Shifting attitudes in the US, and progressivism taking a few steps back?

[BPPLEE]

Thats completely wrong. Sometimes people come to see the problem, and then correct. Sometimes they dont. There's no "only" about this.

People come to see me problem after the absurdity gets worse and the people who said it was a slippery slope say we told you so

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I think it's pretty fundamental.

Middle to working class and poor left wing people tend to be fiscally liberal but socially conservative. Lets call them the "traditional left".

Wealthy left-wing people tend to be both fiscally and socially liberal. Let's call them "progressive left".

While the two groups have quite a bit of policy overlap, there are quite a few policies that appeal to the progressive left, but negatively impact traditional left members (think progressives' crime and sentencing policies, tariffs and trade, immigration, some progressive education policies, etc.).

IMO the problem seems to be that Democratic messaging and party "culture" has been a lot about socially liberal policies, and not enough about traditional left policies, and that has led to those voters deserting the party or not voting at all.

 

[rjs330]

Voters wanted progressive reforms--abortion referendums, $15 per hour minimum wages, other employee benefits.
And yet they voted for Trump.
They didn't believe that Trump would stomp his golden sneakers on 90% of the programs that make their lives livable.
Those of us who know this are naturally upset by those who voted by fake news who will repent at leisure. SMH.

This is just sour grapes.

1. States are free to set whatever minimum wage they want.
2. States are free to have their own abortion laws.
3. States are free to pass their own legislation regarding employee benefits.
Trump has not promised to stop any of these state efforts. You really do believe he's going to become a dictator don't you.

How sad.

 

[rjs330]

I think even many progressives have come around to the mindset of "instead of locking up the toothpaste, how about we lock up the people who are stealing the toothpaste", and while being in favor of relaxing drug policy, probably got tired of trying to take their kids to the local park and having to tell them to make sure they don't step on needles and not get too close to the guy who's passed out in his own vomit on the bench.

I think that's become more clear. At least for now. I also think some of the other social issues have played a part as well. Men in women's spaces, including sports, the medicalizing of children, and the flooding of the country with illegals, DEI, CRT, all play a part in the shift.

I do think the largest piece was the economy. But people really have been inundated with a lot of these other things which one issue by itself may not have been enough, combined became too much.

I'm hoping Congress can start addressing the economy right a away. I'm not sure how quick Title IX can be fixed.

But I do know that there are some things that will take time to work through.

 

[FireDragon76]

While obviously all of the political focus has been on the presidential election this past week (makes sense, that's "the big one"), there have been some much less-covered political outcomes that have taken place, that I feel are part of the same pattern of centrists and even some left-leaning folks issuing a referendum or "rebuke" of sorts against some of the progressive policies and initiatives, that I feel, are part of the broader pattern that led to Trump winning the popular vote.


San Francisco Mayor London Breed lost the reelection bid by 12 points
Progressive Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao got ousted
California voters passed prop 36, to re-elevate certain shoplifting and drug offenses back to felonies where they were before

Harris won the states of New York and New Jersey by a smaller percentage than Trump won in Florida and Texas. (yet, in past election cycles, we always heard hopeful optimism that Texas and Florida were on the verge of becoming purple states)...in this election, New Jersey was more "purple" than the actual swing states. (Harris only carried 51% of the vote there)

Minnesota (a state that hasn't been a red since 1972...they were the only blue state in the landslide that Reagan had), Harris only got 51.1% of the vote there.

Will this create a "look in the mirror" moment for Democrats, and will we see a more concerted effort to gravitate towards more moderate candidates in the midterms and in 2028?

The reason why I focused on blue states here, is because the "conventional talking points" have been centered around "Trump emboldened the racists and sexists, and there was a fearmongering and hype that caused the outcome", but the places I mentioned aren't really susceptible to that. Obviously the "red state hype" that gets perpetuated about places in California to people in red states is a non-starter, because we're talking about the people who actually live there voting the way they did. Deep blue areas being "more immune to right-wing propaganda" for the last 12 years, and magically "falling for it" now isn't a plausible explanation for those sorts of outcomes.

There are political conservatives in every state, including California. The harsher punishments for shoplifting and public disorder were mostly due to northern California counties that have a logstanding contingency of conservative voters.

It's too early to figure out if this is a national trend. In most democracies in the world right now, incumbents were punished by voters for post-COVID inflation. It's highly plausible this isn't, in fact, a political realignment, but represents a protest vote.

In ballot initiatives often associated with progressives and liberals, like abortion rights or legalization of marijuana, there were gains at the state level in about a dozen states.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Far and away this was a "change" election based on the economy, stupid*. The rest was window dressing.




*I'm not calling you stupid.

That wouldn't seem to explain some of the unions (who've been reliable democratic allies) refusing to do endorsements this time around though, would it?

Certain the policies of the Democratic party are far more favorable (at least economically) for the pro-union interests.

That leads me to believe that the rank and file of some of those unions perhaps prioritized some of the social issues above (or at least equal to) some of the economic aspects this time around.

 

[BCP1928]

That wouldn't seem to explain some of the unions (who've been reliable democratic allies) refusing to do endorsements this time around though, would it?

Certain the policies of the Democratic party are far more favorable (at least economically) for the pro-union interests.

That leads me to believe that the rank and file of some of those unions perhaps prioritized some of the social issues above (or at least equal to) some of the economic aspects this time around.

It's not that they are prioritized, but the unions realize that their membership has a variety of individual views on the 'social issues' none of which are pertinent to the real problems labor actually faces. I hope so, anyway because it is important to the labor movement not to be divided by contrived social issues.

 

[durangodawood]

People come to see me problem after the absurdity gets worse and the people who said it was a slippery slope say we told you so

Theres no principle that if people get a little of something, then they will demand all of it. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they dont.

If slippery slope was a reliable principle then: we should not trust people with some degree of liberty, because thats the start of a slippery slope to them demanding complete liberty, and it will be anarchy!

 

[rjs330]

It's not that they are prioritized, but the unions realize that their membership has a variety of individual views on the 'social issues' none of which are pertinent to the real problems labor actually faces. I hope so, anyway because it is important to the labor movement not to be divided by contrived social issues.

However I think this vote was a referendum on both labor issues AND social ones. Economic and social. America has realized, for now, that the radical left agenda is bad for both.

The Republicans won nearly every county in the US. And the Republicans better not squander that. Otherwise they will be promptly ousted.

 

[durangodawood]

That wouldn't seem to explain some of the unions (who've been reliable democratic allies) refusing to do endorsements this time around though, would it?

Certain the policies of the Democratic party are far more favorable (at least economically) for the pro-union interests.

That leads me to believe that the rank and file of some of those unions perhaps prioritized some of the social issues above (or at least equal to) some of the economic aspects this time around.

Union members likely feel the same economic squeeze that non union working class people do. And vote accordingly.

Actual policies are overrated generally as voter motivation. People were voting economic vibe, and not really thinking through the effects of this or that policy. I dont think most people even trust that Trump really intends many of the policies he hints at.

Do you really think that if people were feeling economically optimistic generally that trans this and that would have flipped the election? It would have just looked like a desperate distraction from an irrelevant has been.

 

[rjs330]

Union members likely feel the same economic squeeze that non union working class people do. And vote accordingly.

Actual policies are overrated generally as voter motivation. People were voting economic vibe, and not really thinking through the effects of this or that policy. I dont think most people even trust that Trump really intends many of the policies he hints at.

Do you really think that if people were feeling economically optimistic generally that trans this and that would have flipped the election? It would have just looked like a desperate distraction from an irrelevant has been.

You are missing it here. America has spoken on ALL of it. If you only separate one issue out of the rest and want to make a claim that America would not voted on that alone, you are probably correct. But Trump didn't run on a single issue. He ran on the issues the majority of American cared about. Economic AND social.

And Americans believe for now that he and the republicans are the best to address those things. Whether they will remains to be seen. Actions speak louder thsn words.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's not that they are prioritized, but the unions realize that their membership has a variety of individual views on the 'social issues' none of which are pertinent to the real problems labor actually faces. I hope so, anyway because it is important to the labor movement not to be divided by contrived social issues.

Based on some of the localized voting patterns in blue areas, it would appear that some of the issues aren't just "contrived made up culture war stuff" that they've been getting dismissed as.

I think San Fran voting out London Breed (by 12 percentage points no less), and the residents of San Fran voting in favor of Prop 36 (64% of San Fran voted in favor... it passed with over 70% statewide)

San Fransisco isn't a "split electorate" by any means. Only 12% of the people in that city are registered republicans, and 90% of the voters in that city voted against Trump. These aren't people who are sitting at home watching Fox News or listening to some right-wing podcast.

These are progressive people who probably living in perhaps the biggest progressive echo chamber in the country...

They just voted to re-criminalize certain drugs again, voted to elevate major shoplifting back up to a felony, and sent London Breed packing.


I think that it was a major blind spot for Democrats to keep dismissing literally every critique about progressive policies as "just some made up culture war stuff by the republicans". I think they said it for so long they started to believe their own bovine excrement.

As it turns out the red-state critiques about the specific progressive policies of San Fran being problematic, were just affirmed by the San Fran voters.

 

[durangodawood]

You are missing it here. America has spoken on ALL of it. If you only separate one issue out of the rest and want to make a claim that America would not voted on that alone, you are probably correct. But Trump didn't run on a single issue. He ran on the issues the majority of American cared about. Economic AND social.

And Americans believe for now that he and the republicans are the best to address those things. Whether they will remains to be seen. Actions speak louder thsn words.

People do care about the various social issues. In an alternate reality where people didnt feel they could distinguish an economic distinction between the two candidates, then, yeah, other issues would have made the difference.

 

[BCP1928]

You are missing it here. America has spoken on ALL of it. If you only separate one issue out of the rest and want to make a claim that America would not voted on that alone, you are probably correct. But Trump didn't run on a single issue. He ran on the issues the majority of American cared about. Economic AND social.

And Americans believe for now that he and the republicans are the best to address those things. Whether they will remains to be seen. Actions speak louder thsn words.

I believe that by and large, the social issues had less relevance htn you think. The LGBT issues are important to the base, but the working class bonus that Trump got had more to do with economics and immigration than the sex stuff.

 

[durangodawood]

Based on some of the localized voting patterns in blue areas, it would appear that some of the issues aren't just "contrived made up culture war stuff" that they've been getting dismissed as.

I think San Fran voting out London Breed (by 12 percentage points no less), and the residents of San Fran voting in favor of Prop 36 (64% of San Fran voted in favor... it passed with over 70% statewide)

San Fransisco isn't a "split electorate" by any means. Only 12% of the people in that city are registered republicans, and 90% of the voters in that city voted against Trump. These aren't people who are sitting at home watching Fox News or listening to some right-wing podcast.

These are progressive people who probably living in perhaps the biggest progressive echo chamber in the country...

They just voted to re-criminalize certain drugs again, voted to elevate major shoplifting back up to a felony, and sent London Breed packing.


I think that it was a major blind spot for Democrats to keep dismissing literally every critique about progressive policies as "just some made up culture war stuff by the republicans". I think they said it for so long they started to believe their own bovine excrement.

As it turns out the red-state critiques about the specific progressive policies of San Fran being problematic, were just affirmed by the San Fran voters.

Crime is a big driver for local politics. Probably more than "the economy" or the various culture wars issues.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Union members likely feel the same economic squeeze that non union working class people do. And vote accordingly.

Actual policies are overrated generally as voter motivation. People were voting economic vibe, and not really thinking through the effects of this or that policy. I dont think most people even trust that Trump really intends many of the policies he hints at.

Do you really think that if people were feeling economically optimistic generally that trans this and that would have flipped the election? It would have just looked like a desperate distraction from an irrelevant has been.

Maybe not that issue alone, but that issue combined with immigration issues and crime issues certainly could've flipped it.

Many democrats themselves, spent the last few elections cycles coining phrases about that things they referred to as "red line issues"

I heard some say it about vaccines
I heard some say it about climate change
I heard some say it about abortion

Meaning, if a candidate wasn't in alignment with them on those things, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for them even if they may have liked some of their other polices.

I think they failed to acknowledge that other people (independents and even some the people from their own team) have some "red line issues" of their own, and they all may not align with each on which issues are the "deal breakers".

 

[durangodawood]

Maybe not that issue alone, but that issue combined with immigration issues and crime issues certainly could've flipped it.

Many democrats themselves, spent the last few elections cycles coining phrases about that things they referred to as "red line issues"

I heard some say it about vaccines
I heard some say it about climate change
I heard some say it about abortion

Meaning, if a candidate wasn't in alignment with them on those things, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for them even if they may have liked some of their other polices.

I think they failed to acknowledge that other people (independents and even some the people from their own team) have some "red line issues" of their own, and they all may not align with each on which issues are the "deal breakers".

Red line issue voters on both sides stuck with their side just like they did last time. No change there. As for the rest:

Immigration yes. Crime yes. People see those as potentially affecting them personally one way or another.

Abortion. Yes that issue secures quite a bit of loyalty. But perhaps now that the Dobbs deal is done, a few pro choice people see the federal level stakes as lowered, and might switch to Trump for econ reasons. I did hear anecdotes of this. No data tho.

Trans stuff and "the free speech climate on campus" etc. Low priority.

Climate change. For most people the issue seems a little out of reach. People have difficulty assimilating slow moving concepts, like over decades. Also, its the air, and the air is invisible, politically - unless it becomes really bad smog. This probably makes people sound not very smart, which would be accurate. Drill baby drill had some appeal in our economic climate.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Crime is a big driver for local politics. Probably more than "the economy" or the various culture wars issues.

But the topic of "crime" had been absorbed into the realm that is "culture war issues".

The "red team" bashing San Fransisco for being "crime ridden, homeless drug addicts shooting up on the streets, etc..." was getting dismissed as "right wing propaganda, they want to bash San Fran because it's a notoriously liberal stronghold" and part of the "culture war".


The blue team can't come in now, post-hoc, and remove the things from that realm that have been proven to be correct.


I saw a pundit on MSNBC imply the same, they tried to frame the topic of "crime in San Fransisco, Oakland, and LA" as if it was some stand-alone topic that wasn't part of the "culture war" debates.

They can't simply keep redefining "what the culture war is" by selectively omitting things that the republicans end up being right about, so that they can reframing "culture war" as "just the made up social issues the GOP is wrong about"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Red line issue voters on both sides stuck with their side just like they did last time. No change there. As for the rest:

Immigration yes. Crime yes. People see those as potentially affecting them personally one way or another.

Abortion. Yes that issue secures quite a bit of loyalty. But perhaps now that the Dobbs deal is done, a few pro choice people see the federal level stakes as lowered, and might switch to Trump for econ reasons. I did hear anecdotes of this. No data tho.

Trans stuff and "the free speech climate on campus" etc. Low priority.

Climate change. For most people the issue seems a little out of reach. People have difficulty assimilating slow moving concepts, like over decades. Also, its the air, and the air is invisible, politically - unless it becomes really bad smog. This probably makes people sound not very smart, which would be accurate. Drill baby drill had some appeal in our economic climate.

But clearly there was a change somewhere...

Groups and trade organizations that endorsed Biden in 2020 neglected to do so again.


And clearly some other "red lines" were crossed for some people who voted Democratic last time.

While Trump appears to have gotten an additional 600,000 votes this time around... Kamala appears to have gotten around 10 million fewer votes this time around.

While Trump did make some gains in some key demographics, it's not enough to explain the 10 million vote downswing the Democrats had this time.

So while there may have not been many "red lines" that crossed for die-hard members of the 2 teams. Perhaps some red lines were crossed or some tipping points were reached among moderates and independents?




Perhaps the "red line" that was crossed for independents and moderates was the overarching clear tone and messaging of the mainstream democrats that made it pretty clear that "moderates aren't welcome here in our party". I'm sure you remember people like Sinema, Tulsi, and Manchin (and Democrats like them) basically getting "shunned" and forced out of the party for "not being sufficiently progressive enough"

 

[durangodawood]

But the topic of "crime" had been absorbed into the realm that is "culture war issues".

The "red team" bashing San Fransisco for being "crime ridden, homeless drug addicts shooting up on the streets, etc..." was getting dismissed as "right wing propaganda, they want to bash San Fran because it's a notoriously liberal stronghold" and part of the "culture war".


The blue team can't come in now, post-hoc, and remove the things from that realm that have been proven to be correct.


I saw a pundit on MSNBC imply the same, they tried to frame the topic of "crime in San Fransisco, Oakland, and LA" as if it was some stand-alone topic that wasn't part of the "culture war" debates.

They can't simply keep redefining "what the culture war is" by selectively omitting things that the republicans end up being right about, so that they can reframing "culture war" as "just the made up social issues the GOP is wrong about"

I dont really care about "the framing". Crime is visceral personal safety. Like the economy is visceral personal wealth.

People in their voting behavior will not tie crime to the nexus of "cultural values" stuff like abortion, trans things, etc. SF flipped in terms of crime policy as you note. Did it flip its regard for abortion rights, gay rights, etc?