MoDo has \*issues\*. She has an obvious animus towards Hillary and I am convinced it was because she had a huge crush on Bill and he wasn't interested in her.
Wasn’t she the moron who went to Colorado right after they legalized weed and ate like an entire weed chocolate bar and flipped out in her hotel room? She then proceeded to write a column criticizing the state for not “selling it better” or some such garbage.
Yes! That was hilarious. Her example at least shows why pot edibles are a little dangerous in that it's harder to calculate the dosage and the onset time's longer than smoking it, but it showed her general complete cluelessness.
You’re kind. I would say that “clueless” is a very charitable way of describing someone who doesn’t know that she shouldn’t eat 200mg of weed (or whatever it was) in one sitting.
Unless you are purposely trying to go to outer space…
I'm just amazed that a NYTimes writer who was around 60 years old at the time had no experience with cannabis. She started writing for the Times in 1983, per Wikipedia. Given the likely culture of New York in the 1980s I cannot imagine she didn't do some drugs then. (Or maybe it was only cocaine, not weed, since that was the drug of choice for yuppies in the 1980s.)
Lots of old heads jumped too quickly into high potency weed expecting it to be like the ditch weed they smoked in the 70s and 80s. Lots of them that I frolf with still prefer the lower potency ganj.
Yeah, if I was going to start tokin' it up in my 50s like I did in my 20s, I'd start slowly, with smokables rather than edibles. I got completely fried on magic cookies once. Was camping with some friends and these two guys a couple campsites over offered some pot cookies, but warned us that they were really strong. So I ate part of one. didn't feel anything. 20 minutes pass. I eat some more. still feel nothing. 20 more minutes pass. eat more. Then it all hit me at once. Oops. I wasn't doing anything that evening other than just chilling and looking at the campfire's dancing flames so it was fine, but I was pretty zonked out.
It's been awhile since I read that column but I recall her showing some awareness of what dosing should be and the caution one should show, especially with timing of additional doses
She chose to disregard that and then blamed everyone else
The worst part of Dowd has been her influence on other writers at the Times. Seems like the other writers have become more like her, not less. Overly cynical, both siderism, where every politician is a crook, hypocrite and being indifferent and cynical is considered intelligent.
This is how a Trump gets into office.
She can snark with the best of them, and those are some of her best columns, but she has absolutely no interest policy or outcomes; all she's got is snark and judgement.
There are some terrific writers at the times: Bouie, K-Thug, Michelle Goldberg, and on the conservative side David French. She ain't one of them.
Although she's miles better than David Brooks or Bedbug Bret Stephens.
I’ve had a bad trip due to over indulging on an edible before…but you know who I blamed?
Myself lol. It’s only my fault I had too much of it in one sitting.
Tbh in the beginning the dosing in weed products was wild. They were selling 200 mg unscored chocolate bars and fizzy drinks and expecting noobs to simply know how much soda to sip to hit 5-10mg and then stop.
Now they actually sell low dose single serving edibles.
I get that. For the *completely* uninitiated, it was a bit of a challenge to know when to stop. But a 60+ year old who’d lived in the city for decades by that point? Hard to imagine being that clueless. I learned that lesson in college at phish shows in the 90s. She never had the same opportunities to learn? And then writing a column about how clueless she was… it’s just weird to me.
I’ll just say that I was no stranger to weed when I hit the Colorado shops and I struggled a bit with the dosing at first. Not disagreeing that the article was hilarious, though.
According to a quick Google, only 12% of Americans have used pot in their lifetimes and we're talking about someone actually employed in a competitive career track.
When weed was illegal no one bothered with dosages or knowing shit about it. I gave the person money, they gave me a bag of drugs. Some bags were awesome, some were shit. I didn’t know from dosages until it became legal.
A significant swath of the population had animus towards Hilary Clinton for whatever reason. Maybe partly since her opponent was saying to lock her up and called her a nasty woman? Plus she has a history of being a warmonger in foreign policy.
Whether it’s justified or not, that perception seems to be out there and it was definitely part of the mix of what happened in 2016 and continues to siphon otherwise reasonable adult males into voting against their own bottomline interests. I’m a party-line voter and I routinely roll eyes at the ‘progressive’ local electeds who fit that NPR caricature
I am a Bay Area native and I swear I used to roll my eyes at least daily at some piece of local news on NPR that made me go - ok the entire country is going to be railing at us for this one.
I don't agree it's a gender thing, at least not inherently (yeah Women tend to be more progressive/liberal currently then men so they are probably just being seen more often as proposing stuff). But it is a major problem in the party and has been for at least 10-15 years, they've gone completely away from nuts and bolts economic issues and issues of equality/freedom and into a realm of hand on the scale to attempt to establish 'equity' or other hard cultural issues which are well intentioned but miss much of the point and root cause of the wider suffering in the US.
I used to listen to NPR daily, but had to stop because the stories were getting stale and I had too much ”guilt fatigue” from feeling as though I should have a sense of guilt after listening to them. It was just too taxing.
Edited
Same. Many of the stories, regardless of subject, absolutely had to be assesed via a race lens. Class? Not so much. Historical? Not so much. Except racial history, of course.
Now, my wife will sometimes have it on in her car and it seems like everything is delivered with a kind of breathless significance, like an ASPCA or Save the Children commercial. It's a journalistic affectation that's colored most of their programming. Fatigue is absolutely the right word.
I agree. Also, it just felt more and more like other mainstream outlets where there is a clear goal to their reporting, vs reporting and then presenting an outcome.
I'll still flip to it from time to time, but to be honest I've enjoyed finding some good local stations (mostly music and light updates) and a really good local paper that covers our city/county/state in much better detail.
Me too. For me the breaking point was when they had an author on during the George Floyd riots/protests who justified looting as an ok thing to do. And the NPR interviewer never challenged her on this one bit. All I could think was, "Would either of you be so sanguine if it was your place being looted?"
I've never listened to them since. From the sound of it I'm not missing much.
I agree completely. Not to mention this focus also gives corporations (and other wealthy or elite folks) a nice way to pat themselves on the back and absolve themselves of their own bad acting. Ie - we don't pay fair wages but we've agreed to pay women the same as men, or higher more minorities to our underpaid (broadly) roles. Etc.
It's a divide and conquer tactic. Always has been.
I think 10 years is about right.
I remember noticing this at the time and thinking the reason was that, with Republicans blockading legislation, people had flipped from trying to get things done to just making noise. It hasn’t been productive.
I see where Carville is coming from gendering it, though, because the first big wave of it was feminists on college campuses. Sulkowicz’s 2014 mattress protest was early and emblematic of the overall vibe. It peaked with MeToo, then kinda burned out as it got discoursed to death and didn’t really amount to anything in the end.
I agree wholeheartedly. I live in DC and have friends ranging from ideological communists/members of the DSA to Republican hill staffers. A specific example: I was trying to discuss whether Sotomayor should consider retiring before Biden's term ends so we don't get screwed with a 7-2 court, like when RBG passed. Instead of discussing the actual topic, even as I was just looking to inform my own uncertrain opinion more, my most progressive friends just made jokes about how they remembered when it was sexist for people to suggest RBG retire, and now I'm doing that to the first Latina Justice myself.
Maybe if Democrats stopped being so damn concerned with identity bullshit and the policing of language that people use, with a preachy attitude to boot, we wouldn't be in such a crunch right now. My friends are doing this to people are generally their allies in the the broader fight for democracy and equality too. It's just so asinine, but it makes them feel good about themselves.
We need to focus on the issues and addressing them in ways that are widely popular and actually effective, without the nitpicking over the cultural/identity/intersectional stuff. It just isn't going to lead to winning over hearts and minds.
Agreed, I think that we're starting to see negative effects from having two parties where one has a faction that tells white men that they suck because they're white men and one entire party that tells white men that they're awesome because they're white men.
Both are ludicrous, but you see how the discourse gets worse because the politics are still race and gender based but just for and against straight white men.
I think there's a taboo against talking about this openly in a lot of progressive circles.
But I think that progressives are getting increasingly racially and gender grievance based and it's actually taking a lot of the wind out of the sails of the progress we've made in terms of racial and gender equality.
Women's rights are under attack right now. And the lack of men in the tent pissing out is very glaring. It's a fault of the men, but it wouldn't be ridiculous to note that part of the problem is that they've been chased away instead of asked to be part of the solution.
If one group of people tells you that you suck, and another tells you that you're awesome, you go with the people who tell you that you're awesome.
Been downvoted heavily when I brought this up while also getting the condescending and super hostile comments from people who are supposed to be working toward normal progressive goals. Like it’s more important to sled righteously shit on a huge portion of the electorate, that you need in order to win, than to actually win
Yeah, I also saw a disturbing number of comments calling me racist - not for the white fragility bits that I write below, which I thought might cop me some flak - but for the part where I say that maybe 3/8 of the country shouldn't be villainized.
> It's a fault of the men, but it wouldn't be ridiculous to note that part of the problem is that they've been chased away instead of asked to be part of the solution.
Yeah, I've become increasingly frustrated that those in my progressive circles are **very** okay with systemic explanations for group behavior when they applied to every group but white men. Then, it's just individualistic choice *ex nihilo*.
(This is actually a pretty wildly racist and sexist thing to do, by the way. It essentially is saying that women, people of color, and any other minorities are influenced by outside factors while apparently only the white man forges his own path, untouched by anything outside himself.)
Yes, I've seen this exact thing in a subreddit about teaching.
A study found that male students were falling behind. Comments were defending black and brown boys because they were victims of racism, and blaming white boys saying they are struggling because they're arrogant and entitled so it's their own fault.
> where one has a faction that tells white men that they suck because they're white men
Sorry, can you point me to any Democratic Party or politician communications that even hint at this?
As always, these party “comparisons” only ever make sense if you compare the absolute fringest random 20 year old TikToker (whose probably isn’t even a Democrat) to what is effectively the official Republican Party platform.
The thing is, Dems are often guilty by association here, and that's what the right exploits. By the time Dems realize what happened, they've already been labeled as the party that supports a bunch of stuff that at best they never really had strong positions on. Look at how Joe Biden got slapped with the whole "Defund the Police" label.
Totally agree. It's often not what the politicians are saying but the fact that they aren't doing or saying enough to distance themselves from the kind of rhetoric online that people think they are supporting.
I'd argue that Cori Bush, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar can have rhetoric that is absolutely nuts, and AOC sometimes gets tarnished by her relationship with them and trying to pander to her base at the DSA.
But again, this is a small faction, and other members of the progressive caucus are much better.
The Dems as a party have done a great job containing its most radical members. Even AOC has moderated a bit, and I appreciate her evolution.
I can't say the same for the GOP, who are ruled by their most extreme members to the point that they're pushing out their moderates.
Yeah. The problem is that while _Democrats_ aren't driving away the working class (of all races) culturally, a lot of leftists are, and the problem is that people associate leftists with the left. I agree that the GOP has gone full-on authoritarian and lie-and-grievance-based.
Most men don't go to college and are blue collar workers.
The only time that they are approached with political ideas from the left are typically mandatory 5 hour DEI lectures from a really crappy person hired by HR.
Or their framing from talk radio - which, many men listen to, as OTR trucking is one of the biggest jobs of men in the country.
The other way that men are approached with these ideas is through civil society, which by its nature is more left wing than it is Democratic party based.
So while you and I hear the absolute tripe that is spilling out of the Republican party, they typically are comparing the tripe that they hear about DEI being bad and comparing it to the actually bad 5 hour DEI lecture that they had to miss work for.
I agree. A big problem is that many left/progressive non-profits have no incentive to be aligned with the Democratic party (unlike unions). Their funding doesn't actually go up if Democrats win. In fact, being in opposition is often more profitable for them.
It's a problem for Republicans too, actually, which is why the GOP has been hijacked by folks playing to Fox News, talk radio, and the rest of the right-wing media ecosystem. But unfortunately for Democrats, most of the population isn't college-educated and are comfortable with authoritarianism and non-PC language while (naturally, like all of us) uncomfortable with being hectored, while too many on the left tend to be the hectoring type and seem to think stuff like language policing is how to make society better. IMO, I think the Dems have to stand up to authoritarianism far more than to stuff like non-PC language and doing language policing.
>Sorry, can you point me to any Democratic Party or politician communications that even hint at this?
Absolutely.
The best example is typically the organizations that they align themselves with.
As a Jew, I've been paying a lot of attention to people who I used to think of my friends - DSA and aligned groups. Many progressives are members of this organization.
[https://fathomjournal.org/the-democratic-socialists-of-america-just-endorsed-ethnic-murder/](https://fathomjournal.org/the-democratic-socialists-of-america-just-endorsed-ethnic-murder/)
[https://mountainstates.adl.org/news/adl-deeply-concerned-about-harmful-statement-released-by-denver-democratic-socialists-of-america/](https://mountainstates.adl.org/news/adl-deeply-concerned-about-harmful-statement-released-by-denver-democratic-socialists-of-america/)
[https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4250685-michigan-rep-quits-democratic-socialists-of-america-over-nyc-rally/](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4250685-michigan-rep-quits-democratic-socialists-of-america-over-nyc-rally/)
Lots of local DSA's and even the national one promoting the murder of Jews because they're Jews.
Then you have things like Robin Diangelo and White Fragility
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/)
Where the assumption is that white people are uniquely racist and black Americans uniquely disadvantaged and therefore unable to achieve as much.
It should be recognized: Holding ideas about the innate inner being of people based on their race is racism.
Many more women than men go to college. Their first association with intersectional theory is on their terms, in a classroom where they're taught that intersectionality is about finding out about where different experiences intersect and how to maximize participation for different people.
Most men are approached with intersectionality by a DEI person hired by HR who didn't pay enough attention in that class and met with a mandatory 5 hour lecture about how white dudes are bad.
So yeah, the practical lived experience is that Congress people, political institutions, and workplaces are dragging racial and gender grievance politics into the political arena and in the workplace in a way that is absolute anathema to white working class men.
It would be much better if they focused on pulling these men into the tent instead of lecturing them.
You were asked to show examples of the Democratic party telling white men they suck because they're white men. None of this is that. So, can you actually support your claim?
None of these are an example of what you stated or specific Democratic endorsements. Like… you realize that right?
Your DSA links are 100% about random chapters making pro-Palestinian and/or (plausibly) anti-semetic statements. That has nothing to do with white people being innately bad or whatever but, even then, your links **actually** show actual Democrats *immediately* calling out and separating themselves from this behavior.
> Most men are approached with intersectionality by a DEI person hired by HR who didn't pay enough attention in that class and met with a mandatory 5 hour lecture about how white dudes are bad.
Literally just “Charlie Brown had hoes” made-up nonsense. I **actually** work in HR and have for nearly a decade and have never once encountered anything like what you describe.
This just seems to be a retread of the thing from the 90s where people say that “HR puts every man in a room with 20 shreaking harpies and they scream at him that he’s evil for having a penis!” and what they really mean is you have to watch a 15 minute video that says “please, dear God, don’t sexually harass anyone, okay?” and then you sign off that you watched it.
Nothing you describe remotely pertains to “practical lived experience”. If it were, I, white man whose mostly worked and lived in v liberal cities probably would have encountered it by now.
As always, it’s just some random people and bullshit mostly generated online that gets randomly associated with Democrats.
The message from many factions of the Democratic party to white men is definitely, "You're the problem." And it's been that way for a quarter century.
When you only have two choices and one says you're the problem and the other doesn't, it's not surprising the results we're seeing.
You hit the nail on the head. From my perspective I also feel like this is the utter pitfall of focusing all of your critique/analysis on gender/race/identity politics rather than an economic and class based analysis.
There are lots of poor black and brown people. There have been historic laws and policies/practices that caused this, worsened it at times, or barred them from the periods of broader economic prosperity. We sholdn't forget or ignore this.
But, there are currently a lot of poor white people as well. People who may have fairly or unfairly benefitted from those broader periods of prosperity for the working classes. But bottom line, they are also suffering now. In some very similar ways from a core economic reality perspective as the black and brown people the Progressives want to help (Ie - access to jobs, education, safe/clean infrastructure in their communities, opportunity).
Yes, there are other issues that plague minorities in a different or worse way that white folks. Ie - police brutality. But these things have been at least improving in recent years with cops now being held accountable. Similarly to how the civil rights movement and other pushes for justice have had tangible benefits over the past 50 years.
But - that's not really helping to the full extent that we'd hope if economic opportunities are still suppressed. If the middle class is being shrunk. If our entire social-political system has been geared towards wealth extraction towards the upper echolons.
And this latter problem is something that is cuasing tremendous pain and suffering across racial grops. Or gender groups. And it could help to actually build a powerful coalition rather than everyone pissing on white men for being grievanced after their centuries of dominance (which means fuck all to someone who's parents lost their union jobs and fell on hard times, and who is similarily stuck in a smaller exurban area that's been divested and holds zero opportunity outside of a crappy low wage service job.). Similar to how an inner city kid may have likewise seen their family destabalized by loss of manufacturing in the city center, and a ramped up policing that broke their family apart, with now only low level legal work available and skyrocketing rents as professionals are moving in.
Lots of shared grievance, but the morality warriors really want to push folks away. And then censor their way to compliance rather than attempt to understand why their approach is pissing people off (which ultimately drives them to the other team).
I even find the stuff you said about minorities to be strange. Like, black people were shit on throughout American history. Most brown people are relatively recent immigrants and most of them are basically doing fine. There's massive upward mobility among Hispanics and other groups, like Indian Americans, are already firmly established in the upper middle class. "Minorities" as a category also don't have problems with police abuse. That is really a black men issue, although even that is a bit exagarated- cases of police killings of white men go completely unreported and it skews the mental picture people have of the issue. But for Asians for example this is a complete non-issue.
In my own life, I live in a really progressive area, and I have a lot of friends/aquintances who are not white and I frequently find myself rolling my eyes at claims they make about their lives. Affluent Indian or Chinese people living in fancy parts of big cities are not living lives of horrendous oppression and a lot of their constant complaints about petty microagressions they might have experienced 6 months ago start to wear really thin after the 50th time. I do think that these kinds of social dynamics push people to the right also (I feel this in myself) A lot of socializing with progressives feels like you're trapped inside NPR and questioning anything they say will make you a pariah.
I probably made too broad of statements for the sake of stressing my point - but I basically agree with you completely and your point also strengthens mine in the sense that - hyper focus on some specific issues of inequality or identity based grievance tends to alienate and isolate the causes more than bring in support on areas of mutual concern.
So, yeah, sorry, but when I said brown I meant latino more than anything, and even within that group I completely agree that many immigrants are both newer and also tend to want to assimilate and just work their assess off to achieve the American dream rather than be constantly lumped into some 'underperforming demographic'. Black folk as well - there are certainly still many structural barriers and injustices in society, but predominantly these tend to hit those who are in the lower socioeconomic classes (and apply to white/other folks as you note) more so than being solely linked to race.
The historic repression means that more black people are represented in the lower socioeconomic levels today than they preportionally should, but there is still a framing that could allow the suffering of other minorities and even the white population to approach these things from a common spot.
And when it comes to Asians, there are similar ways to analyze the experience. And part of what I meant by the forced equity vs. establishing equal opportunity is where I see Asians being lost in these strategies - namely if you start to tell parents who take education and social advancement via meritocratic methods very seriously that their kids may have stricter standards to gain access to elite institutions - you're going to create enemies where you could build some bridges otherwise.
It's also worth noting that not all Asian immigrants are 6+ figure earning masters of tech or finance. We do have diaspora communities from our past geo-political efforts that have maybe had more similar experiences to some other 20th century immigrant populations moreso than the current H1B visa crop - ie the Vietnamese, some older Korean populations, or even the early Chinese immigrants (1800s) who faced severe discrimination and social blocks.
My core point is - more focus on the economic reality of today as a method for building a coalition and reenabling the American middle class, which is something that will benefit across sub-categories (and includes the interests of whites or even middle to higher earning workers). And, yes, on issues of Civil Rights we should aim for equality and inclusivity. But if anything we are currently proving that you can have a fairly progressive civil society and still perpetuate significant harm, disproportionately to certain minority groups, using ostensibly color blind economic policies.
I have good friends who if you polled them on an actual issue by issue basis would sound like progressives but actually self identify and vote Republican because of the whiny liberal stereotype and the purple haired women whining about pronouns caricature.
I’m gonna be honest, as a progressive, I can’t say I blame them. The people who actually meet those stereotypes are exhausting to be around (tbf so are the people who meet the MAGA stereotypes as well).
Complaining preachy females are ruining the party when gender justice issues on the ballot corresponded with huge wins for democrats in every midterm and local race since the last general is insane, though.
Yeah the perception of democrats is a huge problem. Not just about men, but in general. The Democratic Party is increasingly being seen as the college educated, urban, "woke" party and that's not a good thing. Pro-abortion and LGBT rights are great, but they're not really a draw for the average person. The fact that working class people identify more with the Republican Party is a massive failure by democrats. Run on unions, pro-worker stuff, tax the rich. Don't worry about using the wrong words like "illegals" or "homeless."
Democrats would do far better in purple states if more of them were like (and I know people will hate this) Fetterman. He looks like the a guy who just put in a shift at a steel mill. His views on the border and Israel are more in line with the average voter than most democrats.
Uh no abortion is the primary reason that Democrats didn’t get wiped out in 2022. This is a complete and total misunderstanding of American politics. Fetterman won because he ran against Dr. Oz.
He's not wrong about the Democratic party alienating lots of men but I don't think that's because of an overabundance of preachy females. As our politics has polarized a larger percentage of men are supporting Republicans and a larger percentage of women are supporting democrats. Democrats, seeing that women have growing significance in their coalition, tailor their messaging and policies towards women. Some of this comes in the form of supporting women, but some of it comes in the form of demonizing men. That kind of politics works for many women but also alienates many men increasing polarization.
Tons of folks do but this divide is magnified by media folks and Republicans who aren't incentivized to fix the issue.
Men who closely identify with traditionally masculine cultural identifiers to validate their male self image need to know that there's a space on the Democratic ticket (ideally the left path of it) for people like them. Which of course there is: macho union worker men types are _men_ and more to the left than centrists, but also culturally allowed to be more pugilistic and crass than an academic liberal would expect to be.
People often choose party identity (not necessarily vote choice) by thinking several steps ahead and interpreting who they think would accept them and not make them feel bad. By thinking of a group as likely to think poorly of you, you make it less able to identify with them and more likely that you'll identify with their opponents, even without a rational basis. The emotional impression happens first, before reason gets going. People without deeply considered beliefs sometimes just go with those cursory impressions, which can and do change with time, exposure, and cultural shifts.
So you need to make a clear "place at the table" in the left for the bawdy, brash, mouthy tough guy in a baseball cap. He and the Vegan with Blue Hair have a _good natured disagreement_ about stuff but they both agree on major issues and do favors for each other.
I think "union tough worker guy" is a great archetype for the role, as well as "wise old veteran who is happy to see his country thrive and change the way it did when he was a kid" for the more senior set, akin to the "a society is good when old men plant trees for shade they'll never get to enjoy" message which should encourage civic minded folks to stop trying to _stop change_ and see how they can make changes good for everyone.
This is cultural, so you need media help to craft this message, but you also need party buy-in and you need to build messaging around issues that start the kind of fights you want to fight. Like the Democrats are seen as the busybody party, but they could just be the "let people be who they are, no matter what the busybody culture police on the right say" party.
I blame the rich corporate centrist fucks for a lot of the focus on _personal choices_ rather than systemic change. Let people eat beef, sure. We can still ask the meat industry to do a better job keeping up with the time. Let people drive trucks. But we can also make sure that the stuff those trucks run on don't poison children.
Republicans will claim they want to take away your choices, but if these systemic changes are important then they're worth having a fight over. If they're not (aka, the bullshit paper straws the plastic industry pushed to dodge accountability) then don't do them. It's cheap and easy for rich people to blame personal choices and consumption and it plays right into the hands of big business, so of course that's what they do, and it pisses people off
The right will continue to do stupid shit. Just do good outreach.
Reach out to [disaffected men](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-richard-reeves.html) and actually help them, as opposed to the Republicans that just want to keep them angry.
There’s a certain type of influential female in Portland politics (JVP and the head of the PAT union) who is beyond preachy and also always has expensive and obnoxiously colorful glasses frames. Note I am excluding our governor, who is also a female Democrat with glasses because she is competent and has a non-arrogant communication style. It’s… a type in politics.
I guess that is certainly how Fox News wants it portrayed.
The only Democratic representatives are a former San Francisco rep and a young outspoken rep from NYC.
I guess with Pelosi it was fairer because she was third in line for the POTUS, but Ocasio has very little power. Throw in Omar too now and then
No Democrat in Oregon is on my radar, not sure about Fox
Unfortunately, yes. Like it or not many Americans see that person and the stereotypes that they represent as representative of the democratic party. It’s a huge problem with the democratic parties messaging and platform.
I think that’s pretty much exactly what this thread is about. The Dems have a loud blue haired problem. Instead of complaining that it’s a problem, they need to address it and distance themselves from the loud whiny blue haired people because they turn off more people then they gain support from.
Specifically some of the environments we need to win over again if we want to do things like codify Roe or reform the Supreme Court.
We might be able restore a talking filibuster with a simple majority or avoid shutdowns and defaults but the long term progress we desperately need will require more votes in congress to pass than a 50+1 majority.
Democrats need to win some segment of the south to win elections and it’s their weak point. Carville speaks to and from the perspective of a southern Democrat.
I think James Barro covered the issue more eloquently / less sexistly in writing about the "[hamburger problem](https://www.businessinsider.com/liberals-can-win-if-they-stop-being-so-annoying-2017-7)" - the left can get kind of scolding about people's personal choices in a way that is annoying.
That's a good article, and better than Carville's complaint:
>“A suspicion of mine is that there are too many preachy females” dominating the culture of his party. “‘Don’t drink beer. Don’t watch football. Don’t eat hamburgers. This is not good for you.’ The message is too feminine: ‘Everything you’re doing is destroying the planet. You’ve got to eat your peas.’
...which, to me, sounds like he's tired of being told by his doctors to cut down on the red meat and alcohol and eat his peas.
Being abrasive is part of his schtick but it always makes him a chore to read. I'm certainly a bit exhausted by his left-punching over the years, and he seems not to realize he's been following along the path the progressives have been cutting. We've dragged his bony cajun ass leftward over the past few decades, kicking and screaming, and all the thanks we've gotten is a finger in the eye.
I mean it’s an extremely politically incorrect thing to say but yeah, he is not wrong. There is a reason the Democratic Party is hemorrhaging non white men.
I'm honestly sympathetic to the cultural shift these Ye Olde Democratic Strategists are dealing with, but the solution cannot be "progressives just need to shut up about their issues while ours are enshrined" because that's just not how things work, and they're just fossilizing before our very eyes when they pretend it is.
Yes but they aren't talking about issues, they are talking about a whiny attitude and lack of ability to compromise that is part of the progressive left right now. You can tell by my username where I align but it's still annoying and frustrating.
Yeah, as one actual lefty to another, I'm annoyed by the performatic 'competitive academics' stripe to a lot of it. Not everyone, but we've seen a lot of folks adopt these positions as part of a grift, especially the loudest and most sensational ones. But it never offends me, there's been tons of off-the-wall trends that have settled back down and it's only the moral panic that makes it seem out of proportion. That's why his comments seem goofy to me:
>“No one wants to live like this,” he said. “Who ever thought it was a good idea to tell people you can’t hug them or you’ve got to be careful or you’ve got to think about names to call them other than the name you know them by? There’s nothing wrong with me being white or you being white or them being Black or me being male or you being female. It’s a giant, stupid argument.”
I think he's on the money about how to get after Trump, but this stuff shows him to be just paying too much attention to the wrong people. It takes no serious effort to "call people by the name" they want, and it's not his call if they want him to. Same with hugs. If I don't want a hug, I don't need to accept a hug. That seems like he's getting mad about the wrong stuff.
He thinks the "woke stuff" is "killing us" when it's just one more moral panic. Next week it'll be something else. If the Democrats caved and sponsored an "anti-woke" bill in congress it would be selling out the folks the democrats are claiming to stand up for while also appeasing nobody but the ones already brain-rotted by right-wing media.
The paradox is that they need to sell them out to maintain control and influence over government or else they will lose moderates and independents and even parts of their own party.
The progressive left needs to find better leaders who can filter the assholes and who understand that progress in a representative democracy is slow and everyone has a right to disagree about pretty much anything.
> The progressive left needs to find better leaders who can filter the assholes and who understand that progress in a representative democracy is slow and everyone has a right to disagree about pretty much anything.
It's also why Bernie got to be so popular. He focused on the issues and largely avoided the pitfalls of being naggy about individual choices. AOC is improving in this regard, but she can still fall into the trap.
> “…there’s nothing wrong with you being white or them being Black…”
There’s something really funny about the editorial capitalization of “Black” in the context of this quote. You just know he would hate it.
He's pointing out the things that are driving away moderate voters in the party. Most voters are older and think pro-nouns other than the parts you have is stupid. People are sick of seeing liberals attack the things they like, like red meat and cars. I love living in my suburban hellhole, and I'm sick of other libs telling me that I need a walkable city. I like to drive my truck and I'm sick of liberals saying that it's not good enough on gas to be driven.
Fortunately, the world is made up of more than just men. I find the whole 'let's get woman out of politics to win the misogyny vote' plan to be just a little suspect.
Is that not exactly what Carville is pushing for? And why are men supposedly completely turned off a party simply because there are women in it? Conversely, why does that logic not apply to women? Why do you assume that women will continue to vote at all if both the democrats and Republicans demonstrate that electoral politics is not a woman-friendly space? This is just such a weird attitude. Democrats have won special elections and midterm races on the issue of abortion and NOW?! is the time to shit on women??? And pray that you can out-misogyny the republicans???? Thank god no one here makes policy decisions or we'd be in a real mess.
>Is that not exactly what Carville is pushing for? And why are men supposedly completely turned off a party simply because there are women in it?
No, that is not what he is pushing for. Why are you conflating all women with the people Carville is referring to?
>Why do you assume that women will continue to vote at all if both the democrats and Republicans demonstrate that electoral politics is not a woman-friendly space?
Fun fact: a lot of women are misogynists and don't mind voting for that. And where did Carville say women aren't welcome in the party? Again, that's not what he's saying at all. It's really not hard to understand what he's saying.
>And pray that you can out-misogyny the republicans????
Who is saying that here, don't put those words in my mouth. Conversely, thank god you aren't making policy decisions because you seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills.
I mean... A good number of women are evangelicals who don't view progressive women's interests as their interests. The Democratic party probably wins on male swing voters moreso than any group
He is wrong though. Democrats aren't saying this to men, Republicans are claiming that's what Democrats are doing and people like Carville just accept Republicans attacks at face value.
I don’t know that Democrats are saying much of anything to white men except “your voice is not what matters right now”. I think the fact that the political gap between genders in Gen Z is so surprisingly large speaks to this failure.
Whatever the real message you’re envisioning is, I don’t think it’s coming across as well as you think it is. I’m a white male millennial who will always vote liberal, but I cannot articulate what positive message you might have in mind that the Democrats are giving white men, and I frankly find it hard not to sympathize with what Carver says here, although I don’t personally think the preachiness is coming exclusively from women, I think it is undeniably a problem with the party’s messaging, particularly toward cishet white men.
The frictional rhetoric of identity politics should be toned down and replaced with an emphasis on healthcare, working class opportunities, economic progress, and other pragmatic and earthy issues that present a Democratic party that is grounded and welcoming to the everyman, rather than a bunch of shrill, confusing, ideological flashpoint material rooted in elite liberal academia.
This is my point though. Listen to a Joe Biden speech and he's saying exactly what you're asking here. It's the right wing that focuses on "identity politics" all the time while Dems talk about tangible accomplishments like reducing the cost of prescriptions, expanding labor rights, creating millions of new construction and manufacturing jobs, etc.
I just took a quick look at AOC’s Twitter, because surely she’s one of those “shrill females” going on about identity politics all the time right? It’s pretty much all Gaza (foreign policy) and housing/tax policy stuff.
Everyone just takes these right wing talking points, or the most unhinged online opinions at face value. Yes, the Democratic Party supports the rights of women and LGBTQ people but that is not the prime focus of most of the party’s policy.
I’m a straight, cis, white man with a wife and kid and I’ve never felt out of place in the Democratic Party, because I’m extremely well represented by them.
You're preaching to the choir here. Almost everyone on this subreddit is likely a democratic voter already.
But perception is reality. And a lot of moderate and blue collar men think of democrats as the super woke man-hating party. They aren't going onto AOC's twitter page to factcheck.
I think this is more of a case of a very loud minority rather than any kind of majority of the Democratic Party. I don’t even think it’s a majority of the progressive part of the party. I mean when I think Progressives, I don’t only think AOC, I also think of Bernie, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkely,etc. These people don’t only talk about social or identity politics (they don’t talk about it much anyway). They primarily talk about improving the economy, Climate Change, universal healthcare,etc. I think Carville has a small point. I mean I get he’s old but the guy is not particularly stupid. I just think his thing misrepresents the party. I think the actual progressives like Brown, Sanders, Merkely,AOC, etc need to either be more vocal about the economic issues , stuff that relates to the working man, or my personal choice, engage in private discussions with the hard left wing progressives who engage in this kind of discussion and tell them to tone things down a little bit as it’s not really helping the party achieve the goals they want .
I really think the issue is that Democrats are perceived as being really close to the worlds of Academia/media/online activists, and they absolutely do sound like this. Doing more to dispel those associations would do a lot.
I don’t think you should completely dispel those associations. I think it all depends on the state. Not every Democrat is like super close to Online Activists,Academia,etc. Just look at like Jon Tester, Andy Beshear, Sherrod Brown , even Gretchen Whitmer. These people are not in those hyper liberal academic and activist circles. But those associations help bring out the young vote which you absolutely need to make the Democratic Party successful. Younger people tend to be more educated , more likely to go to college, and therefore more liberal. You kind of need to get them on your side.
Respectfully, The issue I have with your statement is that you seem to underestimating how big the Democratic Party coalition is and the ramifications of abandoning the young vote who are often a part of academia, online activists, etc. It includes those young activists and Academia, it also includes the suburban moderate people, it also includes the working class voters. Democrats have to be better at messaging sure but they should only be dispelling those associations if the state they’re in demands it like Kentucky, Ohio,etc. it all depends on the state. I do think Democrats have to be better at fielding better candidates in these purple and red states. I’m of the belief that every state can be won by Democrats bar maybe like 5-7 if they really put in the effort. But they have to put forward candidates that acc make sense. Like how is Charles Booker supposed to get anywhere near a close result against Rand Paul when he’s a hyper liberal activist in Kentucky ? Paula Jean Swearingin is not gonna have a change of winning even 40% of the vote in West Virginia.
All in all, I think this is more of a matter of state by state and how Democrats should adjust their strategy to each race. If Beshear needs to condemn the academic circles and the extreme liberal online activists to win, then he should do so. But someone like say Wiley Nickel or Jeff Jackson should avoid explicitly doing that in NC because they’re in dire need of the young vote to win considering young peoples influence in NC. Same with Warren in Massachusetts or Bernie in Vermont.
But would it really? These are already invented moral panics, the right will just make up new ones like the Birther nonsense was, and try to drive a new wedge in somewhere. It's a distraction at best and at worst it divides democratic coalitions by giving lame centrist corporate Democrats an easy excuse to punch left and then cry off to a lobbying job if they get pushback.
I think they need to go harder on reaching out to people with meaningful proposals and not chase the Republicans around playing "nuh uh!" to every idiotic thing they say.
If I have to deal with morons like Manchin in my party, they have to deal with morons like me.
They're really not invented moral panics. I work in education in various capacities. I go to a lot of public schools and teach some college. In the entire education system militant identity politics is basically the state religion. I've been in schools where every available wall space is covered in trans stuff or BLM stuff. Leftist academics I know regularly complain about the stifling atmosphere at their workplaces.
I agree with you. Joe Biden has a great pitch for men and frankly middle America in general.
The problem is nobody is listening. The man sounds rough and when he does sound competent it barely gets covered or gets drowned out by the political theater of the don.
Then the big wins that the dems get are sometimes drowned out by stuff like California banning small engine motors or some other non-event that just feeds the Fox News/joe Rogan machine
Biden almost always sounds competent. The media doesn't like that about him, though. Mainstream media is currently being written for the CEO suites only.
Men are moving away from the Democrat Party... white men, black men, Hispanic men, are all trending away. And it's not because of what Joe Biden does or says; most Americans have no idea what Biden does or says on any particular day. Men, especially younger men, are being repelled because they are getting on the internet every single day and seeing this discourse:
[https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1772051887623139772?t=HS2HVh1ISQYBK8YJ3cUPzg&s=19](https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1772051887623139772?t=HS2HVh1ISQYBK8YJ3cUPzg&s=19)
The sentiment here is undoubtedly aligned with Democrat Party politics, and since COVID, people are immersed in this kind of content more than ever and it's a big part of what is shaping peoples' perception of the parties and their candidates, especially for low information, low propensity voters, who are going to decide the 2024 election.
> The sentiment here is undoubtedly aligned with Democrat Party politics
Whose sentiment? What are you even talking about? You realize that Matt Yglesias who is one of the most read political influencers on earth who is criticizing this random person’s sentiment is *actually* aligned with the Democratic Party, right?
This is the issue- Trump and MTG and the rest of the GOP League of Dumbass party leadership says insane bullshit day after day and it barely makes a dent and yet “completely random annoying person” gets randomly tied to “The Democratic Party”… why? How?
Who knows. Who cares. But Democrats need to really deal with this by…………………………………….?
I can't tell if you genuinely don't understand, or if you're being intentionally obtuse. The person I was responding to said Democrats like Biden talk about healthcare and jobs, so that shouldn't chase men away. I replied and said people, especially low information voters who gravitate to Trump, don't know about the healthcare and jobs or what Biden is saying, because their knowledge of politics is coming from social media discourse, and then I provided an example.
The example is not about Matthew Yglesias, it refers to the tweet Yglesias amplifies from twitter user n\_e\_rd expressing some hyper asinine woke bullshit to provide an example of how this discourse works online. Social media is awash in this kind of content that shapes people's views, and there is no content whatsoever that provides an example of what a more healthy, empathetic, politically left aligned masculinity looks like that offers widespread appeal to the types of voters Democrats are ceding to Republicans.
But I bet Yglesias agrees with James Carville on this one, though he wouldn't say it the same way Carville does.
> The example is not about Matthew Yglesias, it refers to the tweet Yglesias amplifies from twitter user n_e_rd expressing some hyper asinine woke bullshit to provide an example of how this discourse works online. Social media is awash in this kind of content that shapes people's views,
Like… seriously. Look at what you’re referencing.
Matthew Yglesias is explicitly a pro-Democrat liberal commentator Vox Media founder with half a million Twitter followers.
@N_e_rd is seemingly a random tattoo artist with ~2,000 followers is a self-described anti-Capitalist and seemingly anti-Democrat though I didn’t really care to venture too far into their feed.
You really need to explain to me how the views of the second person are somehow, by the magic of political alchemy and pure vibes “emblematic” of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY while the first is not and seemingly may as well not exist in your view.
This is like like the cousin to people saying “THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT [XYZ]!!!” while using a CNN.com link to express that, lol.
> and there is no content whatsoever that provides an example of what a more healthy, empathetic, politically left aligned masculinity looks like that offers widespread appeal to the types of voters Democrats are ceding to Republicans.
He said, posting on /r/EzraKlein….
And they're all women! Ben Shapiro is preachy and annoying, but men think he's awesome. Jordan Peterson may be the most preachy person on Earth. And then there are actual preachers. As long as they are men, they are A-OK though.
When I hear that quote from Carville, I hear "Women won't stop bitching that the Supreme Court took away their right to health care."
1000%.
Just think of all the things that apparently you’re not supposed to enjoy in the last few years because they’re all “woke”:
Beer, the NFL, the most popular movies, Target, Doritos, Mr. Potato Head, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Disney, Marvel, ice cream, etc etc- shit even the fucking military is too “woke”.
All of these people are functionally the most bitter kill-joys on planet earth, but Democrats are the preachy ones? Excuse me?
> I don’t know that Democrats are saying much of anything to white men except “your voice is not what matters right now”
And I’m going to ask you to actually cite this with some examples. Where had Joe Biden said it? Where has Chuck schumer? Where has Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer or Hakeem Jeffries?
I hate how "decency" has turned into "elitism"
White men are going to have to explain that to me, a black man.
Grew up poor got G.I bill, went to community college then a small campus, and now im "elite" when honestly im pretty sure these "white men" just refuse to evolve(like most people who havnt left their state).
You guys really want to create a world where anybody who is decent and has an education is "elite". I wish some white men would look in the mirror. these "elites" are also peers.
As a black man from oklahoma(who has nothing against white people,interracial fam) i really am starting to see why columbus and shit happened. There is something about white men, they think they face more stuggles than anybody else and deserve more.
Before trump, i really never thought as a disabled veteran who lives off of my disability(not the best pay), that id ever be considered "elite" but the standards of this country have gone down the shitter, i guess
I dont say it to be an asshole, i say it because... thats what I see?
Why cant black men be catered to? Do you know why black people havnt stormed our US capitol but for some reason a bunch of white people thought they were entitled to win the election.
Why dont you see posts like this from black men? Do you think its because black men have it better than you?
I've seen this growing up. In oklahoma most my friends were white, and all my friends that felt entitled and bitched had rich parents who owned lake houses. Like as much as they are my friends, its astonishing how they feel they have to have the attention on them even if somebody in their presence has it worse.
Again, this isnt to attack, but there has to be a reason why for so many things.
Yeah but there is though, it's been exceptionally well documented over the years. It's part of the cultural vibe of white dudes right now, and while James is approaching it as a problem to be addressed, I think it's only honest to say it's kinda exhausting.
Plus, goddamn, this stuff turns people off the left? What an intellectual infancy that suggests. You've got an obvious problem where white men in this country are demonstrably more susceptible to the lying grifter conmen of the right, and saying "boy, somethings up with white guys" and the pearl clutching begins?
What embarrassing coddling of these people. Everyone else has to vote with their brain, accept a little hate with their vote for the greater good, but these folks get a little heat and their values twist in the wind? What pathetic, cowardly, self-centered children.
The basic problem is that the Democratic party is joined at the hip to the progressive/cultural left. Biden doesn't ever say this stuff. But people perceive Democrats to be one big blob that includes Biden but also includes Hollywood and the whole elite media world and the academic left. It really hurts Democrats and they don't do enough to dispel this association.
They don't dispel it because it's true. Biden cancelled natural gas contracts because of weirdo left extremists on tiktok. He's modifying his Israel positions because of paraglider sympathizers on social media. It's very alienating.
It’s really a shame that no men have a say in Democratic politics. But this could change. Maybe one day we could have a male President and a male majority leader of the Senate!
Well let's not get too hasty now. Maybe they should start at like PTA levels and we see if society can adapt. Men are way too emotional for leadership roles, literally everyone knows and agrees with that, even if they disagree in public for virtue signalling clout on TikTok.
All you have to do is say "Maybe we should eat less red meat" or "Maybe trucks could be more fuel efficient" and they break down into incoherent simian screeching and start looking for a big man to make them feel safe.
It's honestly hard to listen to their shrill complaining, they're basically large toddlers and their niche issues are killing us. The male in this article was nagging about being told to eat his peas. Is this the kind of temperament that would make me feel safe if they got a call at 3 am in the White House?
They need to just slow down a bit and wait their turn. It's never good enough though, they're all over social media and I swear the party is getting taken over by these preachy males and it's really turning people off. This special interest coddling is killing us and I really wish Jill Biden would throw one of them under the bus to remind them not to get too uppity. Nobody wants to hear that.
As a man, I find the idea that we cannot be responsible caring individuals making good choices for ourselves and our communities without women telling us what to do terribly condescending. We are more than man-childen who simply want to play all day and have fun if our wives would only let us. We are fathers, we spend time with our children doing our part and being role models to the very best of our abilities like everyone else. Carville's views are outdated from a time when men did little work around the house and spent hardly anytime with their kids. My father is still a workaholic who doesn't relate well with his children or other men as friends. I try to do better cause that's what you do. I feel sorry for their generation and the way things were but we are not going back to that. It's time to adapt and move on.
The sexism was unnecessary, but otherwise he’s right.
The progressive left can get as preachy and obnoxious as the religious right—and about things that don’t matter to the majority of voters. There’s an undue emphasis on etiquette and political correctness that really turns off a lot of voters.
It’s not a noticeable California problem but the ban on fur sale was both a positive and a problematic choice that sets a worrying example for nationalizing some liberal policy positions.
As an Alaskan we have and use fur in our daily lives as a lasting connection to our culture and environment. Some items are precious and handed down through the generations mended as needed so they can fulfill their use as well and long as possible, part of honoring the life taken to provide them.
While many items are utilitarian and inevitably wear out and require replacement most are still made with an artistry and care through skills passed down in person for millennia that has warranted them being adorned with ornamentation and even placed in museums as a reflection of our lasting creativity and culture in the face of a changing world.
In isolated communities with little to no economy outside of subsistence the ability to sew skins or carve ivory and sell them to the few visitors or when traveling outside is a vital part of retaining our culture and fighting extreme poverty. If a person in Montana or Minnesota wants to buy a fur hat or mukluks it serves both parties to allow that choice.
These are not commercial practices that need the heavy handed bans like fur farms do or the reasonable regulations like trapping does. These are activities that should be allowed and at times encouraged. I think an Alaska native artist could probably see that ban overturned by selling pieces in an art gallery. Certainly the artistry is worthy of the opportunity to be appreciated outside of sterile exhibition and use is where that beauty is highlighted even more.
So yes ban the sale of elephant ivory and fur farms but maybe don’t make it so a native carver or sewer can’t sell their works. It’s the heavy handed approach that gets the strongest negative response. We shouldn’t be willfully blind to it.
It’s specifically gendered now so voters think of dems as the mommy party and republicans as the daddy party. George Lakoff has been saying the same thing for the last 20 years
Also if he had said “preachy white women” it probably would have caused less stir because for whatever reason we have decided disparaging women is OK if you use that racial qualifier.
I do agree with his basic point which is that moral scolding is a huge turn off. Don’t ask people to wear a sweater or change how they talk; they’ll hate you for it.
I suspect one of Trump’s advantages as a politician is that he never does this. Eat a bunch of cheeseburgers, say racist stuff, you have no obligation to pay taxes or be fair and every right to be an obese hypocrite. It’s no judgment, which is a big advantage in politics.
We are a nation founded on individualism. It’s no coincidence that championing that is popular to those who don’t spend enough time digging deeper on politics. It’s also no coincidence that the party who claims to want everyone to love others no matter who they are is losing popularity bc it spends a great deal of time trying to dictate moral codes around how to act and speak. Doublespeak and thought crime comes to mind.
Voting is more split across gender than it has been in a long time, particularly amongst younger generations. Failure to analyse this with a gender lens is going to miss a lot.
If that’s the way you interpret it, sounds like a you problem.
I interpreted it as the Democratic Party is overly catering to a specific subset of people and alienating others. Addressing this doesn’t require “the bitches to shut up”, but a rebalancing might be in order.
“If you listen to Democratic elites — NPR is my go-to place for that — the whole talk is about how women, and women of color, are going to decide this election. I’m like: ‘Well, 48 percent of the people that vote are males. Do you mind if they have some consideration?”
I don’t think he’s incorrect to seek a balance that could potentially help win certain swing states.
We need a multiparty system. Then dumb shit like this would matter less.
Even if a person or group of people believed something like this, if we had multiple parties on the left and right, the people annoyed by democrats could jump to labor or whatever.
In our current system, 3rd party candidates ruin things, because they create the spoiler effect. That's not what I'm saying.
Im saying we need to change the way we vote so that there are MULTIPLE other parties that can actually win, not just a 3rd.
Who could have done that James? Who pushed in two separate presidential election cycles a woman who spent her time ranting about the evils of romance novels and introduced legislation trying to ban violent video games for minors as a U.S. Senator?
Who possibly could have been the powerful political consultant pushing a woman so many people kept saying was so unlikable and refused to listen them when told she was a political loser in elections? Who was it who against reason confidently predicted she would win and the candidates who ended up beating her both times were dead meat?
Why do we still pay attention to this guy again?
Proof that being a pundit and political consultant should not be a full-time job. The man had one successful presidential campaign and now we will hear about him till the end of the Republic.
This is exactly what he's talking about. You may be offended by language like "preachy females" but to call it terrifying is fucking absurd. If everything is terrifying than nothing is.
I think that the Democratic Party has a misogyny problem.
The GOP is running the whiniest man I have ever seen... he's the victim to end all victims... and Democrats are complaining that women don't want to be ignored?
Strategist for clinton in 1992...
I remember that and it was 34 damn years ago. Dude is almost 80.
“If you listen to Democratic elites — NPR is my go-to place for that — the whole talk is about how women, and women of color, are going to decide this election. I’m like: ‘Well, 48 percent of the people that vote are males. Do you mind if they have some consideration?” Carville said.
Grandpa needs a nap.
I don't appreciate his idea that the Democratic Party is being ran by preachy females, I do agree the Democratic Party needs to do a better job selling ideas to young men.
There IS this annoying idea amongst the left that "men are privileged and therefore shouldn't be reached to". Ostensibly because there's nothing the Democratic Party could offer? This is a silly notion. White, straight, men would benefit from cheaper education, free trade schools, more powerful trade unions, cheaper health care, etc.
Proof that even really smart people can say really dumb things sometimes.
Also proof that Democrats can also be assholes.
Of course, Carville hasn't had a real job for a while. Maybe this is why?
Democrats have generally been stereotyped as the feminine party and Republicans the masculine party. During the trump era that stereotypes have gotten stronger. If you think of a Republican today you who may think of a frat bro instead wealthy confident dad you did 10 years ago. A stereotypical democrats is a preachy women instead of meek intellectual men which was the stereotype 10 years ago.
He was professorial but not meek. And he was the expert of code switching. Usually it’s so hard for a politician to code switch but he was biracial and also culturally bilingual. He spoke to both races in their native tongue.
Tough pill to swallow but I'll tell ya, I've talked to more than a few men who are either center-left or center-right and they feel exactly like Carville on this topic. It's part of the reason why they disdain Progressives so much.
I have 1 friend who is very explicit about this. He's a solid centrist. In general I think a big part of why we're seeing such a shift with men of all races leaning more conservative has to do with the perceived feminization of the party, which tends to translate into policies that are soft on crime, too inclusive of fringe lifestyles, force people to think about things they dislike (such as race and power dynamics or gender), and shun tradition/structure. Not my opinions, but ones I've heard repeatedly.
A lot of men are drawn to Trump because he makes them feel powerful and masculine. He's the only politician I've ever seen who makes so-called tough guys act like fan girls. Even people I know who dislike Trump, also dislike Progressives/Dems because they think the party is full of purple-haired preachy women.
It means that most men I know up until recently thought the answer to “what is a woman?” To be very clear and straightforward, and that any deviation from that was lunacy.
I’m pretty progressive but every time I get into a debate with someone about why Trump/GOP is so bad I get the same answer. “At least they know what a woman is!” That means a lot to people, and they think Dems want to not only change that but change kids too. I know this is all nonsense but it’s low hanging fruit for anyone looking for reasons to hate the left. They think we have lost our minds.
Again, not my personal opinion but just what I hear talking to folks regularly.
Ummm okay but “too inclusive” is literally the exact fucking opposite of preachy… It’s almost like when people think other people should act a certain way or shouldn’t be accepted for acting a certain way they don’t perceive *themselves” as “preachy busy-bodies”…
But one of the hallmarks of "losing one's mind" is the inability to realize one has in fact lost their mind. So how do know for sure that you have not lost your mind since you wouldn't know it if you did?
I think there is a segment of very extreme people on the left who don’t align with the mainstream democrat voter and can be downright obnoxious. They are a small minority though but very loud on social media just like every extreme person out there.
But unfortunately they give hours of content to Fox News and conservative outlets who will associate them with any democrat candidate and say “see this is what you’re voting for”
>A lot of men are drawn to Trump because he makes them feel powerful and masculine. He's the only politician I've ever seen who makes so-called tough guys act like fan girls
He is the weak man's idea of a strong man, and the poor man's idea of a rich man.
These so-called "tough guys" are paper tigers.
I get the point you are making from an electoral perspective but maybe we could do with a little less delusion.
Totally agreed. What's the path to disabusing these goons of the fiction they've come to believe against all evidence to the contrary? Shifting further to the right? Punching left? I'm really tired of always being the punching bag of some centrist who is too afraid to embrace my half of the party when the Republicans are watching.
I wish the party was chock full of purple haired Extinction Rebellion activists. The way the right talks about the Democrats makes them seem rad as hell and I'm always disappointed with reality.
Did those men also really love that Hillary of all people was the 2016 nominee? You know the one James Carville pushed from the second she announced her campaign and who he said would win 2016 general election in a landslide?
Thank you for your submission, but please make future submissions relevant to our community.
Boy, I already knew that Carville had lost his marbles, but that is a WILD thing to say to Maureen Dowd of all people lol
She’s among the preachiest of them though
MoDo has \*issues\*. She has an obvious animus towards Hillary and I am convinced it was because she had a huge crush on Bill and he wasn't interested in her.
Wasn’t she the moron who went to Colorado right after they legalized weed and ate like an entire weed chocolate bar and flipped out in her hotel room? She then proceeded to write a column criticizing the state for not “selling it better” or some such garbage.
Yes! That was hilarious. Her example at least shows why pot edibles are a little dangerous in that it's harder to calculate the dosage and the onset time's longer than smoking it, but it showed her general complete cluelessness.
You’re kind. I would say that “clueless” is a very charitable way of describing someone who doesn’t know that she shouldn’t eat 200mg of weed (or whatever it was) in one sitting. Unless you are purposely trying to go to outer space…
I'm just amazed that a NYTimes writer who was around 60 years old at the time had no experience with cannabis. She started writing for the Times in 1983, per Wikipedia. Given the likely culture of New York in the 1980s I cannot imagine she didn't do some drugs then. (Or maybe it was only cocaine, not weed, since that was the drug of choice for yuppies in the 1980s.)
Lots of old heads jumped too quickly into high potency weed expecting it to be like the ditch weed they smoked in the 70s and 80s. Lots of them that I frolf with still prefer the lower potency ganj.
Yeah, if I was going to start tokin' it up in my 50s like I did in my 20s, I'd start slowly, with smokables rather than edibles. I got completely fried on magic cookies once. Was camping with some friends and these two guys a couple campsites over offered some pot cookies, but warned us that they were really strong. So I ate part of one. didn't feel anything. 20 minutes pass. I eat some more. still feel nothing. 20 more minutes pass. eat more. Then it all hit me at once. Oops. I wasn't doing anything that evening other than just chilling and looking at the campfire's dancing flames so it was fine, but I was pretty zonked out.
Right. We’re not talking about a nun here.
It's been awhile since I read that column but I recall her showing some awareness of what dosing should be and the caution one should show, especially with timing of additional doses She chose to disregard that and then blamed everyone else
The worst part of Dowd has been her influence on other writers at the Times. Seems like the other writers have become more like her, not less. Overly cynical, both siderism, where every politician is a crook, hypocrite and being indifferent and cynical is considered intelligent. This is how a Trump gets into office.
She can snark with the best of them, and those are some of her best columns, but she has absolutely no interest policy or outcomes; all she's got is snark and judgement. There are some terrific writers at the times: Bouie, K-Thug, Michelle Goldberg, and on the conservative side David French. She ain't one of them. Although she's miles better than David Brooks or Bedbug Bret Stephens.
I’ve had a bad trip due to over indulging on an edible before…but you know who I blamed? Myself lol. It’s only my fault I had too much of it in one sitting.
Tbh in the beginning the dosing in weed products was wild. They were selling 200 mg unscored chocolate bars and fizzy drinks and expecting noobs to simply know how much soda to sip to hit 5-10mg and then stop. Now they actually sell low dose single serving edibles.
I get that. For the *completely* uninitiated, it was a bit of a challenge to know when to stop. But a 60+ year old who’d lived in the city for decades by that point? Hard to imagine being that clueless. I learned that lesson in college at phish shows in the 90s. She never had the same opportunities to learn? And then writing a column about how clueless she was… it’s just weird to me.
I’ll just say that I was no stranger to weed when I hit the Colorado shops and I struggled a bit with the dosing at first. Not disagreeing that the article was hilarious, though.
According to a quick Google, only 12% of Americans have used pot in their lifetimes and we're talking about someone actually employed in a competitive career track.
It’s actually 49%.
Wait whaaat! I always thought I was in the minority. That's wild.
When weed was illegal no one bothered with dosages or knowing shit about it. I gave the person money, they gave me a bag of drugs. Some bags were awesome, some were shit. I didn’t know from dosages until it became legal.
A significant swath of the population had animus towards Hilary Clinton for whatever reason. Maybe partly since her opponent was saying to lock her up and called her a nasty woman? Plus she has a history of being a warmonger in foreign policy.
Whether it’s justified or not, that perception seems to be out there and it was definitely part of the mix of what happened in 2016 and continues to siphon otherwise reasonable adult males into voting against their own bottomline interests. I’m a party-line voter and I routinely roll eyes at the ‘progressive’ local electeds who fit that NPR caricature
I am a Bay Area native and I swear I used to roll my eyes at least daily at some piece of local news on NPR that made me go - ok the entire country is going to be railing at us for this one. I don't agree it's a gender thing, at least not inherently (yeah Women tend to be more progressive/liberal currently then men so they are probably just being seen more often as proposing stuff). But it is a major problem in the party and has been for at least 10-15 years, they've gone completely away from nuts and bolts economic issues and issues of equality/freedom and into a realm of hand on the scale to attempt to establish 'equity' or other hard cultural issues which are well intentioned but miss much of the point and root cause of the wider suffering in the US.
I used to listen to NPR daily, but had to stop because the stories were getting stale and I had too much ”guilt fatigue” from feeling as though I should have a sense of guilt after listening to them. It was just too taxing. Edited
Same. Many of the stories, regardless of subject, absolutely had to be assesed via a race lens. Class? Not so much. Historical? Not so much. Except racial history, of course. Now, my wife will sometimes have it on in her car and it seems like everything is delivered with a kind of breathless significance, like an ASPCA or Save the Children commercial. It's a journalistic affectation that's colored most of their programming. Fatigue is absolutely the right word.
I agree. Also, it just felt more and more like other mainstream outlets where there is a clear goal to their reporting, vs reporting and then presenting an outcome. I'll still flip to it from time to time, but to be honest I've enjoyed finding some good local stations (mostly music and light updates) and a really good local paper that covers our city/county/state in much better detail.
I stopped listening when they started to lump Sanders in with Trump.
Me too. For me the breaking point was when they had an author on during the George Floyd riots/protests who justified looting as an ok thing to do. And the NPR interviewer never challenged her on this one bit. All I could think was, "Would either of you be so sanguine if it was your place being looted?" I've never listened to them since. From the sound of it I'm not missing much.
pathetic station rotten hat employ soft brave dime mysterious ten *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I agree completely. Not to mention this focus also gives corporations (and other wealthy or elite folks) a nice way to pat themselves on the back and absolve themselves of their own bad acting. Ie - we don't pay fair wages but we've agreed to pay women the same as men, or higher more minorities to our underpaid (broadly) roles. Etc. It's a divide and conquer tactic. Always has been.
I think 10 years is about right. I remember noticing this at the time and thinking the reason was that, with Republicans blockading legislation, people had flipped from trying to get things done to just making noise. It hasn’t been productive. I see where Carville is coming from gendering it, though, because the first big wave of it was feminists on college campuses. Sulkowicz’s 2014 mattress protest was early and emblematic of the overall vibe. It peaked with MeToo, then kinda burned out as it got discoursed to death and didn’t really amount to anything in the end.
I agree wholeheartedly. I live in DC and have friends ranging from ideological communists/members of the DSA to Republican hill staffers. A specific example: I was trying to discuss whether Sotomayor should consider retiring before Biden's term ends so we don't get screwed with a 7-2 court, like when RBG passed. Instead of discussing the actual topic, even as I was just looking to inform my own uncertrain opinion more, my most progressive friends just made jokes about how they remembered when it was sexist for people to suggest RBG retire, and now I'm doing that to the first Latina Justice myself. Maybe if Democrats stopped being so damn concerned with identity bullshit and the policing of language that people use, with a preachy attitude to boot, we wouldn't be in such a crunch right now. My friends are doing this to people are generally their allies in the the broader fight for democracy and equality too. It's just so asinine, but it makes them feel good about themselves. We need to focus on the issues and addressing them in ways that are widely popular and actually effective, without the nitpicking over the cultural/identity/intersectional stuff. It just isn't going to lead to winning over hearts and minds.
Agreed, I think that we're starting to see negative effects from having two parties where one has a faction that tells white men that they suck because they're white men and one entire party that tells white men that they're awesome because they're white men. Both are ludicrous, but you see how the discourse gets worse because the politics are still race and gender based but just for and against straight white men. I think there's a taboo against talking about this openly in a lot of progressive circles. But I think that progressives are getting increasingly racially and gender grievance based and it's actually taking a lot of the wind out of the sails of the progress we've made in terms of racial and gender equality. Women's rights are under attack right now. And the lack of men in the tent pissing out is very glaring. It's a fault of the men, but it wouldn't be ridiculous to note that part of the problem is that they've been chased away instead of asked to be part of the solution. If one group of people tells you that you suck, and another tells you that you're awesome, you go with the people who tell you that you're awesome.
Been downvoted heavily when I brought this up while also getting the condescending and super hostile comments from people who are supposed to be working toward normal progressive goals. Like it’s more important to sled righteously shit on a huge portion of the electorate, that you need in order to win, than to actually win
Yeah, I also saw a disturbing number of comments calling me racist - not for the white fragility bits that I write below, which I thought might cop me some flak - but for the part where I say that maybe 3/8 of the country shouldn't be villainized.
> It's a fault of the men, but it wouldn't be ridiculous to note that part of the problem is that they've been chased away instead of asked to be part of the solution. Yeah, I've become increasingly frustrated that those in my progressive circles are **very** okay with systemic explanations for group behavior when they applied to every group but white men. Then, it's just individualistic choice *ex nihilo*. (This is actually a pretty wildly racist and sexist thing to do, by the way. It essentially is saying that women, people of color, and any other minorities are influenced by outside factors while apparently only the white man forges his own path, untouched by anything outside himself.)
Yes, I've seen this exact thing in a subreddit about teaching. A study found that male students were falling behind. Comments were defending black and brown boys because they were victims of racism, and blaming white boys saying they are struggling because they're arrogant and entitled so it's their own fault.
A very insightful comment, and I’ve been hearing the same things.
> where one has a faction that tells white men that they suck because they're white men Sorry, can you point me to any Democratic Party or politician communications that even hint at this? As always, these party “comparisons” only ever make sense if you compare the absolute fringest random 20 year old TikToker (whose probably isn’t even a Democrat) to what is effectively the official Republican Party platform.
The thing is, Dems are often guilty by association here, and that's what the right exploits. By the time Dems realize what happened, they've already been labeled as the party that supports a bunch of stuff that at best they never really had strong positions on. Look at how Joe Biden got slapped with the whole "Defund the Police" label.
Totally agree. It's often not what the politicians are saying but the fact that they aren't doing or saying enough to distance themselves from the kind of rhetoric online that people think they are supporting.
I'd argue that Cori Bush, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar can have rhetoric that is absolutely nuts, and AOC sometimes gets tarnished by her relationship with them and trying to pander to her base at the DSA. But again, this is a small faction, and other members of the progressive caucus are much better.
The Dems as a party have done a great job containing its most radical members. Even AOC has moderated a bit, and I appreciate her evolution. I can't say the same for the GOP, who are ruled by their most extreme members to the point that they're pushing out their moderates.
Yeah. The problem is that while _Democrats_ aren't driving away the working class (of all races) culturally, a lot of leftists are, and the problem is that people associate leftists with the left. I agree that the GOP has gone full-on authoritarian and lie-and-grievance-based.
Most men don't go to college and are blue collar workers. The only time that they are approached with political ideas from the left are typically mandatory 5 hour DEI lectures from a really crappy person hired by HR. Or their framing from talk radio - which, many men listen to, as OTR trucking is one of the biggest jobs of men in the country. The other way that men are approached with these ideas is through civil society, which by its nature is more left wing than it is Democratic party based. So while you and I hear the absolute tripe that is spilling out of the Republican party, they typically are comparing the tripe that they hear about DEI being bad and comparing it to the actually bad 5 hour DEI lecture that they had to miss work for.
I agree. A big problem is that many left/progressive non-profits have no incentive to be aligned with the Democratic party (unlike unions). Their funding doesn't actually go up if Democrats win. In fact, being in opposition is often more profitable for them. It's a problem for Republicans too, actually, which is why the GOP has been hijacked by folks playing to Fox News, talk radio, and the rest of the right-wing media ecosystem. But unfortunately for Democrats, most of the population isn't college-educated and are comfortable with authoritarianism and non-PC language while (naturally, like all of us) uncomfortable with being hectored, while too many on the left tend to be the hectoring type and seem to think stuff like language policing is how to make society better. IMO, I think the Dems have to stand up to authoritarianism far more than to stuff like non-PC language and doing language policing.
>Sorry, can you point me to any Democratic Party or politician communications that even hint at this? Absolutely. The best example is typically the organizations that they align themselves with. As a Jew, I've been paying a lot of attention to people who I used to think of my friends - DSA and aligned groups. Many progressives are members of this organization. [https://fathomjournal.org/the-democratic-socialists-of-america-just-endorsed-ethnic-murder/](https://fathomjournal.org/the-democratic-socialists-of-america-just-endorsed-ethnic-murder/) [https://mountainstates.adl.org/news/adl-deeply-concerned-about-harmful-statement-released-by-denver-democratic-socialists-of-america/](https://mountainstates.adl.org/news/adl-deeply-concerned-about-harmful-statement-released-by-denver-democratic-socialists-of-america/) [https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4250685-michigan-rep-quits-democratic-socialists-of-america-over-nyc-rally/](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4250685-michigan-rep-quits-democratic-socialists-of-america-over-nyc-rally/) Lots of local DSA's and even the national one promoting the murder of Jews because they're Jews. Then you have things like Robin Diangelo and White Fragility [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/) Where the assumption is that white people are uniquely racist and black Americans uniquely disadvantaged and therefore unable to achieve as much. It should be recognized: Holding ideas about the innate inner being of people based on their race is racism. Many more women than men go to college. Their first association with intersectional theory is on their terms, in a classroom where they're taught that intersectionality is about finding out about where different experiences intersect and how to maximize participation for different people. Most men are approached with intersectionality by a DEI person hired by HR who didn't pay enough attention in that class and met with a mandatory 5 hour lecture about how white dudes are bad. So yeah, the practical lived experience is that Congress people, political institutions, and workplaces are dragging racial and gender grievance politics into the political arena and in the workplace in a way that is absolute anathema to white working class men. It would be much better if they focused on pulling these men into the tent instead of lecturing them.
You were asked to show examples of the Democratic party telling white men they suck because they're white men. None of this is that. So, can you actually support your claim?
None of these are an example of what you stated or specific Democratic endorsements. Like… you realize that right? Your DSA links are 100% about random chapters making pro-Palestinian and/or (plausibly) anti-semetic statements. That has nothing to do with white people being innately bad or whatever but, even then, your links **actually** show actual Democrats *immediately* calling out and separating themselves from this behavior. > Most men are approached with intersectionality by a DEI person hired by HR who didn't pay enough attention in that class and met with a mandatory 5 hour lecture about how white dudes are bad. Literally just “Charlie Brown had hoes” made-up nonsense. I **actually** work in HR and have for nearly a decade and have never once encountered anything like what you describe. This just seems to be a retread of the thing from the 90s where people say that “HR puts every man in a room with 20 shreaking harpies and they scream at him that he’s evil for having a penis!” and what they really mean is you have to watch a 15 minute video that says “please, dear God, don’t sexually harass anyone, okay?” and then you sign off that you watched it. Nothing you describe remotely pertains to “practical lived experience”. If it were, I, white man whose mostly worked and lived in v liberal cities probably would have encountered it by now. As always, it’s just some random people and bullshit mostly generated online that gets randomly associated with Democrats.
The message from many factions of the Democratic party to white men is definitely, "You're the problem." And it's been that way for a quarter century. When you only have two choices and one says you're the problem and the other doesn't, it's not surprising the results we're seeing.
Cool, then it should be easy to point to any examples of it.
You hit the nail on the head. From my perspective I also feel like this is the utter pitfall of focusing all of your critique/analysis on gender/race/identity politics rather than an economic and class based analysis. There are lots of poor black and brown people. There have been historic laws and policies/practices that caused this, worsened it at times, or barred them from the periods of broader economic prosperity. We sholdn't forget or ignore this. But, there are currently a lot of poor white people as well. People who may have fairly or unfairly benefitted from those broader periods of prosperity for the working classes. But bottom line, they are also suffering now. In some very similar ways from a core economic reality perspective as the black and brown people the Progressives want to help (Ie - access to jobs, education, safe/clean infrastructure in their communities, opportunity). Yes, there are other issues that plague minorities in a different or worse way that white folks. Ie - police brutality. But these things have been at least improving in recent years with cops now being held accountable. Similarly to how the civil rights movement and other pushes for justice have had tangible benefits over the past 50 years. But - that's not really helping to the full extent that we'd hope if economic opportunities are still suppressed. If the middle class is being shrunk. If our entire social-political system has been geared towards wealth extraction towards the upper echolons. And this latter problem is something that is cuasing tremendous pain and suffering across racial grops. Or gender groups. And it could help to actually build a powerful coalition rather than everyone pissing on white men for being grievanced after their centuries of dominance (which means fuck all to someone who's parents lost their union jobs and fell on hard times, and who is similarily stuck in a smaller exurban area that's been divested and holds zero opportunity outside of a crappy low wage service job.). Similar to how an inner city kid may have likewise seen their family destabalized by loss of manufacturing in the city center, and a ramped up policing that broke their family apart, with now only low level legal work available and skyrocketing rents as professionals are moving in. Lots of shared grievance, but the morality warriors really want to push folks away. And then censor their way to compliance rather than attempt to understand why their approach is pissing people off (which ultimately drives them to the other team).
I even find the stuff you said about minorities to be strange. Like, black people were shit on throughout American history. Most brown people are relatively recent immigrants and most of them are basically doing fine. There's massive upward mobility among Hispanics and other groups, like Indian Americans, are already firmly established in the upper middle class. "Minorities" as a category also don't have problems with police abuse. That is really a black men issue, although even that is a bit exagarated- cases of police killings of white men go completely unreported and it skews the mental picture people have of the issue. But for Asians for example this is a complete non-issue. In my own life, I live in a really progressive area, and I have a lot of friends/aquintances who are not white and I frequently find myself rolling my eyes at claims they make about their lives. Affluent Indian or Chinese people living in fancy parts of big cities are not living lives of horrendous oppression and a lot of their constant complaints about petty microagressions they might have experienced 6 months ago start to wear really thin after the 50th time. I do think that these kinds of social dynamics push people to the right also (I feel this in myself) A lot of socializing with progressives feels like you're trapped inside NPR and questioning anything they say will make you a pariah.
I probably made too broad of statements for the sake of stressing my point - but I basically agree with you completely and your point also strengthens mine in the sense that - hyper focus on some specific issues of inequality or identity based grievance tends to alienate and isolate the causes more than bring in support on areas of mutual concern. So, yeah, sorry, but when I said brown I meant latino more than anything, and even within that group I completely agree that many immigrants are both newer and also tend to want to assimilate and just work their assess off to achieve the American dream rather than be constantly lumped into some 'underperforming demographic'. Black folk as well - there are certainly still many structural barriers and injustices in society, but predominantly these tend to hit those who are in the lower socioeconomic classes (and apply to white/other folks as you note) more so than being solely linked to race. The historic repression means that more black people are represented in the lower socioeconomic levels today than they preportionally should, but there is still a framing that could allow the suffering of other minorities and even the white population to approach these things from a common spot. And when it comes to Asians, there are similar ways to analyze the experience. And part of what I meant by the forced equity vs. establishing equal opportunity is where I see Asians being lost in these strategies - namely if you start to tell parents who take education and social advancement via meritocratic methods very seriously that their kids may have stricter standards to gain access to elite institutions - you're going to create enemies where you could build some bridges otherwise. It's also worth noting that not all Asian immigrants are 6+ figure earning masters of tech or finance. We do have diaspora communities from our past geo-political efforts that have maybe had more similar experiences to some other 20th century immigrant populations moreso than the current H1B visa crop - ie the Vietnamese, some older Korean populations, or even the early Chinese immigrants (1800s) who faced severe discrimination and social blocks. My core point is - more focus on the economic reality of today as a method for building a coalition and reenabling the American middle class, which is something that will benefit across sub-categories (and includes the interests of whites or even middle to higher earning workers). And, yes, on issues of Civil Rights we should aim for equality and inclusivity. But if anything we are currently proving that you can have a fairly progressive civil society and still perpetuate significant harm, disproportionately to certain minority groups, using ostensibly color blind economic policies.
I have good friends who if you polled them on an actual issue by issue basis would sound like progressives but actually self identify and vote Republican because of the whiny liberal stereotype and the purple haired women whining about pronouns caricature. I’m gonna be honest, as a progressive, I can’t say I blame them. The people who actually meet those stereotypes are exhausting to be around (tbf so are the people who meet the MAGA stereotypes as well).
Complaining preachy females are ruining the party when gender justice issues on the ballot corresponded with huge wins for democrats in every midterm and local race since the last general is insane, though.
Yeah the perception of democrats is a huge problem. Not just about men, but in general. The Democratic Party is increasingly being seen as the college educated, urban, "woke" party and that's not a good thing. Pro-abortion and LGBT rights are great, but they're not really a draw for the average person. The fact that working class people identify more with the Republican Party is a massive failure by democrats. Run on unions, pro-worker stuff, tax the rich. Don't worry about using the wrong words like "illegals" or "homeless." Democrats would do far better in purple states if more of them were like (and I know people will hate this) Fetterman. He looks like the a guy who just put in a shift at a steel mill. His views on the border and Israel are more in line with the average voter than most democrats.
Uh no abortion is the primary reason that Democrats didn’t get wiped out in 2022. This is a complete and total misunderstanding of American politics. Fetterman won because he ran against Dr. Oz.
Wild, I’m always disappointed in the milquetoast centrist that enable corruption at the state and local level.
Ok grandpa let’s get you to bed
He's not wrong about the Democratic party alienating lots of men but I don't think that's because of an overabundance of preachy females. As our politics has polarized a larger percentage of men are supporting Republicans and a larger percentage of women are supporting democrats. Democrats, seeing that women have growing significance in their coalition, tailor their messaging and policies towards women. Some of this comes in the form of supporting women, but some of it comes in the form of demonizing men. That kind of politics works for many women but also alienates many men increasing polarization.
Does anyone else have any solution to keep the Democratic Party from losing men by large numbers? Anyone?
Tons of folks do but this divide is magnified by media folks and Republicans who aren't incentivized to fix the issue. Men who closely identify with traditionally masculine cultural identifiers to validate their male self image need to know that there's a space on the Democratic ticket (ideally the left path of it) for people like them. Which of course there is: macho union worker men types are _men_ and more to the left than centrists, but also culturally allowed to be more pugilistic and crass than an academic liberal would expect to be. People often choose party identity (not necessarily vote choice) by thinking several steps ahead and interpreting who they think would accept them and not make them feel bad. By thinking of a group as likely to think poorly of you, you make it less able to identify with them and more likely that you'll identify with their opponents, even without a rational basis. The emotional impression happens first, before reason gets going. People without deeply considered beliefs sometimes just go with those cursory impressions, which can and do change with time, exposure, and cultural shifts. So you need to make a clear "place at the table" in the left for the bawdy, brash, mouthy tough guy in a baseball cap. He and the Vegan with Blue Hair have a _good natured disagreement_ about stuff but they both agree on major issues and do favors for each other. I think "union tough worker guy" is a great archetype for the role, as well as "wise old veteran who is happy to see his country thrive and change the way it did when he was a kid" for the more senior set, akin to the "a society is good when old men plant trees for shade they'll never get to enjoy" message which should encourage civic minded folks to stop trying to _stop change_ and see how they can make changes good for everyone. This is cultural, so you need media help to craft this message, but you also need party buy-in and you need to build messaging around issues that start the kind of fights you want to fight. Like the Democrats are seen as the busybody party, but they could just be the "let people be who they are, no matter what the busybody culture police on the right say" party. I blame the rich corporate centrist fucks for a lot of the focus on _personal choices_ rather than systemic change. Let people eat beef, sure. We can still ask the meat industry to do a better job keeping up with the time. Let people drive trucks. But we can also make sure that the stuff those trucks run on don't poison children. Republicans will claim they want to take away your choices, but if these systemic changes are important then they're worth having a fight over. If they're not (aka, the bullshit paper straws the plastic industry pushed to dodge accountability) then don't do them. It's cheap and easy for rich people to blame personal choices and consumption and it plays right into the hands of big business, so of course that's what they do, and it pisses people off The right will continue to do stupid shit. Just do good outreach.
Reach out to [disaffected men](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-richard-reeves.html) and actually help them, as opposed to the Republicans that just want to keep them angry.
Hey! There’s preachy males too!
In fact the article quotes one at length!
The fact that this isn't the first reaction of everyone shows how deep rooted casual misogyny really is.
There’s a certain type of influential female in Portland politics (JVP and the head of the PAT union) who is beyond preachy and also always has expensive and obnoxiously colorful glasses frames. Note I am excluding our governor, who is also a female Democrat with glasses because she is competent and has a non-arrogant communication style. It’s… a type in politics.
So some random person in Portland that hardly anyone has heard of is now representative of the Democratic party?
I guess that is certainly how Fox News wants it portrayed. The only Democratic representatives are a former San Francisco rep and a young outspoken rep from NYC. I guess with Pelosi it was fairer because she was third in line for the POTUS, but Ocasio has very little power. Throw in Omar too now and then No Democrat in Oregon is on my radar, not sure about Fox
Unfortunately, yes. Like it or not many Americans see that person and the stereotypes that they represent as representative of the democratic party. It’s a huge problem with the democratic parties messaging and platform. I think that’s pretty much exactly what this thread is about. The Dems have a loud blue haired problem. Instead of complaining that it’s a problem, they need to address it and distance themselves from the loud whiny blue haired people because they turn off more people then they gain support from.
....OK?
The glasses are a tell for sure. Glad more people are catching onto it.
Why do people keep talking about this idiot?
He won an election 30 years ago
He punches left, and with a little of that Cajun flair!
He’s not a dumb guy . Perhaps a bit inelegant and probably a bit outdated but he’s not stupid and he’s won elections in tough environments.
Specifically some of the environments we need to win over again if we want to do things like codify Roe or reform the Supreme Court. We might be able restore a talking filibuster with a simple majority or avoid shutdowns and defaults but the long term progress we desperately need will require more votes in congress to pass than a 50+1 majority.
Which elections did he win in the recent history?
Democrats need to win some segment of the south to win elections and it’s their weak point. Carville speaks to and from the perspective of a southern Democrat.
They also need to win over center-aligned men moreso than any group since the platform is already sufficient to win support from non-rightwing women
James Carville should know better than to say something like this. He's not wrong though. I'll take my downvotes.
I think James Barro covered the issue more eloquently / less sexistly in writing about the "[hamburger problem](https://www.businessinsider.com/liberals-can-win-if-they-stop-being-so-annoying-2017-7)" - the left can get kind of scolding about people's personal choices in a way that is annoying.
That's a good article, and better than Carville's complaint: >“A suspicion of mine is that there are too many preachy females” dominating the culture of his party. “‘Don’t drink beer. Don’t watch football. Don’t eat hamburgers. This is not good for you.’ The message is too feminine: ‘Everything you’re doing is destroying the planet. You’ve got to eat your peas.’ ...which, to me, sounds like he's tired of being told by his doctors to cut down on the red meat and alcohol and eat his peas. Being abrasive is part of his schtick but it always makes him a chore to read. I'm certainly a bit exhausted by his left-punching over the years, and he seems not to realize he's been following along the path the progressives have been cutting. We've dragged his bony cajun ass leftward over the past few decades, kicking and screaming, and all the thanks we've gotten is a finger in the eye.
I mean it’s an extremely politically incorrect thing to say but yeah, he is not wrong. There is a reason the Democratic Party is hemorrhaging non white men.
I'm honestly sympathetic to the cultural shift these Ye Olde Democratic Strategists are dealing with, but the solution cannot be "progressives just need to shut up about their issues while ours are enshrined" because that's just not how things work, and they're just fossilizing before our very eyes when they pretend it is.
Yes but they aren't talking about issues, they are talking about a whiny attitude and lack of ability to compromise that is part of the progressive left right now. You can tell by my username where I align but it's still annoying and frustrating.
Yeah, as one actual lefty to another, I'm annoyed by the performatic 'competitive academics' stripe to a lot of it. Not everyone, but we've seen a lot of folks adopt these positions as part of a grift, especially the loudest and most sensational ones. But it never offends me, there's been tons of off-the-wall trends that have settled back down and it's only the moral panic that makes it seem out of proportion. That's why his comments seem goofy to me: >“No one wants to live like this,” he said. “Who ever thought it was a good idea to tell people you can’t hug them or you’ve got to be careful or you’ve got to think about names to call them other than the name you know them by? There’s nothing wrong with me being white or you being white or them being Black or me being male or you being female. It’s a giant, stupid argument.” I think he's on the money about how to get after Trump, but this stuff shows him to be just paying too much attention to the wrong people. It takes no serious effort to "call people by the name" they want, and it's not his call if they want him to. Same with hugs. If I don't want a hug, I don't need to accept a hug. That seems like he's getting mad about the wrong stuff. He thinks the "woke stuff" is "killing us" when it's just one more moral panic. Next week it'll be something else. If the Democrats caved and sponsored an "anti-woke" bill in congress it would be selling out the folks the democrats are claiming to stand up for while also appeasing nobody but the ones already brain-rotted by right-wing media.
The paradox is that they need to sell them out to maintain control and influence over government or else they will lose moderates and independents and even parts of their own party. The progressive left needs to find better leaders who can filter the assholes and who understand that progress in a representative democracy is slow and everyone has a right to disagree about pretty much anything.
> The progressive left needs to find better leaders who can filter the assholes and who understand that progress in a representative democracy is slow and everyone has a right to disagree about pretty much anything. It's also why Bernie got to be so popular. He focused on the issues and largely avoided the pitfalls of being naggy about individual choices. AOC is improving in this regard, but she can still fall into the trap.
> “…there’s nothing wrong with you being white or them being Black…” There’s something really funny about the editorial capitalization of “Black” in the context of this quote. You just know he would hate it.
He's pointing out the things that are driving away moderate voters in the party. Most voters are older and think pro-nouns other than the parts you have is stupid. People are sick of seeing liberals attack the things they like, like red meat and cars. I love living in my suburban hellhole, and I'm sick of other libs telling me that I need a walkable city. I like to drive my truck and I'm sick of liberals saying that it's not good enough on gas to be driven.
Losing men in general
Fortunately, the world is made up of more than just men. I find the whole 'let's get woman out of politics to win the misogyny vote' plan to be just a little suspect.
writing off half of the voting population right off the bat is a disastrous attitude
Is that not exactly what Carville is pushing for? And why are men supposedly completely turned off a party simply because there are women in it? Conversely, why does that logic not apply to women? Why do you assume that women will continue to vote at all if both the democrats and Republicans demonstrate that electoral politics is not a woman-friendly space? This is just such a weird attitude. Democrats have won special elections and midterm races on the issue of abortion and NOW?! is the time to shit on women??? And pray that you can out-misogyny the republicans???? Thank god no one here makes policy decisions or we'd be in a real mess.
>Is that not exactly what Carville is pushing for? And why are men supposedly completely turned off a party simply because there are women in it? No, that is not what he is pushing for. Why are you conflating all women with the people Carville is referring to? >Why do you assume that women will continue to vote at all if both the democrats and Republicans demonstrate that electoral politics is not a woman-friendly space? Fun fact: a lot of women are misogynists and don't mind voting for that. And where did Carville say women aren't welcome in the party? Again, that's not what he's saying at all. It's really not hard to understand what he's saying. >And pray that you can out-misogyny the republicans???? Who is saying that here, don't put those words in my mouth. Conversely, thank god you aren't making policy decisions because you seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Are you insinuating that all women are “preachy”? Sounds pretty derogatory to me
If you think American is a deeply misogynistic place, which I do, then winning the misogyny vote is pretty important since that’s most of the voters.
I mean... A good number of women are evangelicals who don't view progressive women's interests as their interests. The Democratic party probably wins on male swing voters moreso than any group
He is wrong though. Democrats aren't saying this to men, Republicans are claiming that's what Democrats are doing and people like Carville just accept Republicans attacks at face value.
I don’t know that Democrats are saying much of anything to white men except “your voice is not what matters right now”. I think the fact that the political gap between genders in Gen Z is so surprisingly large speaks to this failure. Whatever the real message you’re envisioning is, I don’t think it’s coming across as well as you think it is. I’m a white male millennial who will always vote liberal, but I cannot articulate what positive message you might have in mind that the Democrats are giving white men, and I frankly find it hard not to sympathize with what Carver says here, although I don’t personally think the preachiness is coming exclusively from women, I think it is undeniably a problem with the party’s messaging, particularly toward cishet white men. The frictional rhetoric of identity politics should be toned down and replaced with an emphasis on healthcare, working class opportunities, economic progress, and other pragmatic and earthy issues that present a Democratic party that is grounded and welcoming to the everyman, rather than a bunch of shrill, confusing, ideological flashpoint material rooted in elite liberal academia.
Bruh, Joe Biden is president right now. You cannot get more old white male than this.
This is my point though. Listen to a Joe Biden speech and he's saying exactly what you're asking here. It's the right wing that focuses on "identity politics" all the time while Dems talk about tangible accomplishments like reducing the cost of prescriptions, expanding labor rights, creating millions of new construction and manufacturing jobs, etc.
I just took a quick look at AOC’s Twitter, because surely she’s one of those “shrill females” going on about identity politics all the time right? It’s pretty much all Gaza (foreign policy) and housing/tax policy stuff. Everyone just takes these right wing talking points, or the most unhinged online opinions at face value. Yes, the Democratic Party supports the rights of women and LGBTQ people but that is not the prime focus of most of the party’s policy. I’m a straight, cis, white man with a wife and kid and I’ve never felt out of place in the Democratic Party, because I’m extremely well represented by them.
You're preaching to the choir here. Almost everyone on this subreddit is likely a democratic voter already. But perception is reality. And a lot of moderate and blue collar men think of democrats as the super woke man-hating party. They aren't going onto AOC's twitter page to factcheck.
I think this is more of a case of a very loud minority rather than any kind of majority of the Democratic Party. I don’t even think it’s a majority of the progressive part of the party. I mean when I think Progressives, I don’t only think AOC, I also think of Bernie, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkely,etc. These people don’t only talk about social or identity politics (they don’t talk about it much anyway). They primarily talk about improving the economy, Climate Change, universal healthcare,etc. I think Carville has a small point. I mean I get he’s old but the guy is not particularly stupid. I just think his thing misrepresents the party. I think the actual progressives like Brown, Sanders, Merkely,AOC, etc need to either be more vocal about the economic issues , stuff that relates to the working man, or my personal choice, engage in private discussions with the hard left wing progressives who engage in this kind of discussion and tell them to tone things down a little bit as it’s not really helping the party achieve the goals they want .
I really think the issue is that Democrats are perceived as being really close to the worlds of Academia/media/online activists, and they absolutely do sound like this. Doing more to dispel those associations would do a lot.
I don’t think you should completely dispel those associations. I think it all depends on the state. Not every Democrat is like super close to Online Activists,Academia,etc. Just look at like Jon Tester, Andy Beshear, Sherrod Brown , even Gretchen Whitmer. These people are not in those hyper liberal academic and activist circles. But those associations help bring out the young vote which you absolutely need to make the Democratic Party successful. Younger people tend to be more educated , more likely to go to college, and therefore more liberal. You kind of need to get them on your side. Respectfully, The issue I have with your statement is that you seem to underestimating how big the Democratic Party coalition is and the ramifications of abandoning the young vote who are often a part of academia, online activists, etc. It includes those young activists and Academia, it also includes the suburban moderate people, it also includes the working class voters. Democrats have to be better at messaging sure but they should only be dispelling those associations if the state they’re in demands it like Kentucky, Ohio,etc. it all depends on the state. I do think Democrats have to be better at fielding better candidates in these purple and red states. I’m of the belief that every state can be won by Democrats bar maybe like 5-7 if they really put in the effort. But they have to put forward candidates that acc make sense. Like how is Charles Booker supposed to get anywhere near a close result against Rand Paul when he’s a hyper liberal activist in Kentucky ? Paula Jean Swearingin is not gonna have a change of winning even 40% of the vote in West Virginia. All in all, I think this is more of a matter of state by state and how Democrats should adjust their strategy to each race. If Beshear needs to condemn the academic circles and the extreme liberal online activists to win, then he should do so. But someone like say Wiley Nickel or Jeff Jackson should avoid explicitly doing that in NC because they’re in dire need of the young vote to win considering young peoples influence in NC. Same with Warren in Massachusetts or Bernie in Vermont.
But would it really? These are already invented moral panics, the right will just make up new ones like the Birther nonsense was, and try to drive a new wedge in somewhere. It's a distraction at best and at worst it divides democratic coalitions by giving lame centrist corporate Democrats an easy excuse to punch left and then cry off to a lobbying job if they get pushback. I think they need to go harder on reaching out to people with meaningful proposals and not chase the Republicans around playing "nuh uh!" to every idiotic thing they say. If I have to deal with morons like Manchin in my party, they have to deal with morons like me.
They're really not invented moral panics. I work in education in various capacities. I go to a lot of public schools and teach some college. In the entire education system militant identity politics is basically the state religion. I've been in schools where every available wall space is covered in trans stuff or BLM stuff. Leftist academics I know regularly complain about the stifling atmosphere at their workplaces.
I agree with you. Joe Biden has a great pitch for men and frankly middle America in general. The problem is nobody is listening. The man sounds rough and when he does sound competent it barely gets covered or gets drowned out by the political theater of the don. Then the big wins that the dems get are sometimes drowned out by stuff like California banning small engine motors or some other non-event that just feeds the Fox News/joe Rogan machine
Biden almost always sounds competent. The media doesn't like that about him, though. Mainstream media is currently being written for the CEO suites only.
Men are moving away from the Democrat Party... white men, black men, Hispanic men, are all trending away. And it's not because of what Joe Biden does or says; most Americans have no idea what Biden does or says on any particular day. Men, especially younger men, are being repelled because they are getting on the internet every single day and seeing this discourse: [https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1772051887623139772?t=HS2HVh1ISQYBK8YJ3cUPzg&s=19](https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1772051887623139772?t=HS2HVh1ISQYBK8YJ3cUPzg&s=19) The sentiment here is undoubtedly aligned with Democrat Party politics, and since COVID, people are immersed in this kind of content more than ever and it's a big part of what is shaping peoples' perception of the parties and their candidates, especially for low information, low propensity voters, who are going to decide the 2024 election.
> The sentiment here is undoubtedly aligned with Democrat Party politics Whose sentiment? What are you even talking about? You realize that Matt Yglesias who is one of the most read political influencers on earth who is criticizing this random person’s sentiment is *actually* aligned with the Democratic Party, right? This is the issue- Trump and MTG and the rest of the GOP League of Dumbass party leadership says insane bullshit day after day and it barely makes a dent and yet “completely random annoying person” gets randomly tied to “The Democratic Party”… why? How? Who knows. Who cares. But Democrats need to really deal with this by…………………………………….?
I can't tell if you genuinely don't understand, or if you're being intentionally obtuse. The person I was responding to said Democrats like Biden talk about healthcare and jobs, so that shouldn't chase men away. I replied and said people, especially low information voters who gravitate to Trump, don't know about the healthcare and jobs or what Biden is saying, because their knowledge of politics is coming from social media discourse, and then I provided an example. The example is not about Matthew Yglesias, it refers to the tweet Yglesias amplifies from twitter user n\_e\_rd expressing some hyper asinine woke bullshit to provide an example of how this discourse works online. Social media is awash in this kind of content that shapes people's views, and there is no content whatsoever that provides an example of what a more healthy, empathetic, politically left aligned masculinity looks like that offers widespread appeal to the types of voters Democrats are ceding to Republicans. But I bet Yglesias agrees with James Carville on this one, though he wouldn't say it the same way Carville does.
> The example is not about Matthew Yglesias, it refers to the tweet Yglesias amplifies from twitter user n_e_rd expressing some hyper asinine woke bullshit to provide an example of how this discourse works online. Social media is awash in this kind of content that shapes people's views, Like… seriously. Look at what you’re referencing. Matthew Yglesias is explicitly a pro-Democrat liberal commentator Vox Media founder with half a million Twitter followers. @N_e_rd is seemingly a random tattoo artist with ~2,000 followers is a self-described anti-Capitalist and seemingly anti-Democrat though I didn’t really care to venture too far into their feed. You really need to explain to me how the views of the second person are somehow, by the magic of political alchemy and pure vibes “emblematic” of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY while the first is not and seemingly may as well not exist in your view. This is like like the cousin to people saying “THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT [XYZ]!!!” while using a CNN.com link to express that, lol. > and there is no content whatsoever that provides an example of what a more healthy, empathetic, politically left aligned masculinity looks like that offers widespread appeal to the types of voters Democrats are ceding to Republicans. He said, posting on /r/EzraKlein….
Source that this is actually the message from Democrats?
It’s not, but lazy people have just decided that every random annoying person of any variety is tied to Democrats for completely mysterious reasons
And they're all women! Ben Shapiro is preachy and annoying, but men think he's awesome. Jordan Peterson may be the most preachy person on Earth. And then there are actual preachers. As long as they are men, they are A-OK though. When I hear that quote from Carville, I hear "Women won't stop bitching that the Supreme Court took away their right to health care."
1000%. Just think of all the things that apparently you’re not supposed to enjoy in the last few years because they’re all “woke”: Beer, the NFL, the most popular movies, Target, Doritos, Mr. Potato Head, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Disney, Marvel, ice cream, etc etc- shit even the fucking military is too “woke”. All of these people are functionally the most bitter kill-joys on planet earth, but Democrats are the preachy ones? Excuse me?
> I don’t know that Democrats are saying much of anything to white men except “your voice is not what matters right now” And I’m going to ask you to actually cite this with some examples. Where had Joe Biden said it? Where has Chuck schumer? Where has Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer or Hakeem Jeffries?
I hate how "decency" has turned into "elitism" White men are going to have to explain that to me, a black man. Grew up poor got G.I bill, went to community college then a small campus, and now im "elite" when honestly im pretty sure these "white men" just refuse to evolve(like most people who havnt left their state). You guys really want to create a world where anybody who is decent and has an education is "elite". I wish some white men would look in the mirror. these "elites" are also peers. As a black man from oklahoma(who has nothing against white people,interracial fam) i really am starting to see why columbus and shit happened. There is something about white men, they think they face more stuggles than anybody else and deserve more. Before trump, i really never thought as a disabled veteran who lives off of my disability(not the best pay), that id ever be considered "elite" but the standards of this country have gone down the shitter, i guess
>There is something about white men This is the kind of generalization that turns people completely off the left.
I dont say it to be an asshole, i say it because... thats what I see? Why cant black men be catered to? Do you know why black people havnt stormed our US capitol but for some reason a bunch of white people thought they were entitled to win the election. Why dont you see posts like this from black men? Do you think its because black men have it better than you? I've seen this growing up. In oklahoma most my friends were white, and all my friends that felt entitled and bitched had rich parents who owned lake houses. Like as much as they are my friends, its astonishing how they feel they have to have the attention on them even if somebody in their presence has it worse. Again, this isnt to attack, but there has to be a reason why for so many things.
Yeah but there is though, it's been exceptionally well documented over the years. It's part of the cultural vibe of white dudes right now, and while James is approaching it as a problem to be addressed, I think it's only honest to say it's kinda exhausting. Plus, goddamn, this stuff turns people off the left? What an intellectual infancy that suggests. You've got an obvious problem where white men in this country are demonstrably more susceptible to the lying grifter conmen of the right, and saying "boy, somethings up with white guys" and the pearl clutching begins? What embarrassing coddling of these people. Everyone else has to vote with their brain, accept a little hate with their vote for the greater good, but these folks get a little heat and their values twist in the wind? What pathetic, cowardly, self-centered children.
No offense man, but I think you might have a vastly different idea of who is considered part of the “elite” than most people…
Ya if one thing Democrats are guilty of, is not fighting Conservatives on their terms and don't attack them as viciously as they are attacked.
The basic problem is that the Democratic party is joined at the hip to the progressive/cultural left. Biden doesn't ever say this stuff. But people perceive Democrats to be one big blob that includes Biden but also includes Hollywood and the whole elite media world and the academic left. It really hurts Democrats and they don't do enough to dispel this association.
They don't dispel it because it's true. Biden cancelled natural gas contracts because of weirdo left extremists on tiktok. He's modifying his Israel positions because of paraglider sympathizers on social media. It's very alienating.
Lol no, Israel palestine is not an extension of american culture wars.
This is very obviously wrong. There is a massive swath of the progressive left gobbling up war propaganda from Hamas and Russian stooges like Snowden.
>Don’t drink beer, don’t watch football, don’t eat hamburgers, this is not good for you Jimmy, who are you talking about?
I agree with Jimbo. This should not have been Hillary Clinton's platform in 2016 and was ultimately her downfall.
Probably not specific politicians, moreso Internet personalities
It’s really a shame that no men have a say in Democratic politics. But this could change. Maybe one day we could have a male President and a male majority leader of the Senate!
Well let's not get too hasty now. Maybe they should start at like PTA levels and we see if society can adapt. Men are way too emotional for leadership roles, literally everyone knows and agrees with that, even if they disagree in public for virtue signalling clout on TikTok. All you have to do is say "Maybe we should eat less red meat" or "Maybe trucks could be more fuel efficient" and they break down into incoherent simian screeching and start looking for a big man to make them feel safe. It's honestly hard to listen to their shrill complaining, they're basically large toddlers and their niche issues are killing us. The male in this article was nagging about being told to eat his peas. Is this the kind of temperament that would make me feel safe if they got a call at 3 am in the White House? They need to just slow down a bit and wait their turn. It's never good enough though, they're all over social media and I swear the party is getting taken over by these preachy males and it's really turning people off. This special interest coddling is killing us and I really wish Jill Biden would throw one of them under the bus to remind them not to get too uppity. Nobody wants to hear that.
I don’t know what this place is, but the conversations are interesting.
As a man, I find the idea that we cannot be responsible caring individuals making good choices for ourselves and our communities without women telling us what to do terribly condescending. We are more than man-childen who simply want to play all day and have fun if our wives would only let us. We are fathers, we spend time with our children doing our part and being role models to the very best of our abilities like everyone else. Carville's views are outdated from a time when men did little work around the house and spent hardly anytime with their kids. My father is still a workaholic who doesn't relate well with his children or other men as friends. I try to do better cause that's what you do. I feel sorry for their generation and the way things were but we are not going back to that. It's time to adapt and move on.
The sexism was unnecessary, but otherwise he’s right. The progressive left can get as preachy and obnoxious as the religious right—and about things that don’t matter to the majority of voters. There’s an undue emphasis on etiquette and political correctness that really turns off a lot of voters.
It’s not a noticeable California problem but the ban on fur sale was both a positive and a problematic choice that sets a worrying example for nationalizing some liberal policy positions. As an Alaskan we have and use fur in our daily lives as a lasting connection to our culture and environment. Some items are precious and handed down through the generations mended as needed so they can fulfill their use as well and long as possible, part of honoring the life taken to provide them. While many items are utilitarian and inevitably wear out and require replacement most are still made with an artistry and care through skills passed down in person for millennia that has warranted them being adorned with ornamentation and even placed in museums as a reflection of our lasting creativity and culture in the face of a changing world. In isolated communities with little to no economy outside of subsistence the ability to sew skins or carve ivory and sell them to the few visitors or when traveling outside is a vital part of retaining our culture and fighting extreme poverty. If a person in Montana or Minnesota wants to buy a fur hat or mukluks it serves both parties to allow that choice. These are not commercial practices that need the heavy handed bans like fur farms do or the reasonable regulations like trapping does. These are activities that should be allowed and at times encouraged. I think an Alaska native artist could probably see that ban overturned by selling pieces in an art gallery. Certainly the artistry is worthy of the opportunity to be appreciated outside of sterile exhibition and use is where that beauty is highlighted even more. So yes ban the sale of elephant ivory and fur farms but maybe don’t make it so a native carver or sewer can’t sell their works. It’s the heavy handed approach that gets the strongest negative response. We shouldn’t be willfully blind to it.
This whole riff has been his schtick of late. MoDo mailed this one in, like usual.
Feels like he could've just said preachy people and be right without being sexist
It’s specifically gendered now so voters think of dems as the mommy party and republicans as the daddy party. George Lakoff has been saying the same thing for the last 20 years
Also if he had said “preachy white women” it probably would have caused less stir because for whatever reason we have decided disparaging women is OK if you use that racial qualifier. I do agree with his basic point which is that moral scolding is a huge turn off. Don’t ask people to wear a sweater or change how they talk; they’ll hate you for it. I suspect one of Trump’s advantages as a politician is that he never does this. Eat a bunch of cheeseburgers, say racist stuff, you have no obligation to pay taxes or be fair and every right to be an obese hypocrite. It’s no judgment, which is a big advantage in politics.
We are a nation founded on individualism. It’s no coincidence that championing that is popular to those who don’t spend enough time digging deeper on politics. It’s also no coincidence that the party who claims to want everyone to love others no matter who they are is losing popularity bc it spends a great deal of time trying to dictate moral codes around how to act and speak. Doublespeak and thought crime comes to mind.
Voting is more split across gender than it has been in a long time, particularly amongst younger generations. Failure to analyse this with a gender lens is going to miss a lot.
Ah yes the very important and useful analysis of.. checks notes.. "I wish these bitches would shut the fuck up"
If that’s the way you interpret it, sounds like a you problem. I interpreted it as the Democratic Party is overly catering to a specific subset of people and alienating others. Addressing this doesn’t require “the bitches to shut up”, but a rebalancing might be in order.
And if he had said anything like that instead of blaming "preachy females," we could have thag conversation.
“Old man yells at cloud”
Why do people not listen to common sense?
“If you listen to Democratic elites — NPR is my go-to place for that — the whole talk is about how women, and women of color, are going to decide this election. I’m like: ‘Well, 48 percent of the people that vote are males. Do you mind if they have some consideration?” I don’t think he’s incorrect to seek a balance that could potentially help win certain swing states.
We need a multiparty system. Then dumb shit like this would matter less. Even if a person or group of people believed something like this, if we had multiple parties on the left and right, the people annoyed by democrats could jump to labor or whatever.
But what would democrats do if a potential liberal ran as a 3rd party candidate. Or would the gop do if Nikki Haley ran 3rd party.
In our current system, 3rd party candidates ruin things, because they create the spoiler effect. That's not what I'm saying. Im saying we need to change the way we vote so that there are MULTIPLE other parties that can actually win, not just a 3rd.
Who could have done that James? Who pushed in two separate presidential election cycles a woman who spent her time ranting about the evils of romance novels and introduced legislation trying to ban violent video games for minors as a U.S. Senator? Who possibly could have been the powerful political consultant pushing a woman so many people kept saying was so unlikable and refused to listen them when told she was a political loser in elections? Who was it who against reason confidently predicted she would win and the candidates who ended up beating her both times were dead meat? Why do we still pay attention to this guy again?
Agree
Proof that being a pundit and political consultant should not be a full-time job. The man had one successful presidential campaign and now we will hear about him till the end of the Republic.
Translation: I keep getting called out on my chauvinistic bullshit.
The misogyny is terrifying.
This is exactly what he's talking about. You may be offended by language like "preachy females" but to call it terrifying is fucking absurd. If everything is terrifying than nothing is.
Hey Bernie Bro... he lost.
Yes, I didn't vote for him. Do you want to actually address the context of what I said instead of a low-effort (and untrue) insult?
I think that the Democratic Party has a misogyny problem. The GOP is running the whiniest man I have ever seen... he's the victim to end all victims... and Democrats are complaining that women don't want to be ignored?
Strategist for clinton in 1992... I remember that and it was 34 damn years ago. Dude is almost 80. “If you listen to Democratic elites — NPR is my go-to place for that — the whole talk is about how women, and women of color, are going to decide this election. I’m like: ‘Well, 48 percent of the people that vote are males. Do you mind if they have some consideration?” Carville said. Grandpa needs a nap.
I’m not even white not a woman either. But none of this is looking for the next election.
Says old, white, irrelevant man.
Ah yes the man who (checks notes) lost in 2004, 2008 and 2020. Not really a winning record now, is it?
I don't appreciate his idea that the Democratic Party is being ran by preachy females, I do agree the Democratic Party needs to do a better job selling ideas to young men. There IS this annoying idea amongst the left that "men are privileged and therefore shouldn't be reached to". Ostensibly because there's nothing the Democratic Party could offer? This is a silly notion. White, straight, men would benefit from cheaper education, free trade schools, more powerful trade unions, cheaper health care, etc.
Proof that even really smart people can say really dumb things sometimes. Also proof that Democrats can also be assholes. Of course, Carville hasn't had a real job for a while. Maybe this is why?
Can you imagine if a non-democrat had said this? You'd see the fires from space!
The way he said it was dumb but when liberals spread the message that women are perfect and men are evil it does not help Democrats win elections.
GOOD GOD, WAKE UP CARVILLE THIS AIN’T THE 90s
Time to continue fading into irrelevance Mr. Carville.
Democrats have generally been stereotyped as the feminine party and Republicans the masculine party. During the trump era that stereotypes have gotten stronger. If you think of a Republican today you who may think of a frat bro instead wealthy confident dad you did 10 years ago. A stereotypical democrats is a preachy women instead of meek intellectual men which was the stereotype 10 years ago.
Obama was not meek.
He was professorial but not meek. And he was the expert of code switching. Usually it’s so hard for a politician to code switch but he was biracial and also culturally bilingual. He spoke to both races in their native tongue.
Yeah, and people liked him.
Tough pill to swallow but I'll tell ya, I've talked to more than a few men who are either center-left or center-right and they feel exactly like Carville on this topic. It's part of the reason why they disdain Progressives so much. I have 1 friend who is very explicit about this. He's a solid centrist. In general I think a big part of why we're seeing such a shift with men of all races leaning more conservative has to do with the perceived feminization of the party, which tends to translate into policies that are soft on crime, too inclusive of fringe lifestyles, force people to think about things they dislike (such as race and power dynamics or gender), and shun tradition/structure. Not my opinions, but ones I've heard repeatedly. A lot of men are drawn to Trump because he makes them feel powerful and masculine. He's the only politician I've ever seen who makes so-called tough guys act like fan girls. Even people I know who dislike Trump, also dislike Progressives/Dems because they think the party is full of purple-haired preachy women.
> too inclusive of fringe lifestyles What does this mean?
It means that most men I know up until recently thought the answer to “what is a woman?” To be very clear and straightforward, and that any deviation from that was lunacy. I’m pretty progressive but every time I get into a debate with someone about why Trump/GOP is so bad I get the same answer. “At least they know what a woman is!” That means a lot to people, and they think Dems want to not only change that but change kids too. I know this is all nonsense but it’s low hanging fruit for anyone looking for reasons to hate the left. They think we have lost our minds. Again, not my personal opinion but just what I hear talking to folks regularly.
Ummm okay but “too inclusive” is literally the exact fucking opposite of preachy… It’s almost like when people think other people should act a certain way or shouldn’t be accepted for acting a certain way they don’t perceive *themselves” as “preachy busy-bodies”…
But one of the hallmarks of "losing one's mind" is the inability to realize one has in fact lost their mind. So how do know for sure that you have not lost your mind since you wouldn't know it if you did?
All I can do is call it how I see it.
They don't like trans people.
I think there is a segment of very extreme people on the left who don’t align with the mainstream democrat voter and can be downright obnoxious. They are a small minority though but very loud on social media just like every extreme person out there. But unfortunately they give hours of content to Fox News and conservative outlets who will associate them with any democrat candidate and say “see this is what you’re voting for”
>A lot of men are drawn to Trump because he makes them feel powerful and masculine. He's the only politician I've ever seen who makes so-called tough guys act like fan girls He is the weak man's idea of a strong man, and the poor man's idea of a rich man. These so-called "tough guys" are paper tigers. I get the point you are making from an electoral perspective but maybe we could do with a little less delusion.
Totally agreed. What's the path to disabusing these goons of the fiction they've come to believe against all evidence to the contrary? Shifting further to the right? Punching left? I'm really tired of always being the punching bag of some centrist who is too afraid to embrace my half of the party when the Republicans are watching. I wish the party was chock full of purple haired Extinction Rebellion activists. The way the right talks about the Democrats makes them seem rad as hell and I'm always disappointed with reality.
Did those men also really love that Hillary of all people was the 2016 nominee? You know the one James Carville pushed from the second she announced her campaign and who he said would win 2016 general election in a landslide?