4 ms·

I agree wholeheartedly with you. In any organization , tone at the top matters. You talk about managers. I would say we need to look higher up in the chain o

I agree wholeheartedly with you. In any organization , tone at the top matters. You talk about managers. I would say we need to look higher up in the chain of command. I would posit that when you have candidates running for higher office referring to that group as "deplorables" I would say the tone of the top has failed.

analog31 5y ago
I agree that Clinton's "deplorables" speech was a gaffe, but I also just re-read it. She's not talking about blue collar workers in general, but a particular strain of voters who are motivated by racism, sexism, etc. Naturally her opponent fought back, pretending that she was attacking the working class in general. Today, what she said is considered to be a basic fact of American politics. Part of what makes the Deplorables such a powerful force is that it has become politically incorrect to talk about them openly in plain terms, or to confront them with their own beliefs.
- splitstud 5y ago
  Confront them with their own beliefs? You mean invalidate their policy preferences by just ascribing them to racism?
- rendall 5y ago
  > ...but a particular strain of voters who are motivated by racism, sexism, etc It was received quite properly as an attack on any voter who would not vote for her: that is to say, anyone not voting for Clinton herself would by definition be deplorable: racist, sexist, etc. This was taken as a rather self-serving statement
  - krapp 5y ago
    It was received that way because Republican propaganda is very effective (see the way they reframed "fake news" as an example,) but no reasonable person reading the actual text of the statement would interpret it that way. And obviously it was self-serving. Hillary Clinton was giving a speech running for political office, not having a casual conversation. Every word coming out of Donald Trump's mouth was self-serving as well, for the same reason. Yet (again, due to the effectiveness of Republican propaganda) it's a sign of arrogance and elitism when a Democrat does it, but virtue and strength of character in a Republican.
    - rendall 5y ago
      Can you address the point without reference to Trump? We were talking about Clinton, not Trump. If it helps, I think they both were self-serving, full stop. But. Whenever a criticism of Clinton hits the mark, a supporter invariably pops up talking about Trump. It comes off as an attempted diversion from Clinton herself. So, to the point, she was not even implying that those who were on the fence about her were motivated by racism, sexism, Russian manipulation, etc? She acknowledged there could be principled reasons to disagree and not vote for her?
      - krapp 5y ago
        >Can you address the point without reference to Trump? No, because the point I was making was that both parties were equally self-serving, because they were both politicians running for political office, and making that point requires reference to the other party. >If it helps, I think they both were self-serving, full stop. Yes, that was literally my point. >But. Whenever a criticism of Clinton hits the mark, a supporter invariably pops up talking about Trump. Neither can one criticize Trump without his supporters deflecting with rants about Democrats, Hillary Clinton, BLM or whatever. Also, I'm not a Clinton supporter. >So, to the point, she was not even implying that those who were on the fence about her were motivated by racism, sexism, Russian manipulation, etc? Ok. Let me paste in the entirety of the quote, verbatim: "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? [Laughter/applause]. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. Now first, notice that Hillary admits that what she's saying is "grossly generalistic," so it would be a mistake to assume she's attempting to speak in precise terms - when she says "about half" here, she doesn't mean literally 50% within some margin of error, and she certainly isn't referring to the entirety of Trump supporters, much less the entirety of rural Americans (who are not all Trump supporters) nor the entirety of blue collar workers (also not Trump supporters.) Continuing: "But the other basket, the other basket, and I know because I see friends from all over America here. I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas, as well as you know New York and California. But that other basket of people who are people who feel that government has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they are just desperate for change. Here, she's referring to the legitimate concerns and fears of Trump supporters, and further in, suggests that these Trump supporters - explicitly not the ones motivated by racism, sexis, etc - are the ones the Democrats need to empathize with, understand and reach: It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well." So to finally address the points: >she was not even implying that those who were on the fence about her were motivated by racism, sexism, Russian manipulation, etc? No, she was not. She was implying that those people were not on the fence and would never vote for her to begin with. >She acknowledged there could be principled reasons to disagree and not vote for her? No she did not. Obviously no politician would ever do that, even if they believed it. She was arguing that the Democrats need to convince the subset of Trump supporters willing to listen that they have better solutions to their concerns than Trump.

analog31 5y ago

I agree that Clinton's "deplorables" speech was a gaffe, but I also just re-read it. She's not talking about blue collar workers in general, but a particular strain of voters who are motivated by racism, sexism, etc. Naturally her opponent fought back, pretending that she was attacking the working class in general. Today, what she said is considered to be a basic fact of American politics. Part of what makes the Deplorables such a powerful force is that it has become politically incorrect to talk about them openly in plain terms, or to confront them with their own beliefs.

splitstud 5y ago
Confront them with their own beliefs? You mean invalidate their policy preferences by just ascribing them to racism?
rendall 5y ago
> ...but a particular strain of voters who are motivated by racism, sexism, etc It was received quite properly as an attack on any voter who would not vote for her: that is to say, anyone not voting for Clinton herself would by definition be deplorable: racist, sexist, etc. This was taken as a rather self-serving statement
- krapp 5y ago
  It was received that way because Republican propaganda is very effective (see the way they reframed "fake news" as an example,) but no reasonable person reading the actual text of the statement would interpret it that way. And obviously it was self-serving. Hillary Clinton was giving a speech running for political office, not having a casual conversation. Every word coming out of Donald Trump's mouth was self-serving as well, for the same reason. Yet (again, due to the effectiveness of Republican propaganda) it's a sign of arrogance and elitism when a Democrat does it, but virtue and strength of character in a Republican.
  - rendall 5y ago
    Can you address the point without reference to Trump? We were talking about Clinton, not Trump. If it helps, I think they both were self-serving, full stop. But. Whenever a criticism of Clinton hits the mark, a supporter invariably pops up talking about Trump. It comes off as an attempted diversion from Clinton herself. So, to the point, she was not even implying that those who were on the fence about her were motivated by racism, sexism, Russian manipulation, etc? She acknowledged there could be principled reasons to disagree and not vote for her?
    - krapp 5y ago
      >Can you address the point without reference to Trump? No, because the point I was making was that both parties were equally self-serving, because they were both politicians running for political office, and making that point requires reference to the other party. >If it helps, I think they both were self-serving, full stop. Yes, that was literally my point. >But. Whenever a criticism of Clinton hits the mark, a supporter invariably pops up talking about Trump. Neither can one criticize Trump without his supporters deflecting with rants about Democrats, Hillary Clinton, BLM or whatever. Also, I'm not a Clinton supporter. >So, to the point, she was not even implying that those who were on the fence about her were motivated by racism, sexism, Russian manipulation, etc? Ok. Let me paste in the entirety of the quote, verbatim: "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? [Laughter/applause]. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. Now first, notice that Hillary admits that what she's saying is "grossly generalistic," so it would be a mistake to assume she's attempting to speak in precise terms - when she says "about half" here, she doesn't mean literally 50% within some margin of error, and she certainly isn't referring to the entirety of Trump supporters, much less the entirety of rural Americans (who are not all Trump supporters) nor the entirety of blue collar workers (also not Trump supporters.) Continuing: "But the other basket, the other basket, and I know because I see friends from all over America here. I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas, as well as you know New York and California. But that other basket of people who are people who feel that government has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they are just desperate for change. Here, she's referring to the legitimate concerns and fears of Trump supporters, and further in, suggests that these Trump supporters - explicitly not the ones motivated by racism, sexis, etc - are the ones the Democrats need to empathize with, understand and reach: It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well." So to finally address the points: >she was not even implying that those who were on the fence about her were motivated by racism, sexism, Russian manipulation, etc? No, she was not. She was implying that those people were not on the fence and would never vote for her to begin with. >She acknowledged there could be principled reasons to disagree and not vote for her? No she did not. Obviously no politician would ever do that, even if they believed it. She was arguing that the Democrats need to convince the subset of Trump supporters willing to listen that they have better solutions to their concerns than Trump.