centrism   205

« earlier    

Democrats Have Created an “Electability” Monster | The New Republic
"“Electability” is a crock of shit. It is defined, like political “moderation,” only in terms of opposition to things people want, but are told they can’t have, ranging from antiwar politics to left-wing economic populism to even the “cultural liberalism” that is seemingly the cornerstone of the modern Democratic Party. (Back in 2004, supporting civil unions, not even marriage, for same-sex couples was a threat to a Democrat’s perceived “electability.”) While the impulse to vote according to how you think a candidate would appeal to people who don’t share your priorities might make sense in theory, practice has revealed time and time again that no one involved in electoral politics—from the pundits down to the caucus-goers—has a clue who or what Americans will actually vote for. That was supposed to be, as the political scientist Masket says, the main lesson of Trump’s election.

But Democratic voters did not teach themselves to prioritize electability over their own actual concerns. They were trained to, over many years, by party figures who over-interpreted the loss of George McGovern, or who wanted to use the fear of McGovern to maintain their power over the Democratic candidate pipeline and nomination process. “Electability” is a way to get voters to carry out a contrary agenda—not their own—while convincing them they’re being “responsible.”

And now Democratic candidates and their most loyal voters are stuck in an absurd feedback loop. The politicians campaign and govern as if they themselves don’t believe a majority of voters prefer their agenda, signaling to their most loyal voters that they must vote not for what they want, but for what they imagine their more-conservative neighbors might want. But when voters in 2016 did exactly that, and nominated the candidate they were repeatedly told was most qualified to defeat Trump in the general election, they chose a person who went on to lose to him.

How are committed, pragmatic voters supposed to react when the person sold to them as not just the most “electable” person in this particular race, but among the most “electable” people in recent political history, loses a freak election to a preening, venal huckster who was treated as a great big joke for almost the entirety of the campaign?

If “electability” previously meant “the candidate most associated with the hawkish and business-friendly wing of the party,” it now seems to have become purely and nakedly demographic. Former Clinton voters are flocking to the various white men in the race, avoiding candidates they actually might like, because they see their own affinity for those candidates as a political liability.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a populist liberal PAC, polled its own members, asking why they supported their candidates of choice, and found basically an inverse relationship between which candidate’s supporters thought their pick would make the “best president” (Warren by a landslide) and which ones were motivated by their belief that their candidate is the most “electable” (Biden). As PCCC co-founder Adam Green put it: “Barely a majority of Biden’s own current supporters believe he would be the best Democratic president.”

Because of the way the “electability” question was framed in 2016, and the way it then backfired, it looks very much like the Democratic Party’s rank-and-file took from that election the lesson that “a smart and capable woman isn’t electable,” not that “an establishment fixture with a tremendous amount of political baggage who is also easily and convincingly portrayed as corrupt isn’t electable.” I’m guessing many of the people who worked very hard to elect Hillary Clinton president would like to see Warren win the Democratic nomination rather than Biden, but decades of party brass (aided by a political press that spends every single election cycle talking about the electorate like it’s still Nixon’s Silent Majority) leaning on “electability” arguments to kneecap outsider candidates is currently working against that outcome.

It is still easy to imagine the sort of Democrat who’d be happy to use the “electability” argument against a candidate like Warren. But when even someone like Harris—a member in good standing of the party establishment, a dedicated player of the “electability” game her entire career, a person whose campaign strategy from the outset seemed to be to rerun the Clinton campaign but without the Clinton baggage—struggles to gain traction with Democratic voters, it feels like the monster has turned on its creators.

Watching Joe Biden, a man who was already too out-of-step with the party and the country to win the nomination 12 years ago, claim the “electability” mantle only strengthens that feeling. No one really wants President Biden. It’s just that the “better things aren’t possible” caucus accidentally managed to convince some large portion of the Democratic electorate that they must hold their noses and vote for actively worse things.

Expecting voters to behave like pundits—asking people to vote for what expensive consultants and Sunday show guests imagine people like them might want instead of what they actually want—would be perverse even if it worked. But unless and until the Democratic electorate can be given license to support what it supports, each failure of the “electability” paradigm will only be taken as proof of the need to retreat further into learned helplessness.

If you’re not that excited to vote for Joe Biden, I promise you, your neighbor isn’t, either."
democrats  elections  politics  us  electability  kamalaharris  joebiden  hillaryclinton  berniesanders  petebuttigieg  corybooker  elizabethwarren  georgemcgovern  centrists  centrism 
6 weeks ago by robertogreco
The Era of “Centrist” Establishment Democrats Is Over
RT @rcooley123: The Era of “Centrist” Establishment Democrats Is Over -
centrism  democrats  dnc 
6 weeks ago by jstenner
The Divisive Center vs. The Unifying Left
At its core, Centrism and Progressivism put forward two competing visions of the American Future. Both share in their desire to defeat Republicans and conservative ideologies. Each is passionate about the need to confront the rise of the far-right. However, for Centrists the goal is bringing the country together in support of the status quo and ultimately all the class, racial, and gender divisions it intentionally and unintentionally perpetuates. For progressives, it is about bridging these differences through constructing a shared radical politics of systematic change. In demanding that all people have a right to material security and political power, they are promoting a society where our common humanity transcends our socially constructed divisions, and where our differences are a source of strength not weakness.
bernie2020  left  class  centrism 
8 weeks ago by jstenner
Luxury Interiors – Popula
"The question of “U.S.C. versus A.S.U.” in this piece was unclear to me; to what extent was Hess underwriting this hierarchy? I wrote to ask her, and she replied that she wished she’d had the space to elaborate in the piece. And for good reason:
I’m from a Sun Devil family. My mom worked at Arizona State… I don’t think any of the jokes about ASU are based on a real understanding of the kind of education you could receive there; it’s based on the number of people who can access that education […]

The same people who surely believe that every child should have access to a college education also make sure to rank some of those educations as enviable and others as embarrassing. The idea of an elite, high-class education must be hoarded by a select few, because if everybody had it, it would lose its value to the elite.

Which just begins to explain why someone like Mossimo Giannulli might want to be able to say, “my daughter is at U.S.C.”

***

When people are willing to drown themselves in debt and even commit literal crimes in order to obtain an elite college education for themselves or their kids, what, really, what exactly, do they they think they are buying?

Or selling. What are people thinking, who are selling an “education” that is actively harming a whole society; that wrecks the fabric of a city, that causes people to lose their grip on their conscience, their sanity; that makes them set so catastrophic an example, somehow both before, and on behalf of, their children. All this makes a mockery of the Enlightenment values—by which I mean the egalitarianism and erudition of Alexander Pope, and not Edmund Burke getting himself in a lather over Marie Antoinette—that a Western education was once imagined to represent.

Reaction to the admissions scandal has so far centered on these rich parents and their unworthy spawn, whose lawyers now prepare to spin a tale of misguided, but forgivable, parental devotion. No less a cultural authority than the playwright David Mamet wrote an “open letter” defending accused admissions cheat Felicity Huffman; according to him, “a parent’s zeal for her children’s future may have overcome her better judgment for a moment.” Except that the “moment” went on for months, according to court filings, and involved Huffman’s paying $15,000 to ensure that her daughter would have twice the time to complete her SAT exam that an ordinary, non-bribery-enabled kid would have. Also to hire a crooked proctor afterwards, who could change some of her daughter’s wrong answers to correct ones.

In any case, Hess is right: You can get an ultrafine education at A.S.U. That place is an R1 university, positively bristling with Nobel laureates and MacArthur fellows. Walter V. Robinson, who led the famous “Spotlight” newsroom at the Boston Globe, teaches there. It’s wild to think anyone would be willing to blow half a million dollars to ensure an admission to U.S.C. over A.S.U.

Anyone who has been to (any) college can tell you that the proportion of enlightenment to hangovers varies greatly from customer to customer. It’s something else altogether that calls for the half-million bucks.

***

Coming from a quite different angle—and on March 27th, the very same day as Hess’s piece—Herb Childress, in the Chronicle of Higher Education, asked: “How did we decide that professors don’t deserve job security or a decent salary?” (“This is How You Kill a Profession.”) Childress is one of tens of thousands of Ph.D.s in the United States who failed to find a place on the tenure track, and who were slowly forced out of a professional academic career as their prospects faded year by year in the academic Hunger Games, as this brutal process is not uncommonly described.

You might assume that people like Childress just “didn’t make it” through some fault of their own, but you’d be wrong. Over the last fifty years academic work has come to look more and more like indentured servitude: Grad students and postdocs are a species of flexible workers in a gig economy, toiling in low-paying jobs waiting for their once-a-year chance to play the tenure track lottery.

Please note that these are the very people who work in the “good schools,” who are compelled to “teach,” for insanely low pay—like, a few thousand dollars per class—people like Mossimo Giannulli’s daughter Olivia Jade, a famous YouTube “Influencer.” This lady’s dad paid hundreds of thousands to put her in the orbit of hugely educated, committed, job-insecure people like Childress. She, meanwhile, impishly bragged to her legion of YouTube followers that she doesn’t really “care about school.”

And yet scholars like Childress can’t let go of their romantic notions of the academy, and their sense of vocation, which can easily be exploited; unfortunately they’ll agree to live the dream even at cut rates, as Childress himself openly admitted in the Chron.
The grief of not finding a home in higher ed—of having done everything as well as I was capable of doing, and having it not pan out; of being told over and over how well I was doing and how much my contributions mattered, even as the prize was withheld—consumed more than a decade. It affected my physical health. It affected my mental health. It ended my first marriage. […]

Like any addict, I have to be vigilant whenever higher ed calls again. I know what it means to be a member of that cult, to believe in the face of all evidence, to persevere, to serve. I know what it means to take a 50-percent pay cut and move across the country to be allowed back inside the academy as a postdoc after six years in the secular professions. To be grateful to give up a career, to give up economic comfort, in order to once again be a member.

Consider the benefits-free, pension-free pittance paid to the vast majority of people providing the elite education, who never saw a dime of all those millions in bribes, and a more complicated and larger picture than we’ve yet seen emerges."



"I wasn’t nearly as much of a paragon, but as a brown-trash “gifted” kid who came up poor and went to fancy schools I can easily understand how listening to this brilliant lecturer dazzled my friend, and changed the course of his life. This feeling comes to students anywhere, everywhere, in every school with a good teacher with time and attention to give us. There was and still is something vital, something good and real, to want out of an “education,” something quite beyond the ken of the kind of people who would pay an SAT proctor to cheat.

Then there’s this other angle. I first went off to college already inured to the idea that I was involved in an economy; that we were trading. Everything had been made easier for the rich kids, of course, and it wasn’t their fault, all had been bought and paid for by their parents and grandparents, but also—a crucial thing—they had also lacked our luck; they lacked certain desirable qualities, qualities as randomly distributed as wealth, things with which some of us had won a different lottery, had skipped grades with and been celebrated for: the sort of “intelligence” that made school easy. There seemed to be a natural symbiosis in this structure, crazy and shameful as the whole business of “meritocracy” appears to me now.

But also like all college kids we mainly didn’t give a fuck about any of that and just got to be friends for true reasons, just loved one another. The rich kids happened to be able to teach the poor ones what fork to use and how to ski, and the poor and/or brown kids of halfway reasonable intelligence gave them books, new kinds of food and family, music and art, a view of the other side of the tracks, new ways to have fun. We poor ones brought, say, a taste for Lester Bangs, arroz con pollo, Brian Eno and Virginia Woolf; they treated us to foie gras and Tahoe and big old California cabs on our 18th birthday. Gross, right? Really gross. But the (grotesquely mistaken) idea was that we were bringing each other into a better world, a different world, and a little at a time the true, good world would finally come.

This may sound a bit tinfoil but now I suspect that the problem may have been, all along, that all the college kids started to realize together (as I think they are still) that there was something sick at the roots of this tree of knowledge as it was then constituted. Strangely, dangerously healing, egalitarian ideas began to take hold; demographics changed, and the country began to move to the left. The 90s was the era of the tenured radical on campus, and the culture wars grew white-hot. Al Gore was elected president, and was prevented by the merest whisker from taking office. Even a barely left of center President Gore would have made things a little too parlous for the powers that be, who are on the same side as the Giannullis of the world.

Hess told me that some people think there’s one kind of education within the purview of everyone willing to work to get it, the “embarrassing” kind, and then there’s another kind that is luxury goods, strictly for “elites” from “elite” institutions—however corrupt the latter may be—served tableside by an underpaid servant class.

But the egalitarian view of education and the luxury view are mutually exclusive. Pulling up the drawbridge around your ivory tower only cuts it off from the global commons, which alone can provide the intellectual atmosphere in which a free society, and its academy, can breathe and thrive. Power wants its “meritocracy”: thus the eternal cake-having rhetoric around higher education, the queasy mingling of “exclusivity” and “diversity.”

Note too that the ruling class protects its interests as starkly on the fake left of the centrist Democrats as it does on the right, where the Koch brothers have long bought professors like they were so many cups of coffee. In Jacobin, Liza Featherstone’s … [more]
education  elitism  highered  highereducation  2019  mariabustillos  culture  society  smartness  petebuttigieg  operationvaristyblues  meritocracy  us  capitalism  competition  scarcity  lizafeatherstone  donaldtrump  centrism  herbchildress  academia  colleges  universities  rankings  admissions 
9 weeks ago by robertogreco
List: Revolutionary Quotes From Centrist History - McSweeney’s Internet Tendency
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Although, that doesn’t really seem fair to the rich, does it?”
— Jesus Christ, 28 AD

“No taxation without representation. I’m not sure how much representation, I don’t have an exact number.”
— James Otis, 1761

“We hold these truths to be self-evident but just worry that the vast majority of Americans won’t be ready to embrace them.”
— Declaration of Independence, 1776

“Crime butchers Innocence to secure a throne, and Innocence struggles with all its might to have a civil conversation with Crime.”
— Maximilien Robespierre, 1794

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. But maybe we should try politely asking again!”
— Frederick Douglass, 1857

“A house divided against itself sounds expensive to rebuild.”
— Abraham Lincoln, 1858

“Men, their rights, and nothing more. Women, their rights, which I am now prepared to announce that, after quite a bit of soul-searching, I am in support of.”
— Susan B. Anthony & Cady Elizabeth Stanton, 1866

“The only thing we have to fear is… any fundamental change to the status quo.”
— Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1932

“We shall compromise on the beaches, we shall compromise on the landing grounds, we shall compromise on the field and in the streets, we shall compromise in the hills, and we will see if surrendering makes sense long-term.”
— Winston Churchill, 1940

“Ask not what your country can do for you. End of sentence.”
— John F. Kennedy, 1961

“Every true Congressman or woman will join the struggle with inflexible determination not to remain alive to see the country in bondage and slavery. Which I admire, but is it realistic?”
— Mahatma Gandhi, 1942

“In the end, anti-black, anti-female, and all forms of discrimination are equivalent to the same thing: anti-humanism. Oh, and being anti-white and anti-men, we need to be fair to both sides here.”
— Shirley Chisholm, 1972

“We shall crush apartheid and white minority racist rule in the marketplace of ideas.”
— Nelson Mandela, 1980

“Maybe, we might.”
— Barack Obama, 2008

“Disrupt the system with a centrist approach.”
— Howard Schultz, 2019
centrism  humor  2019  politics  democrats  jonthanappel 
march 2019 by robertogreco

« earlier    

related tags

#europa  2019  a  academia  accountability  admissions  akehurstluke  alt-center  alt-right  alt.centrist  altright  angeladavis  angellrichard  anti-semitism  anti-zionism  assad  assatashakur  audio  austerity  authoritarianism  bds  bennism  bergerluciana  bernie2020  berniesanders  bernsteinedouard  billhaywood  blairism  blairtony  bluelabour  bolesnick  bolsonarojair  both-sidism  boycott  brad-delong  bradelong  brazil  brexit  bullshit  camerondavid  canada  capitalism  capitalistrealism  cdu  centrists  change_uk  changeuk  china  citizenship  class  clear  clintonbill  clintonhillary  coalition  colleges  collinsdamian  communism  competition  compromise  conflict  confrontation  consensus  conservatism  corbynism  corbynjeremy  corruption  corybooker  crisis  culture  cuomoandrew  customsunion  dataviz  dc:contributor=parkerlaura  dc:creator=bastaniaaron  dc:creator=beckettandy  dc:creator=behrrafael  dc:creator=bushstephen  dc:creator=butlerjames  dc:creator=d'anconamatthew  dc:creator=dillowchris  dc:creator=elliottlarry  dc:creator=finlaysonlaura  dc:creator=finlaysonlorna  dc:creator=freedlandjonathan  dc:creator=gilbertjeremy  dc:creator=harrisjohn  dc:creator=jonesowen  dc:creator=kettlemartin  dc:creator=kibasitom  dc:creator=masonpaul  dc:creator=maytheresa  dc:creator=robertschris  dc:creator=seymourrichard  dc:creator=toozeadam  dc:creator=wren-lewissimon  dctagged  debate  defeat  deindustrialisation  delegitimisation  democracy  democraticparty  democrats  dems  deselection  determinism  diversity  division  dnc  donaldtrump  economics  economy  education  electability  election  election2020  elections  elites  elitism  elizabethwarren  enmarche  epistemology  ethics  eu  eugenedebs  europe  europeanparliament  exclusion  extremism  failure  false-equivalence  false-equivalencies  farright  fascism  fbpe  fdp  fecklesscentrists  federalism  fidelcastro  fidesz  finance  financialisation  foreignpolicy  france  frankssimon  fredhampton  free-speech  freedemocraticparty  fueltax  gaitskellhugh  gammon  gapesmike  generalelection  georgemcgovern  germany  giddensanthony  giletsjaunes  globalisation  goddardjames  governance  greece  greenparty  greens  greenwald  growth  hancockmatt  herbchildress  heseltinemichael  highered  highereducation  hillaryclinton  history  hochiminh  hugochávez  humor  hungary  ideology  ifttt  ihra  immigration  in  independentgroup  individualism  inequality  internationalism  internet  intervention  intolerance  iraq  israel  italy  iww  jacquesmartin  jenkinsroy  jews  joebiden  johnsonboris  jonesowen  jonthanappel  journalism  kamalaharris  karlmarx  kendallliz  krugman  labor  labour  labourfirst  labourism  labourparty  lawandjusticeparty  leadership  leave  left  lenin  lesliechris  liberaldemocratparty  liberalism  lizafeatherstone  lrb  m5s  macronemmanuel  managerialism  maozedong  mariabustillos  markets  marxismtoday  maytheresa  mccluskeylen  mcveyesther  meaningfulvote  media  membership  meritocracy  merkelangela  migration  mikemordowanec  milibanded  moderate  moderation  momentum  mouffechantal  mulgangeoff  nationalisation  nationalism  nationalsecurity  nativism  nec  neo-nazism  neoliberalism  never  new-york-times  newlabour  newyork  nodeal  norway  norwayplus  novara  observer  of  onenation  openbritain  operationvaristyblues  owendavid  palestine  partisanship  patricelumumba  peoplesvote  petebuttigieg  philosophy  pittsburgh  plo  pocket  podemos  poland  polarisation  polarization  policy  politics  polls  populism  powelljonathan  precarity  progress  protest  provocation  punditry  putinvladimir  raabdominic  race  racism  rankings  rassemblementnational  redistribution  rees-moggjacob  referendum  reform  remain  resignation  riot  robinsontommy  rosaluxemburg  ruddamber  runcimandavid  russia  salvinimatteo  sanctions  sandersbernie  scarcity  schroedergerhard  sdp  self-determination  senate  sexism  shooting  sinnfein  skripalsergei  sloterdijk  smartness  smears  smithangela  snydertimothy  socialconservatism  socialdemocracy  socialism  socialmedia  society  softbrexit  solidarity  soubryanna  sovietunion  spd  spectrum  split  stagnation  starmerkeir  stephen_bush  sterlingraheem  stillwithering  synagogue  syriza  tactics  tax  taxation  technocracy  tempering  tennessee  test  thatcherism  theleft  theright  third-way  thirdway  thomassankara  to_blog  toryparty  tradewar  trump  trumpdonald  tuitionfees  tunis  uk  ukraine  umunnachuka  un  unitedforchange  universities  us  usa  venezuela  vi:justincharles  visualization  vladimirlenin  vox  vs.  watsontom  welfarestate  williamsongavin  withdrawalagreement  work  wreath  xenophobia  yellowvestsuk  zionism 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: