Democrats - Are social or economic policies make or break?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 16, 2024, 11:06:52 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Democrats - Are social or economic policies make or break?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Which would cause you to split from the Democratic Party?
#1
If they became more conservative on economic issues (minimum wage, taxes, trade)
 
#2
If they became more conservative on social issues (abortion, lgbtq, environment)
 
#3
Neither
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 52

Author Topic: Democrats - Are social or economic policies make or break?  (Read 1654 times)
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 31, 2016, 10:31:29 AM »

This distinction is totally arbitrary.

This sort of faux-wisdom is silly. Yes the line between social and economic is blurry, but it issues still tend to clump together, appeal to different voters etc. Dividing issues into categories is still helpful way to navigate politics. Even if sexuality is a spectrum, that doesn't make gay and straight useless categories.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 31, 2016, 10:44:07 AM »

I'm not a Democrat, and as a socon, I'm heavily biased, but...

The major centre left party going right on economics strikes me as cutting against its very essence, like Greens advocating for coal power or UKIP pushing for European integration. Favouring social issues over economics has led to some unseemly attitudes about the poor and uneducated that you used to only see among GOPers.

Besides holding steady on economics is more electorally sound. The Democrats were wildly successful with their New Deal coalition, while the current Democratic approach has resulted in President Trump and record high GOP representation.

As Crabcake put it "fyck the poor, but I HATE going to church" is not a winning strategy.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,378
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 31, 2016, 02:17:49 PM »
« Edited: December 31, 2016, 02:19:33 PM by 🦀🎂 »

.

 What I never understand about American politics is the inability to understand the importance of foregrounding certain issues on the ground. Both parties tend to get weakened when they decide to run their campaigns with either big button issues like abortion and guns or issues that are abstract for a lot of people .

Let's take abortion. I've seen some people argue that Dems should abandon the issue. And yes, four years ago people with equal sincerity were arguing that the GOP should also abandon the issue. Both approaches would be suicidal. The pro life and pro choice groups are a large part of the dems activist base, and you need activists to be a campaigning party. But crucially - here's the crux - whenever a candidate seems to have abortion as 'tgeir big thing ... they lose. Let's be real: if you are a self identified activist for pro life or pro choice issues, you are not going to swing, and almost certain to turnout. Beyond these people, abortion as an issue is peripheral. They may define as whatever, but they have issues that are far less abstract and relevant to their lives:

- social security
- healthcare
- education
- cost of living
Etc.

None of the issues that Dems ran with (ok, maybe gun control) is necessary poison or cause for immediate concern. But  the Dems did an awful job at framing these issues. Police reform was an issue that Dems jumped the gun on, associating it with the activist movement BLM rather than integrating BLM's raw and real energy within the platform in a way that is relevant to all people (I.e. even though white people are also liable to get bonked by a uniformed thug, the dem messaging allowed it to be compartmentalised as "an issue for blacks" which robbed it of its potential).

So my conclusion is people are arguing that Democrats should or shouldn't be more liberal, or focus to much or not enough on identity politics are basically missing the point. Foreground the economy with bland themes on the ground. Jobs, health, jobs, education, infrastructure, economy.
Logged
kcguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,034
Romania


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 31, 2016, 04:38:12 PM »
« Edited: December 31, 2016, 04:41:58 PM by kcguy »

None of the issues that Dems ran with (ok, maybe gun control) is necessary poison or cause for immediate concern. But  the Dems did an awful job at framing these issues. Police reform was an issue that Dems jumped the gun on, associating it with the activist movement BLM rather than integrating BLM's raw and real energy within the platform in a way that is relevant to all people (I.e. even though white people are also liable to get bonked by a uniformed thug, the dem messaging allowed it to be compartmentalised as "an issue for blacks" which robbed it of its potential).

Yeah, things like BLM drive me nuts.

Because of my history, I relate a lot of things to the gay rights movement, and this could have gone the path of either of our two most prominent issues:  employment protections and marriage equality.

Employment protections have been a major priority for the Human Rights Campaign for decades, dating back to a time when marriage equality was still a fringe issue.  I think the reason for its failure to date is that it ultimately doesn't have universal appeal.

The underlying assumption is that America must have groups with a different legal status.  (African-American affirmative action is probably the most prominent example.)  These separate legal statuses started as remedies for the most blatant historical discrimination, but liberals seem to want to see how many additional victim groups can be added to the list.  Although not intentional, issues like employment protections (for an enumerated and ever-growing laundry list of small groups, of course) produce an image of a Liberalism that wants to balkanize America as much as possible.

In contrast, marriage equality has more of a universal appeal.  In this case, it was individual gay couples who were fighting for the right to be treated the same as all other couples.  (In contrast to the operatives pushing for employment protections, marriage equality was much less of a top-down issue, and it was never really the darling of the gay political leadership.  There may be a lesson in there somewhere.)

Coinciding with the rise of the marriage issue, increasing numbers of people began coming out of the closet, so the absence of same-sex marriage meant that nearly every American knew someone who could never marry anyone they ever fell in love with.  The "separate legal status" issue was flipped on its head, with those opposed to marriage equality seeming to be the ones to want gays to have a separate legal status.

But enough of my rant on gay rights issues.  Back to Black Lives Matter.

This would have been so easy to make a universal issue.  Police overreach, in theory, is an issue that should make large numbers of people uneasy.  Although it might be applied disproportionately to minorities, it has probably affected, to some degree, large swaths of the population.  There are even those on the Right who probably would have complained just as loudly against an overzealous government and against government employees.

Instead, BLM made this a Blacks-only movement.  Police overreach became a "Black" issue.  Other people need not concern themselves.  There was a point in time when this could have become an "American" issue, but that opportunity seems to have been squandered.  

On the whole, I have a negative opinion of Social Justice Warriors.  They mean well, and I often agree with their goals, but sometimes it seems as if being right--after all, if you're right, you should never compromise on anything less than total victory--is just more important than actually achieving anything.

End of rant.


Back to the gay marriage issue, it seems to me that there were even conservative arguments for marriage equality.  If you argue that the opposite of marriage is not abstinence (which is absurd) but cohabitation, then you could argue that opponents of marriage equality were undermining marriage by creating a large number of couples who were becoming role models for how to live without marriage.

Out of curiosity, are domestic partnership registries even still around?  I never hear anyone talk about them anymore.

Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,519
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 01, 2017, 07:52:53 PM »
« Edited: January 01, 2017, 07:54:51 PM by RIP Jante's Law, FF »

Well, of course I wouldn't associate with a party that went to the right on either dimension, but the absolute priority is preventing neoliberalism from not-quite-but-almost-literally destroying the world, so "economic" (which are never JUST "economic" - convincing people that they are was actually one of the ideological victories of neoliberalism) issues must always be the core.
Logged
RaphaelDLG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,687
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 02, 2017, 12:04:13 PM »

The most important issues by far to me are electoral reform, financial regulation, healthcare, environmental protection, and higher education. 

I have extremely strong opinions on "social issues," to be sure, but they aren't very high on my list of priorities.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,378
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 02, 2017, 01:04:08 PM »

This distinction is totally arbitrary.

This sort of faux-wisdom is silly. Yes the line between social and economic is blurry, but it issues still tend to clump together, appeal to different voters etc. Dividing issues into categories is still helpful way to navigate politics. Even if sexuality is a spectrum, that doesn't make gay and straight useless categories.

I understand your point, but I think the distinction gets a bit odd. In America it seems that "social issues" refers to a handful of relatively simple moral issues, and everything else gets the crude label of economic issues.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.232 seconds with 13 queries.