigate a confusing and uncaring bureaucracy that has left many without adequate care or, in some cases, no care at all.

Social care is an important aspect of the current social security regime that we should not overlook. I would strongly encourage Momentum members to read up in this issue and, when possible, attend meetings like the one today. It's no exaggeration to say that the provision of adult social care is an issue of life and death.

A report of the meeting will be released which will outline the issues raised today."

Out of curiosity could you describe how and where these meetings were publicised?

 

[chilango]

I think posters are cutting posters that seem to get off on points scoring & belittling other posters too much slack. Their mischief is off topic & spoils threads. It's the nature of urban that these posters exist. If it bothered me I would not post on here. Plenty of us might be put off posting by these posters not because we are bothered by them but because we simply cannot be arsed to argue with them when all we want to do is make a post that we see as relevant to the thread. As pointed out earlier the way forward on urban imo is just laugh at them & carry on posting anything you see as relevant.

I disagree.

Aside from pedantry here and there, I don't see much in the way of "point scoring".

I see posters trying to discuss and posted getting frustrated by the repetition of responses/opinions etc. that show little interest in moving the discussion on towards something useful.

Sometimes, some posters can be a little blunt, even aggressive perhaps, in expressing their frustration.

But it's not point scoring.

I tell you what ruins threads, it's people doing my sticking their fingers in their ears and ding this:

laugh at them & carry on posting anything you see as relevant

If these discussions are to be meaningful then we need to read what each other says, consider whether there's any "evidence" to support what we're arguing and what others are arguing and be willing to consider that our opinions are just that unless they're backed up with "stuff". Repeating ill informed opinions doesn't make them any more correct.

...but anyway. I'll shut up now

 

[krtek a houby]

I was told today that it's not worth it; crying out against the new status quo. We just have to accept. Yes, it was pub anecdotage but this might be the way forward.

That's what some say. In the real world. But what is the real world? Here? There?

I give up.

 

[redsquirrel]

...again, it might be worth people thinking about the practical implications of what they're arguing for here (and the various other threads).

It happened because X (well, X,Y,Z and a bunch of others really) so that means we need to do A and I personally am going to do B.

So, does that mean doing something differently or carrying on as normal?

I think one thing it means is that I cannot work with the liberal left. After the EU referendum BA posted this

It's, in fact, become increasingly clear that any substantial social change to the benefit of the working classes across europe and wider is going to have to carried out against the progressives. Not the sort of civil rights stuff that capitalism can deal with and recuperate, the nice stuff, i mean the real social relation challenging stuff.

This separation has become even starker. You've people on the other thread seriously proclaiming the Trump is a fascist and may block elections in 2020. It's not just that I consider such analysis as crazy as anything Alex Jones comes out with it's also that I think their 'strategy' of shouting fascist, of writing off whole swathes of people as unconvertible racists, of allying with the LibDems (or equivalent), of lesser evilism is just useless I think it's actually counter-productive. For me these are some of the reasons for the rise of the hard-right.

 

[bendeus]

I guess the point is down to what this particular corner of the boards are for. If it's about the people with the most persuasive (and for me this reads dominant) voices defining and perpetuating the tone, so be it; it's the paradigm I'm used to and more or less happily fit in to.

I kind of think that we probably have more common cause than the spats and bunfights would indicate and that in the face of some serious right wing resurgence it would be better for us to find that common cause rather than to kick off with each other. People come to politics in different ways and I know that the way my brain is wired leads me to fail at internet arguments and to take internet insults very personally; I can't just ride above it as SaskiaJayne suggests. Without trying to sound like a hippy I think there are some amazing teachers on these threads; what I don't understand is why it always seems to descend into a ruck, and why opinions expressed by people who don't 'know better' get so battered. If you have the luxury of superior knowledge isn't it better to win people to your cause by means other than a boot to the nuts?

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, btw, it's just a broad observation.

 

[redsquirrel]

I kind of think that we probably have more common cause than the spats and bunfights would indicate and that in the face of some serious right wing resurgence it would be better for us to find that common cause rather than to kick off with each other.

But how?

How can I make a common cause with people that argue for a "anyone but Trump/UKIP/etc" vote when I don't just see such a tactic as useless but counter-productive? I believe, rightly or wrongly, that this type of tactic is fuelling the rise of the hard right others (however much I believe their intentions to be good) argue for such a tactic. It's all very well saying there's a common cause but the politics are completely at odds with each other!

 

[Mr Moose]

Little snippet here - don't worry, don't have to watch whole thing, i've kindly linked to the relevant bit - simply not an option to engage

Who is saying 'don't engage'?

But how?

How can I make a common cause with people that argue for a "anyone but Trump/UKIP/etc" vote when I don't just see such a tactic as useless but counter-productive? I believe, rightly or wrongly, that this type of tactic is fuelling the rise of the hard right others (however much I believe their intentions to be good) argue for such a tactic. It's all very well saying there's a common cause but the politics are completely at odds with each other?

There are so many people, only a small proportion of whom are comfortable elites, who feel this way, prompted by values, like anti-racism which we share, that seems as ridiculous to abandon them as it does the cohort of people, left behind, who vote to the right.

It's an obsession on this board and may be correct in terms of revolutionary politics, but not for electoral politics. That doesn't mean notions like snobbery can't be challenged, but if people vote for the Klan endorsed candidate it's going to be pointed out, just as you can't avoid nice Mr Obama's cynical foreign policy. Think the conversation needs to move on.

 

[bimble]

I've been guilty of all the things redsquirrel talks about, lesser-evilism, anything but Trump etc. I do get that this is diametrically opposed to a vision of revolutionary far reaching long term change, that it offers no real answer and even perpetuates the problem. But in the absence of any sign (that I'm aware of) that there exists even the seeds of a viable popular alternative to the rise of the hard right - which terrifies me, properly frightens me in a way that is probably not quite rational more emotional - I just feel helpless tbh.
What makes me sad on top of that is how often (on here) things descend into personal attacks or grudges held for years, might be an inevitable part of the culture of a small message board like this I don't know but it's just so pointless and unproductive.

 

[redsquirrel]

There are so many people, only a small proportion of whom are comfortable elites, who feel this way, prompted by values, like anti-racism which we share, that seems as ridiculous to abandon them as it does the cohort of people, left behind, who vote to the right.

It's an obsession on this board and may be correct in terms of revolutionary politics, but not for electoral politics. That doesn't mean notions like snobbery can't be challenged, but if people vote for the Klan endorsed candidate it's going to be pointed out, just as you can't avoid nice Mr Obama's cynical foreign policy. Think the conversation needs to move on.

I'm sorry but I've no idea what you are trying to say here. Feel what way? What's an obsession? You say the conversation needs to move on but you've completed ignored the questions I posed.

I'm not talking about differences in aims or ideology (though those exist and IMO can't simply be papered over) for the moment I'm simply concentrating on tactics. How do groups with completely contradictory tactics make common cause?

 

[chilango]

I guess the point is down to what this particular corner of the boards are for. If it's about the people with the most persuasive (and for me this reads dominant) voices defining and perpetuating the tone, so be it; it's the paradigm I'm used to and more or less happily fit in to.

I kind of think that we probably have more common cause than the spats and bunfights would indicate and that in the face of some serious right wing resurgence it would be better for us to find that common cause rather than to kick off with each other. People come to politics in different ways and I know that the way my brain is wired leads me to fail at internet arguments and to take internet insults very personally; I can't just ride above it as SaskiaJayne suggests. Without trying to sound like a hippy I think there are some amazing teachers on these threads; what I don't understand is why it always seems to descend into a ruck, and why opinions expressed by people who don't 'know better' get so battered. If you have the luxury of superior knowledge isn't it better to win people to your cause by means other than a boot to the nuts?

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, btw, it's just a broad observation.

How and why are some voices more persuasive than others though?

I don't think it can be dismissed as simply "superior knowledge ". A frequent complaint from people unable to support their opinions in the face of argument is that, coupled with some sort of of insinuation about heavy political tomes.

But how often do we actually see obscure political theory chucked in to swing an argument? Very rarely IME.

Certainly some posters are more considered in their use of sources (articles, news reports etc) that they use than others. But...

...but the key thing here for me is the years and years and years of collective accumulated experience.

Experience doesn't necessarily validate or invalidate any given opinion but when, taking the current arguments about Trump/Le Pen/Brexit etc. as an example when posters have actually already been through the arguments before ("lesser evilism"/"just thick racists" vs. the BNP for example) and seen how spectacularly it failed in real life, then that's your "superior knowledge" for you.

Sometimes people do just "know better".

It's an amazing resource we have here, though fading somewhat, and we'd be fools to pay no heed to it.

But even then, these arguments need challenging. What was right 20 years ago isn't automatically going to be right now.

But the challenge needs to be rigorous, substantiated, based on something. Otherwise it's merely an opinion.

Nothing wrong with opinions of course, but they're not going to carry as much weight as experience.

There are some posters who have a problem with that. That feel that that their (passionately held) opinions should carry as much weight as somebody else's direct experience. Understandably when those opinions are based on genuine belief and genuine commitment.

There are also a few posters who simply see this place as a an extension of the debating society. Their arguments are devoid of either experience or commitment and they poison many discussions on here. But they are are few and easily spotted.

 

[chilango]

I've been guilty of all the things redsquirrel talks about, lesser-evilism, anything but Trump etc. I do get that this is diametrically opposed to a vision of revolutionary far reaching long term change, that it offers no real answer and even perpetuates the problem. But in the absence of any sign (that I'm aware of) that there exists even the seeds of a viable popular alternative to the rise of the hard right - which terrifies me, properly frightens me in a way that is probably not quite rational more emotional - I just feel helpless tbh.
What makes me sad on top of that is how often (on here) things descend into personal attacks or grudges held for years, might be an inevitable part of the culture of a small message board like this I don't know but it's just so pointless and unproductive.

I think what's frustrating (for me at least) is that we've been here before.

Some of have seen the application of "lesser evilism" before. And seen it fail. Seen it make things worse.

The stakes are higher now.

Can we afford to - willfully - repeat these mistakes?

I do also keep asking what people are going to "do" with the conclusions they are drawing.

There's deafening silence in that regard.

Which suggests to me that further consideration is necessary.

 

[bimble]

That thread about 'what would a populism of the left look like' it hasn't gone very far yet but that's what someone like me wants to hear about, and maybe also the half of americans who stayed home on election day. There needs to be something positive and viable soon, against all the odds, or the Trumps will just fill the vacuum.

 

[mauvais]

For most of the history of this site, the common battle - a mostly losing battle - has been against government and authority. Now that battlefield is markedly different in that it also involves large swathes of the electorate, not necessarily in direct opposition but by no means aligned either. Nor universally aligned to a single thing. This is not only a departure from the pattern but a different kind of defeat. Whose defeat it is and who's to blame is up for debate but at least writ this large it's a new problem that needs a response.

So far part of that response seems to be 'kick each other to death'.

You can give the commentariat their richly deserved beating free of charge, but outside of that you're going to run into ordinary people who abhor what is happening as an end result - with or without the exact right flavour of political thought behind it and responses from it. Meeting the clueless liberal version, what are you going to do? Deny their fears and lived experiences, smash them to bits with hardcore politics? If so, isn't that what you're trying to avoid with the other half of the racist-electing public you've decided to find empathy for?

The random public aren't in a position to end the mechanics of 'lesser evilism'. For them it's a binary choice of output: evil or lesser evil. It shouldn't be a great surprise or insult if they fervently support the latter.

 

[Manter]

Snip//
I do also keep asking what people are going to "do" with the conclusions they are drawing.

There's deafening silence in that regard.

Which suggests to me that further consideration is necessary.

What should we be doing, do you think?

 

[Pickman's model]

I've been guilty of all the things redsquirrel talks about, lesser-evilism, anything but Trump etc. I do get that this is diametrically opposed to a vision of revolutionary far reaching long term change, that it offers no real answer and even perpetuates the problem. But in the absence of any sign (that I'm aware of) that there exists even the seeds of a viable popular alternative to the rise of the hard right - which terrifies me, properly frightens me in a way that is probably not quite rational more emotional - I just feel helpless tbh.
What makes me sad on top of that is how often (on here) things descend into personal attacks or grudges held for years, might be an inevitable part of the culture of a small message board like this I don't know but it's just so pointless and unproductive.

Heaven forfend someone have to do some work to bring into being an alternative to the 'hard right'

 

[Pickman's model]

For most of the history of this site, the common battle - a mostly losing battle - has been against government and authority. Now that battlefield is markedly different in that it also involves large swathes of the electorate, not necessarily in direct opposition but by no means aligned either. Nor universally aligned to a single thing. This is not only a departure from the pattern but a different kind of defeat. Whose defeat it is and who's to blame is up for debate but at least writ this large it's a new problem that needs a response.

So far part of that response seems to be 'kick each other to death'.

You can give the commentariat their richly deserved beating free of charge, but outside of that you're going to run into ordinary people who abhor what is happening as an end result - with or without the exact right flavour of political thought behind it and responses from it. Meeting the clueless liberal version, what are you going to do? Deny their fears and lived experiences, smash them to bits with hardcore politics? If so, isn't that what you're trying to avoid with the other half of the racist-electing public you've decided to find empathy for?

The random public aren't in a position to end the mechanics of 'lesser evilism'. For them it's a binary choice of output: evil or lesser evil. It shouldn't be a great surprise or insult if they fervently support the latter.

The road to hell is paved with lesser evil intentions

 

[Jurrihahay]

I give up.

Best news I've heard in a while.

 

[chilango]

What should we be doing, do you think?

I've posted somewhere on one the threads...

...but I don't have some great blueprint, I do think we need to be going back to the basics though and trying to build right from the bottom.

We need to rebuild networks of solidarity and mutual aid in the community, in the work place, and start to "do" the alternative to both neo-liberalism and populist reaction.

Given how (for many of us) fragmented our workplaces and communities are, the first steps are going to be small. Restoring some sort of sense of the "collective" by small acts demonstrating the value of solidarity and mutual aid. Getting to know your neighbours, your workmates, the other parents at the school gates, talking (and listening) about concerns and desires, discovering what we have in common and what small things we can do together to act on these.

Dog shit politics, as its sometimes known. i.e. if there's a problem with your street being covered by dogshit, getting together and cleaning it up whilst at the same time building that awareness that it's US that's doing it, not those in power.

Acting, and talking about the hows and whys of those acts.

The talking (and listening) is important otherwise it just becomes voluntarism/big society/broom waving. Thats the big danger with this.

But there's no shortcuts.

Where these networks are so eroded, they need to be rebuilt.

 

[redsquirrel]

The random public aren't in a position to end the mechanics of 'lesser evilism'. For them it's a binary choice of output: evil or lesser evil. It shouldn't be a great surprise or insult if they fervently support the latter.

Well in regards to the US election the public didn't 'fervently support' the lesser evil (regardless of which candidate you think was the lesser evil), 45% of the electorate didn't vote at all. Both candidates got barely over a quarter of the electorate voting for them and were incredibly unpopular.

 

[mauvais]

Well in regards to the US election the public didn't 'fervently support' the lesser evil (regardless of which candidate you think was the lesser evil), 45% of the electorate didn't vote at all.

I didn't say anything about a majority. But you can't be surprised or particularly appalled that some people, faced with the prospect of Trump, would hold their nose and put all their support behind Clinton. We seem quite happy acknowledging the reverse.