What the f*** are we doing anymore
late-review.comConsequence of info exploding, predicted as soon the internet emerged - https://archive.is/aAyRN
No one paid Attention.
The main grievance in the original post is the loss of left-leaning political power. While I think Goldhaber is right on a lot he said, it’s besides the point. The current state of politics in different countries is not because particular view points gained more attention than others, in fact those view points were utterly unpopular and unwelcome throughout this transition. But view points which did gain attention picked up on what’s missing from the life of an average person, whether it was love, wellness, confidence, money, or spirituality. In any population, there are more voters who are aggrieved because of their financial or life stability than any other issue. If you’re asking someone to pay attention, why should they? What does it do for them?
Sort of typed this out before so just pointing at that comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42693234
Detractors, critics and agents will capitalize on the grievances of subgroups in the population for any number of reasons, but optimizing for overall social stability prevents that kind of manipulation, as can be seen in the Nordic countries [1]. The left continues to aim for a high-minded, upper middle class voter base, which will always be a relatively smaller part of any given population. In fact, if recent income inequality trends hold then that supporter base will decrease in number.
[1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/06/10/e...
The panacea to the left losing political power is the same as that used by the far-right—don’t play identity politics. When far-right point-of-views were unelectable or unemployable, all they did was work quietly, and acquired resources without any reliance on power structures to help them acquire status or wealth. Becoming self-reliant makes anything more resilient.
I am not left or right leaning, so I don’t have any attachment to what ideology is dominant at one point in time. From what I can tell, maybe the only thing which persuades people are outcomes. The current set of right-wing policies are going to create a lot of discontent because of job losses and wealth inequality, and so that’s an easy target for left-leaning politicians to regain foothold.
Which goes back to my earlier point, politicking only on identity is a losing game. If your only campaign policy is empathy, as necessary as it is for strong social structures, then you will not win votes from those who are facing an existential threat, e.g., via poverty or other fears, as their stress response to their own plight reduces their capacity for empathy. The left needs to learn a lot about humans before it can prioritize humanity.
(Updated the comment to better describe what I mean)
The right is all about identity politics. It just happens to be white-guy identity politics.
The Democrats offered the "outcome" of a competently-run government. People rejected that. People on the left said that it wasn't enough.
The Democrats could offer a bigger vision. They could find a celebrity who makes big, incoherent promises that will make things worse in the unlikely event they actually get implemented. That's not what I want from a Democratic President, but I'll vote for it over any Republican -- just as the "moderate" Republicans seem perfectly content to put a criminal in office rather than any Democrat.
> The Democrats offered the "outcome" of a competently-run government
The trick is that the Republicans paint their identity politics as “helping the poor” by scapegoating all types of other people for the economic misery of the lower income earners. The Democrats don’t have a vision which includes lower income earners to a large extent. I remember most of Kamala’s campaign promises, and they seemed to me to promise more of the same policies which favor upper middle classes.