News   Apr 03, 2020
 6.4K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 8K     4 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.7K     0 

US Politics

In terms of historical precedents, I've been thinking a lot about 19th century France, basically from the end of the First Empire (1814) to the putting down of the Paris Commune (1871). I'm no historian, but my impression of that period was that there was a vacuum of political legitimacy. No government had robust political support. People held completely contradictory views of what political system they should have (ranging from monarchy to communism). A lot of people saw mass protest and even violent upheaval as the only effective way to enact political change. Eventually the vacuum gave rise to the ultra-nationalist dictatorship of Napoleon III, supported by a coalition of the military, the church, rural peasants, and urban capitalists. Napoleon III squashed political dissent and used military adventurism to distract people from domestic problems. Eventually that was his undoing when France lost the Franco-Prussian war. Then, political unrest came rushing back to the surface in the form of the Paris Commune, which was eventually put down by the Third Republican government, leading to a period of stability.

I see a lot of this in the US today (and, to a lesser extent, across the West). You have people on the right openly calling for a dictatorship. You have people on the left who are filled with revolutionary zeal and who seem more interested in rooting out heretics in their own movement than they are in winning popular support. Progressive organizations like universities, arts granting agencies, Pride festivals, etc. have been wracked with internal conflict over the last few years (over BLM, Palestine, etc.). It reminds me of 19th century leftists arguing over whether a particular painting style is revolutionary or bourgeois. Today, the status of LGBTQ rights are a microcosm of a larger dynamic. LGBTQ rights are under significant threat by the right, who is using the power of the state to curtail free speech (e.g. book bans, "don't say gay" laws, banning rainbow flags, etc.), and pressuring corporations to stop donating to LGBTQ causes. And, in the face of this assault, you also have leftist groups shutting down Pride parades (e.g. BLM in Toronto, Queers for Palestine in Ottawa). Not a huge thing in the broad sense, but an illustration of how a lot of progressive organizations have become paralyzed by infighting over things like how to word a statement condemning police brutality or genocide in Gaza, while they cede more and more ground to the right.

Clearly, the right's march toward dictatorship is more troubling than the left's fracturing over symbolic identity issues, but I see them as stemming from the same underlying causes. That is, a general loss of faith in existing institutions leading to an overall sense of powerlessness. Whereas, on the left, this powerlessness leads people to focus on winning micro battles of little significance (e.g. should we mention October 7th in our letter condemning Israel?), on the right it leads people to put their faith into authoritarian strong men.

(Sorry for the tangent!)
 
The Lefts internal issues stem from a void of leadership. Trump may seem extreme but he takes popular political positions. He's not as anti-abortion as the most right wing, his trans views are popular when polled. Activists will always exist and will always take extreme and untenable political positions, but that's why when Obama was in power, he was more centrist than many of his party, and he was able to use his popularity and rhetorical skills to present his positions as being the Democrats positions, instead of these activists. We see that in Canada with Carney. He's probably not that different from an Erin O'Toole and he's able to give the anti-Trudeau voters an impression of change, while holding the Left and Progressive votes on his side. He supports a Palestinian State, while vowing to cut the public service. The Left in the US has no leader at the moment. Schumer and Jeffries don't seem fit for the moment, that people end up hearing from much more of the activist wing of the party.
 
I agree. Whoever runs for the dems in the next election will need to be fairly centrist. Might be an unpopular onion, but I think it needs to be a white male that doesn't seem to far to the left. Maybe an Andy Bashear, or Josh Shapiro type. Nothing against AOC, Mamdani or Widmer, but I don't trust the American voters, and I want to see a break from the republicans. Newsom would be a good candidate, but he's seen by many as too left, and also being from California doesn't help.
 
I agree. Whoever runs for the dems in the next election will need to be fairly centrist. Might be an unpopular onion, but I think it needs to be a white male that doesn't seem to far to the left. Maybe an Andy Bashear, or Josh Shapiro type. Nothing against AOC, Mamdani or Widmer, but I don't trust the American voters, and I want to see a break from the republicans. Newsom would be a good candidate, but he's seen by many as too left, and also being from California doesn't help.
Shapiro has a shot. Even Whitmer, she is one of those appear more liberal than she is kind of politician. Michigan is a blue/purple state and she does better than other statewide Democrats. I honestly don’t think identity play as much of a role as people think. I don’t think Harris lost in any way because she is a Black woman. She lost because she is a bad politician, who did poorly even with Black voters. If Newsom ends up being the guy, Dems will lose again. He is a Democratic DeSantis. Trying to be someone he isn’t, and just doesn’t feel genuine in their beliefs and is playing whatever the popular character is popular in the moment to move up the political ladder.
 
I agree Harris wasn’t the best choice for the dems, but a white male has a better shot at winning. A woman of ethnic background may still have a chance, just not as good a chance. Whatever the numbers are, there is still a fair amount of people in the US who won’t vote for a female or a female of color. Harris got 80% of the black but didn’t do near as well with black males, only 67% iirc.
In these times, why take a chance on it?
 
Last edited:
I honestly don’t think identity play as much of a role as people think. I don’t think Harris lost in any way because she is a Black woman. She lost because she is a bad politician, who did poorly even with Black voters.
Harris may not be a great politician, but she lost by 10 million votes to someone who lost by 10 million votes to Biden.

I disagree that identity politics don’t play a part. They didn’t as much in 2008 when Obama first ran, but they do today. How much of a part do the play? nobody will ever really know, but they do play a part, so unless you have a candidate who has head and shoulders much better than a white male, I wouldn’t take a chance. If I were in the Democratic Party, I wouldn’t be picking Whitmer. She’s no better a politician than say Bashear or Shapiro, but more chance of losing votes.
Obviously for the record, I don’t agree with identity voting, but that’s the reality of the US in 2025.

I agree about Newsom. It’s fun to watch him troll Trump, but he’s not the person to give that feeling of unity. The people on the right can’t stand him, and a lot of the centrists don’t really like him.
 
I should rephrase my previous statement. It's not that I think a women or woman of colour can't do the job or even potentially win, only that in the United States right now I think there's a better chance with a white male. That also depends on the candidates. As time goes on and we get to see more of candidates like Whitmer and Shapiro, Bashear, etc.. we'll get a better idea of how the candidates look in a presidential race. That also includes Newsom and and AOC, though personally I just don't see either of those two as winning a presidential race.
If Whitmer comes out as a clearly head and shoulders the best candidate then maybe you role the dice with her.
 
Shapiro has a shot. Even Whitmer, she is one of those appear more liberal than she is kind of politician. Michigan is a blue/purple state and she does better than other statewide Democrats. I honestly don’t think identity play as much of a role as people think. I don’t think Harris lost in any way because she is a Black woman. She lost because she is a bad politician, who did poorly even with Black voters. .
I would say identity politics are a factor more now than in recent years. Harris may or may not have been a great politician, but the fact that Trump actually got voted in a second time after some of the fiasco‘s from his first term, including the Jan 6th event tells me the Democrats need to play it safe, and that would be where the white male demographic comes in.
The Dems don’t need to win Michigan this time Michigan will take care of itself. All of those suburban Detroit Middle Eastern votes that went to Trump aren’t going to the Republicans next time, so if they can run say, Shapiro and get him to flip Pennsylvania, they’’ll get in.
 
Don’t take a chance on a candidate like Whitmer. If the democratics don’t get back in next election, things will get progressively worse.
 
I agree Harris wasn’t the best choice for the dems, but a white male has a better shot at winning. A woman of ethnic background may still have a chance, just not as good a chance. Whatever the numbers are, there is still a fair amount of people in the US who won’t vote for a female or a female of color. Harris got 80% of the black but didn’t do near as well with black males, only 67% iirc.
In these times, why take a chance on it?
I just don't think it comes down to her being a woman. We are arguably the most conservative province in the country, and yet one of the few not represented by a white man. Some of the most Republican states have a women governor, Arkansas, Alabama, South Dakota (before she left to join the Trump admin). I really don't see evidence that some segment of the population would never vote for a woman, when woman representing those states had to win the primary against white men and did. Dems should pick the best candidate, and stop worrying so much about identity. Who would've believed Trump would increase his vote share with Black voters. Just pick the best and most popular candidate regardless of their race, gender, or whatever.
 
With all due respect, I think it’s naive to think there isn’t a segment of the US population that won’t vote for a women. Trump increasing his vote with Hispanics and blacks was heavily through the male voters and not the female voters. Also only 47% of black. voters identified Harris as black. With 17% amazingly not sure what her race was.
Identity politics even affected Harris’ choice for not picking Buttigieg as a running mate, she even admitted so.
Everyone agrees the best candidate should be the one chosen, but that’s not always going to be the case in reality. If the candidate is going to be a woman or person of ethnic background, they need to stand out.
 
Last edited:
. Some of the most Republican states have a women governor, Arkansas, Alabama, South Dakota (before she left to join the Trump admin). I really don't see evidence that some segment of the population would never vote for a woman, when woman representing those states had to win the primary against white men and did.
The difference is those females are decidedly conservative in decidedly conservative states. The same goes for Danielle Smith here in Alberta. A decidedly conservative broomstick could get voted in, in those states.
The goal for the democrats next election is to sway middle of the road voters over to that side, and in a tight election identity, politics will count. If you have a stand out female candidate, then it changes things but there aren’t any at the moment.
 
It’ll be interesting to see how the next election goes. After all of the screw ups and corruption we’ve seen from the Republicans if they get reelected again I would say there’s no hope for the United States, at least in the near future.
 
I agree. Whoever runs for the dems in the next election will need to be fairly centrist. Might be an unpopular onion, but I think it needs to be a white male that doesn't seem to far to the left. Maybe an Andy Bashear, or Josh Shapiro type. Nothing against AOC, Mamdani or Widmer, but I don't trust the American voters, and I want to see a break from the republicans. Newsom would be a good candidate, but he's seen by many as too left, and also being from California doesn't help.
The problem with centrists is that many people perceive them (often not unfairly) as being fake and only taking positions to appease various factions of the electorate. Conventional wisdom is that swing voters are reasonable people who shy away from extreme, ideological positions, and are inclined to support a candidate who holds similar views. In reality, swing voters are low propensity, uninformed, and often take extreme, but inconsistent positions on issues. They generally don't vote unless they're won over by a charismatic, exciting candidate. That's why they can vote for both Obama and Trump. I think the best the Dems can do is have a wide open primary and hope that someone unexpected catches fire, as (Bill) Clinton and Obama did in 1992 and 2008 respectively. They really need to avoid nominating someone who comes off as fake, focus group-tested, and establishment-picked. If candidates who look good on paper won, we'd have just finished the glorious two-term tenure of President Jeb Bush.
 

Back
Top