Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I'd guess a majority of people are dissatisfied with the status quo, and Trump represents chaos, change. It's not a rational decision, but whatever your reason for dissatisfaction, Trump is about as far from a conventional establishment candidate as you could find.
I'm not suggesting, at all, that Trump would fix any of these issues; in fact, he'd exacerbate many of them. But Biden, Hillary, and now Harris are the ones who'd continue many of them. And I'm also not saying that all of these are real issues, but his base thinks they are:
The country just isn't as good as it used to be, and it's not because of your behaviors - shopping at Walmart, shopping at Amazon, joining Facebook and using GMail and Google search, driving your gas-guzzling hemi pickup (which is actually a work truck because you helped your buddy move his couch once) - it's because of some indistinct them: immigrants, politicians, corporations, gays, blacks, Millenials, The Media. And here's a guy who says he's going to fix all that, and boy did he piss off all those people who represent everything you hate. He turned the Supreme Court around! Things were finally going the way you wanted.
And above all of that are the Christians. They've been indoctrinated to believe in hierarchy: woman above child, man above women, and God above man. Having a king just feels right, an earthly authority who, with a wave of a pen, can turn the tide against progressives. I honestly believe that having a dictator - a sympathetic dictator - is a subconscious desire for most people brought up as Christians. They believe in hierarchy; it feels right.
That is a very good explanation right there. Very comprehensive, emphatic.
I would love to hear a design, a plan from the progressive left to solve these problems, a narrative that somehow manages to adress these fears these issues and offer another way for "disgruntled right wing conservative Christian average joe" and make left ideas more attractive and understandable to them. Because in the end, a progressive left has better solutions to problems than the right. Unfortunately it seems as though there is no such thing in the U.S.
Thank you.
Many of these things aren't really "problems." For example,
However, if there's one place Hillary really messed up, it was further alienating blue collar, fly-over country Americans. She mainly appealed to the coasts, and white collar workers. Kamala is going to have to double down on Biden's efforts to win back the Unions, and really appeal to blue collar. Promising them new, better paying jobs in emerging technology sectors; new training without forcing them into higher-ed white collar office jobs. Not everyone wants to sit an office and work on a computer. But you can still promise to bring construction and manufacturing jobs for things like windmills and solar panels. Promise to put every effort into opening opportunities maybe not in exactly the same industry, but the same type of work. Lots of folks like working with their hands; if Kamala is smart, she'll campaign on bringing new jobs that pay higher, with high skill overlap to what they're doing now.
I honestly don't think people like being coal miners. But they might like that lifestyle: hard, reliable work with consistent, reliable hours, and the ability to live in rural communities where their neighbors are people they work with and know.
Cops like prosecutors. While there are absolutely bad cops, and bad cop culture, when police work in the neighborhoods where they live, they tend to be compassionate and want to resolve issues. Problems start when you bring cops who live in the suburbs and have them police inner city neighborhoods: they don't know the community, and the community doesn't know them. When the majority of their interactions with a community are with criminal elements, they start to see everyone in the community as a likely criminal. Plus, there are often race issues, as the suburb and inner city demographics widely differ. She could focus on that, although she really wouldn't have any direct control over local law enforcement policies, she could campaign to have task forces working on incentivize good policy.
I certainly don't have all the answers, but I think Harris's path to success is to try to appeal to as many sectors as possible (as I've described in examples above) without sacrificing the core liberal value of tolerance. She can't win over the intolerant directly, but she might be able to convince some people that they'd rather have economic growth and opportunities than to stick it to some brown people.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to add something substantial to the political discussion. I think designing and discussing actual plans to improve peoples situation in a constructive manner is what's needed.
The greatest danger lies in simplification of multi-faceted political issues and appealing to strong emotions such as fear and anger.
It'd be nice to see more constructive, balanced, respectful dialogue.