General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What are the issues of Rural Voters that we are not addressing? [View all]betsuni
(25,789 posts)"Let's unpack this idea of 'the economy.' Like 'the working class,' the generalization obscures the actual diversity of people's lives. It isn't the case, I insist, that Clinton somehow 'missed' the importance of 'the economy.' Rather -- and I concede that this is too complex to fit on a bumper sticker -- Clinton was continually arguing (in speeches that never got broadcast), that economic equality can't happen without racial equality/justice, reproductive freedom, gender equality, sexual choice, and all the other 'human rights' or 'identity' issues that are now being represented as needing to be de-emphasized. It's not a choice! They are all mutually dependent and intertwined. Clinton knew this (B***** did not); in fact, it was part of the 'message' that she supposedly 'didn't have.'
"How do you put the intersectional paradigm into a form that conveys the idea crisply and accessibly? ... And while I'm at it, can I say again how utterly meaningless yet carelessly thrown around the term 'message' is? It totally dumbs down and mystifies discussion about candidates and political parties. Its sole value is a weapon to throw around (as in 'she had no message.' ) Pundits must STOP with this 'message' business! It's sloppy, without real content, and encourages us to look at candidates as though they are products at a grocery store. Let's talk the language of character, policy positions and agendas, not the vocabulary of advertising and branding."