January 17, 2017

My friend the non-voter and why so many stayed home.

I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine who I have not seen in a while. We eventually started to discuss politics. He talked about how much he dislikes Trump because he is a racist and a misogynist who mistreats women. He also mentioned that he is very worried about Trump's ties to Russia and the people he is choosing for his administration like Jeff Sessions and Rex Tillerson.

I assumed that he voted for Clinton but then he stated that he didn't vote at all! Not even in the other races. When I asked him why he said that he felt that Hillary was too corrupt. The emails were the big issue for him. My friend typically votes for the Democrats and is a big fan of Obama because he sees him as a good man with strong moral qualities. He isn't super left-wing. He even said that he disliked Sanders because he thought he was too much of a socialist for his liking. So he is not a Bernie or Bust guy.

I wonder how typical my friend is for the group of people who usually vote for the Democrats but sat out this election. He is an older Millennial in his early 30s and a college graduate but not affluent.

Do you think that my friend fits the profile of the typical non-voter from 2016? Do you think my anecdote shows the effectiveness of the email story in hurting Clinton? What I found interesting was how much emphasis he put on the moral integrity of the candidates.

Anyway, I thought this was an interesting anecdote and I wanted to see if this could help us discuss why so many people who should have come out for the Democrats stayed home.

EDIT: Oh and to complete the demographic profile, my friend is a white guy and a practicing Roman Catholic.

January 13, 2017

We can win white racists and white Christian voters

I think we can win more white voters. In fact, I think we can even win white voters who hold beliefs that many here would consider to be grossly illiberal.

Voters often hold a mixture of different policy views. People will often rank these views within their own minds. I don't mean that they sit down and make a list of ten policy views with number one being their most important view and number ten being their least important view. But I do think that when it comes time to vote some views win out over others.

So let us use a hypothetical. You have two voters who are similar. Let us say two working-class, middle-aged white guys from the Rust Belt, both union members. Both of them hold discriminatory views about non-whites and Muslims.

Voter A ends up voting for the Republicans because his discriminatory beliefs take precedence over all of his other beliefs. He might realize that the Republicans are union busters and that his Social Security and Medicare might be in danger if the Republicans win but in his mind stopping the Muslims from forcing sharia law on us or deporting more Mexicans back to Mexico is more important so he votes for the GOP because they are “speaking his language” on those issues.

Voter B might hold the same views toward Muslims and Mexican immigrants that Voter A holds but Voter B is more worried about the health of his union and whether Social Security and Medicare will be available to him when he retires so he votes for the Democrats, even though he thinks the Democrats are too PC.

The same thing holds for other issues. Some white Christians are single-issue voters on abortion and overturning Roe v. Wade so they vote for the Republicans like clockwork. Other white Christians might oppose the Democratic stance on abortion but they may vote for the Democrats because they are not single-issue voters and have a more nuanced position on pro-life issues. For example, they might see opposition to the death penalty and support for universal healthcare as part of a broader pro-life position.

My last example pretty much describes me. I am a Catholic and I consider myself to be a pro-lifer but I vote for the Democrats because I think that when you look at the big picture, liberal values and policies are more consistently pro-life than the Republican platform that is only concerned with overturning Roe and not with healthcare for mothers and children, for example.

Now I am not saying that the party needs to stop fighting for social justice. Racism is a huge problem in this country and we need to fight racist messaging from the Right if we want to win more elections. We also need to do more to break the stranglehold that the Right has over religious discourse in this country. But in the meantime we can still win over voters who are not perfectly liberal on every issue. I know we can do this because to a large extent we already win over people with mixed beliefs. Even now our own base includes many people who are not entirely liberal on every issue. African-Americans, for example, tend to be more religious and socially conservative than other demographic groups but they are a key part of our base.

See this article on what Pew Research Center calls the “Faith and Family Left”: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/typology-comparison/types/faith-and-family-left/

Of course, some people are truly hopeless. Some white Americans vote based on racial tribalism first and foremost. But I suspect that their numbers are not as large as many Democrats think.

January 5, 2017

The denigration of public service in modern America

With the talk of celebrities and billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg possibly running for political office, I notice that there is a strong anti-public service streak in the country right now. People want "outsiders" who supposedly cannot be bought by lobbyists. I know some people who voted for Donald Trump because they thought that his immense wealth made him independent and above politics. Of course, we see that Trump is packing his administration with rich corporate types so his "outsider" status is very questionable.

Still, there seems to be a kind of revulsion toward "career politicians" and people in public service these days. I can understand this sentiment to a certain extent. If you think that our politicians and bureaucrats are overly influenced by Big Money and too many go through the revolving door from government to lucrative private sector jobs that is a legitimate criticism of our current political system.

But is the answer to elect actors and corporate tycoons? To me, the answer would be to have more respect for public servants and people who devote themselves to public issues. But too many people seem to denigrate public service as something for losers or they just don't care. Apparently many people were not moved by Hillary Clinton's advocacy on behalf of children, for example.

I guess my point in a nutshell is it seems like Americans denigrate public service and that is a big problem for liberals. Liberalism has traditionally put a heavily emphasis on public service but now it seems like people want charismatic outsiders to run for office.

Any thoughts on this issue and how we can possibly change the way people think about public service?

January 1, 2017

Has the Internet made politics worse?

Yes, I know it might seem ironic posting this on an Internet message board, but this question is something that I have been thinking about a lot since the whole "fake news" issue exploded. I used to think that the Internet was going to create a more informed population and a better kind of politics but this recent election seems to put a big dent in that argument. Here are the two big problems:

1. The Internet makes it easier to spread fake news. You not only have conspiracy theorists acting on their own but you also have people who create fake news for profit. Fake news seems to help the Republicans more than the Democrats as liberals are less likely to believe fake news. From an interview with a fake-news creator:

When did you notice that fake news does best with Trump supporters?

Well, this isn't just a Trump-supporter problem. This is a right-wing issue. Sarah Palin's famous blasting of the lamestream media is kind of record and testament to the rise of these kinds of people. The post-fact era is what I would refer to it as. This isn't something that started with Trump. This is something that's been in the works for a while. His whole campaign was this thing of discrediting mainstream media sources, which is one of those dog whistles to his supporters. When we were coming up with headlines it's always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat.

We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

See: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

2. The Internet makes it much easier to stay in an ideological bubble. Now of course we expect people to gravitate toward sources that agree with their own ideology, but the rise of the Internet has made it much easier for people to NEVER leave their bubble. Even Fox News sometimes has liberal guests on their shows. Now with the Internet it is much easier to pick and choose which sources you want to consume without ever engaging an opposing viewpoint. This fuels the prejudices people already have.

On the other hand, you could argue that the trend toward the "post-truth" era was already there with right-wing talk radio and cable news and that the Internet simply added a new layer onto the problem. And there are legitimate issues with the establishment media (see the lead-up to the Iraq War) that make me sympathetic to people who view the MSM as untrustworthy.

But I wonder if the rise of the Internet and social media is making things even worse, sort of a jumping from the frying pan into the fire situation. I am not even getting into the troll/harassment issue, but you could also add that to the discussion if you want.

Your thoughts?