Andres Miguel Rondon: "To Beat President Trump, You Have To Learn To Think Like His Supporters"
I dunno.
That (unsurprisingly) turns out to mean: "you" (i.e. right-thinking, Post-reading progressives) have to think like the "Deplorables."
Another possibility: You have to learn to think like people on the centrist right who voted for Trump as the lesser evil (or who chose a third, seemingly second-most-evil evil rather than vote Democratic).
Trump wouldn't have won if a large number of reasonable people hadn't voted for him. And it's hard to believe that it was his admirable personal characteristics that attracted them. A whole lot of voting is voting-against.
It's very hard for me to see all this clearly, but I remain fairly convinced that the key to defeating Trump and other such repellent characters is for "progressives" (nee liberals) to repudiate the unhinged PC / "social justice" left. It is the repulsive characteristics and positions of contemporary "progressivism" that drove more centrist and reasonable conservatives to vote Trump.*
Here's a more fundamental factor / piece of advice: the left has to get over its Kerenskian mentality; that is, it has to learn that there are, in fact, enemies on the left. So long as the vanguard of the American left is willing to defend--and even embrace--its extremely crazy (e.g. campus / activist) fringe, it will not only drive away winnable votes...but, more importantly: it will deserve to lose those votes.
I'm just a broken record at this point, so no reason going on with any of this, really.
I realize that there's a strong, analogous argument on the other side: some on the left might refrain from voting for the Dems if they weren't so alarmed by the right in general, and Trump in particular. I absolutely see the point. Though I don't see the arguments clearly past that point. But, at any rate, ignoring the more-or-less 1-or-0 question of voting: if the left wants to win, it needs to look to the center. And that means: repudiating the crazy left. If the left can't learn to do that, it will deserve to lose.
It's unfortunate that the voters formerly known as liberals can't seem to recognize the danger on the left except qua cause of Trump...but at this point I suppose I'll take what I can get.
* Of course the vocal vanguard of progressivism largely denies this. They continue to insist that it's racism pure and simple. They'd better hope they're wrong, or we're really screwed as a nation. My preferred explanation offers more hope; there's more of honest error in it. Furthermore, people like me see the VVP's insistence as yet another grotesque characteristic of the contemporary left: anyone who disagrees with them is a racist (etc.); they are so obviously right that no good person could possibly disagree with them. They've become at least as dogmatic as the right--and more so, I'm currently inclined to think.
That (unsurprisingly) turns out to mean: "you" (i.e. right-thinking, Post-reading progressives) have to think like the "Deplorables."
Another possibility: You have to learn to think like people on the centrist right who voted for Trump as the lesser evil (or who chose a third, seemingly second-most-evil evil rather than vote Democratic).
Trump wouldn't have won if a large number of reasonable people hadn't voted for him. And it's hard to believe that it was his admirable personal characteristics that attracted them. A whole lot of voting is voting-against.
It's very hard for me to see all this clearly, but I remain fairly convinced that the key to defeating Trump and other such repellent characters is for "progressives" (nee liberals) to repudiate the unhinged PC / "social justice" left. It is the repulsive characteristics and positions of contemporary "progressivism" that drove more centrist and reasonable conservatives to vote Trump.*
Here's a more fundamental factor / piece of advice: the left has to get over its Kerenskian mentality; that is, it has to learn that there are, in fact, enemies on the left. So long as the vanguard of the American left is willing to defend--and even embrace--its extremely crazy (e.g. campus / activist) fringe, it will not only drive away winnable votes...but, more importantly: it will deserve to lose those votes.
I'm just a broken record at this point, so no reason going on with any of this, really.
I realize that there's a strong, analogous argument on the other side: some on the left might refrain from voting for the Dems if they weren't so alarmed by the right in general, and Trump in particular. I absolutely see the point. Though I don't see the arguments clearly past that point. But, at any rate, ignoring the more-or-less 1-or-0 question of voting: if the left wants to win, it needs to look to the center. And that means: repudiating the crazy left. If the left can't learn to do that, it will deserve to lose.
It's unfortunate that the voters formerly known as liberals can't seem to recognize the danger on the left except qua cause of Trump...but at this point I suppose I'll take what I can get.
* Of course the vocal vanguard of progressivism largely denies this. They continue to insist that it's racism pure and simple. They'd better hope they're wrong, or we're really screwed as a nation. My preferred explanation offers more hope; there's more of honest error in it. Furthermore, people like me see the VVP's insistence as yet another grotesque characteristic of the contemporary left: anyone who disagrees with them is a racist (etc.); they are so obviously right that no good person could possibly disagree with them. They've become at least as dogmatic as the right--and more so, I'm currently inclined to think.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:59 AM
3 Comments:
I honestly struggle to understand how people like Rondon don't understand what is to me completely obvious: a strong motivator of rightward polarization is the belief that the Left is going to stigmatize anyone who fails to conform to their increasingly crazy ideology. Treating them like alien creatures that right-thinkers need to study just shows he is not getting the damn point: people will not join a coalition with those who they reasonably assume threaten their ability to function socially.
Also, I want to sharpen a point you're making. In what sense is the Left (as distinguishable from mainstream liberals) not crazy? Here's my example: Freddie de Boer. I genuinely like him, and he is properly on the Left. I think he is generally fair minded, and very insightful. But he is not someone who should be anywhere near actual power. He is an old school socialist (not an Angela Merkel type of "socialist") who will degrade the vitality of whatever country or institution he could influence. His ideas will consistently come into conflict with the brute mathematic fact of power laws and the result will be disastrous. This is not remotely a secret, so in an important sense, I don't think he can be considered completely sane on issues that are core to his ideology.
Less specifically, the insanity of post modernism seems to me to be largely an obfuscatory gloss on Marxism, the monstrosity of which is quite historically evident. The po-mos basically had three choices: renounce the Marxian Left, live as open monsters, or play dumb. They chose the latter, which seems pretty important. (And I would note that renounciation did not always go well either, many neocons were former communist sympathizers. Fruit from the poisonous tree is a pretty reliable heuristic.)
This is losing focus, but the conclusion I have come to is that at this point when someone says the Left is not crazy, they actually bear the burden of proof (which is basically the same of what we place on someone defending the truly far right), which is pretty remarkable given the strength of that claim.
Your use of the word caused me to spontaneously remember that HRC's original "deplorables" remark was so cringe-inducing, I think she's actually better off that it became a sort of catch-phrase for the condescension of the American Left.
If I were her, I'd probably rather be remembered as a symbol of progressive condescension than the person who said this:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."
Do ya, Hill? Do ya call it that?
*shudder*
In her defense, I'm sure that a few weeks' worth of public speaking at that rate and scale would see me reduced to suicidal levels of self-loathing over God-knows how many embarrassing rhetorical failures.
But, still. From my armchair, that one was a doozie.
People generally vote for the party that seems to want them. Trump wanted white people, hence he got a higher number of their votes than seemed likely. Clinton did not specifically disavow white people, but various parts of her coalition made nearly constant comments about how white people (especially men) are the problem in this country.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home