4 ms·

I'm not sure that a better solution is possible in America's current political climate. As I see it there are basically three approaches that a progressive cou

I'm not sure that a better solution is possible in America's current political climate. As I see it there are basically three approaches that a progressive could take in a policy debate: - Persuasion: I think that you are mistaken as to what is in your best interest, here's why my approach would benefit you more. - Negotiation: Here's how we can work together to find a solution that meets both of our interests. - Zero Sum: I recognize that this isn't in your best interest but I don't care because its in my interest. Due to the power of Fox News and the Republican party's current willingness to ignore facts, I don't think persuasion is possible. Similarly, the strategy that Fox News and the Republican party have taken of promoting polarization, demonizing the other side, using straw-man arguments, etc.[1] Makes it impossible to have the kind of nuanced debate and compromise that would be necessary for a negotiated solution. Therefore, it seems like all that is left is a zero sum solution. If the other side won't listen or negotiate then the only option remaining is to implement our policies whether they like them or not. I'm not saying that's an ideal situation, but it seems to me that its the reality that we find ourselves in. [1] To be fair, I think that progressives do this to a worrying extent as well. However, I single out the Republican party due to the degree to which they have focused on this strategy and because the fact that many Republicans get all of their news from Fox makes the strategy almost unassailable.

lizardking 7y ago
You don’t need to convince republicans, you need to convince moderates who can be persuaded to vote one way or the other in a given election. In the context of a general election, we’re talking about thousands of people in a handful of states. I’m struggling with how the idea of “condescension isn’t persuasive” is finding so much friction here.
- Zarath 7y ago
  The democratic party still hasn't learned from their mistakes of the last election unfortunately.
  - travisoneill1 7y ago
    The condescension isn't really coming from the democratic party. Mostly it's from their allies in the press. The democratic party probably knows what the problem is, but doesn't really know how to deal with it.
    - pas 7y ago
      Maybe the assumption that its condescending is the problem? Someone some time ago figured out that calling evidence based arguments condescending, and for some reason it stuck. Maybe because those arguments are not perfect. After all they are messy, based on the complex reality filtered through the ugliness of statistics and bounded rational arguments. ... and The Ugly Orange's tweets and one-liners are gospel, but anything that starts with data is condescending.
- harimau777 7y ago
  The issue that I see is that due to the electoral college and gerrymandering, it can be difficult to win even if you can convince moderates. The other issue is that many of the issues that progressives are concerned about (e.g. climate change, inequality, gun control) require action by society as a whole. Ideally we would negotiate and find policies that address the priorities of both progressives and conservatives. However, that doesn't currently seem to be possible.
  - EricE 7y ago
    > The issue that I see is that due to the electoral college Please read the federalist papers.
    - harimau777 7y ago
      Care to elaborate?
  - Glide 7y ago
    Because of the electoral college, voices are not wiped out and discounted entirely in this country. I do not want the equivalent of a yellow vests movement happening here. Gerrymandering is a huge issue, and it makes it so that moderates don’t have to exist because of safe districts. The fundamental disagreement about priorities between the parties somehow turned into disagreement about facts in the past decade.
    - harimau777 7y ago
      I don't think the electoral college is an effective way to give everyone a voice because it creates a situation where some votes count more than others and it allows a minority of the population to hold the country hostage. I believe that something like proportionate representation is a better solution. It would still allow minority populations (e.g. rural areas) to band together and get representatives elected that reflect their priorities. However, since the system is no longer winner takes all it promotes finding solutions via negotiation.
- Seanzie 7y ago
  This reveals that it is possible to combine the Persuasion and Zero Sum methods that the poster above described: "Once I have persuaded 51% of voters to my view, I no longer need to care about your view."
- sgift 7y ago
  The idea that moderates or "the center" would win an election just broke Labours back in UK. It's also what broke Clintons campaign in 2016. The left has a big enough voting base to win elections, what it lacks is motivating them to vote. The exact opposite of what happens when you water down your positions in search of "moderates". Interestingly, right-wing parties understand this quite well. If they loose an election you never hear that they have to convince moderates. Instead they get even more radical.
burfog 7y ago
About that "promoting polarization", it takes two to polarize. You too have the option to cave. You are free to end the polarization at any moment. Demonizing the other size is impressively the other way. It's happening whenever you see people flinging words like racist, sexist, fascist, and nazi.
- ufov2 7y ago
  Wrong: demonization is obviously one-sided. Because it alone can drive polarization, polarization is not "two-sided". Moreover, there is a difference in calling spade a spade, and hate speech.
- harimau777 7y ago
  I'm not sure I think "just cave in" is a realistic solution to polarization. That doesn't actually solve anything it just creates more resentment. In terms of demonization, I think its fair to use words like racist, sexist, and fascist when they are accurate descriptions. Before the Trump administration I was opposed to using those terms because I didn't feel that it was clear that they were accurate. However, I do think they are accurate now. In my opinion, Nazi is only a reasonable term when the person is actually advocating for Nazism which, other than actual Neo-Nazis, is very rare. The only example I can think of where it might be valid was when Trump said that there were good people on both sides of a Neo-Nazi rally.
  - burfog 7y ago
    You've been misled if you think it was a "Neo-Nazi rally". It was not, though a few such people did show up and cause trouble. Trump actually condemned the neo-Nazis and white nationalists. See his "fine people on both sides" comment with more context: https://i.imgur.com/xKKdnkP.jpg https://i.imgur.com/xKKdnkP.jpg Clearly you need to find a different news source. I suggest OANN if you'd like a cable news network (also available via an app) with very factual reporting.

lizardking 7y ago

You don’t need to convince republicans, you need to convince moderates who can be persuaded to vote one way or the other in a given election. In the context of a general election, we’re talking about thousands of people in a handful of states. I’m struggling with how the idea of “condescension isn’t persuasive” is finding so much friction here.

Zarath 7y ago
The democratic party still hasn't learned from their mistakes of the last election unfortunately.
- travisoneill1 7y ago
  The condescension isn't really coming from the democratic party. Mostly it's from their allies in the press. The democratic party probably knows what the problem is, but doesn't really know how to deal with it.
  - pas 7y ago
    Maybe the assumption that its condescending is the problem? Someone some time ago figured out that calling evidence based arguments condescending, and for some reason it stuck. Maybe because those arguments are not perfect. After all they are messy, based on the complex reality filtered through the ugliness of statistics and bounded rational arguments. ... and The Ugly Orange's tweets and one-liners are gospel, but anything that starts with data is condescending.
harimau777 7y ago
The issue that I see is that due to the electoral college and gerrymandering, it can be difficult to win even if you can convince moderates. The other issue is that many of the issues that progressives are concerned about (e.g. climate change, inequality, gun control) require action by society as a whole. Ideally we would negotiate and find policies that address the priorities of both progressives and conservatives. However, that doesn't currently seem to be possible.
- EricE 7y ago
  > The issue that I see is that due to the electoral college Please read the federalist papers.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    Care to elaborate?
- Glide 7y ago
  Because of the electoral college, voices are not wiped out and discounted entirely in this country. I do not want the equivalent of a yellow vests movement happening here. Gerrymandering is a huge issue, and it makes it so that moderates don’t have to exist because of safe districts. The fundamental disagreement about priorities between the parties somehow turned into disagreement about facts in the past decade.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    I don't think the electoral college is an effective way to give everyone a voice because it creates a situation where some votes count more than others and it allows a minority of the population to hold the country hostage. I believe that something like proportionate representation is a better solution. It would still allow minority populations (e.g. rural areas) to band together and get representatives elected that reflect their priorities. However, since the system is no longer winner takes all it promotes finding solutions via negotiation.
Seanzie 7y ago
This reveals that it is possible to combine the Persuasion and Zero Sum methods that the poster above described: "Once I have persuaded 51% of voters to my view, I no longer need to care about your view."
sgift 7y ago
The idea that moderates or "the center" would win an election just broke Labours back in UK. It's also what broke Clintons campaign in 2016. The left has a big enough voting base to win elections, what it lacks is motivating them to vote. The exact opposite of what happens when you water down your positions in search of "moderates". Interestingly, right-wing parties understand this quite well. If they loose an election you never hear that they have to convince moderates. Instead they get even more radical.

burfog 7y ago

About that "promoting polarization", it takes two to polarize. You too have the option to cave. You are free to end the polarization at any moment. Demonizing the other size is impressively the other way. It's happening whenever you see people flinging words like racist, sexist, fascist, and nazi.

ufov2 7y ago
Wrong: demonization is obviously one-sided. Because it alone can drive polarization, polarization is not "two-sided". Moreover, there is a difference in calling spade a spade, and hate speech.
harimau777 7y ago
I'm not sure I think "just cave in" is a realistic solution to polarization. That doesn't actually solve anything it just creates more resentment. In terms of demonization, I think its fair to use words like racist, sexist, and fascist when they are accurate descriptions. Before the Trump administration I was opposed to using those terms because I didn't feel that it was clear that they were accurate. However, I do think they are accurate now. In my opinion, Nazi is only a reasonable term when the person is actually advocating for Nazism which, other than actual Neo-Nazis, is very rare. The only example I can think of where it might be valid was when Trump said that there were good people on both sides of a Neo-Nazi rally.
- burfog 7y ago
  You've been misled if you think it was a "Neo-Nazi rally". It was not, though a few such people did show up and cause trouble. Trump actually condemned the neo-Nazis and white nationalists. See his "fine people on both sides" comment with more context: https://i.imgur.com/xKKdnkP.jpg https://i.imgur.com/xKKdnkP.jpg Clearly you need to find a different news source. I suggest OANN if you'd like a cable news network (also available via an app) with very factual reporting.