I think some white women have internalized sexism to the point that they want more for their sons than their daughters or themselves. Policies that limit white male power are unwanted because they might limit sons. These women don’t view themselves nor their daughters as full people.
"if Democratic leaders said that the GOP is not inseparable from MAGA and can be redeemed, they’d give longtime Republicans “permission” to vote for Democrats."
We need a good, strong punch and once we have removed the turd from the bowl, this will once again be some that people should drink.
As with the five or six opinions I have, I repeat this one constantly-
One of the biggest problems the US has with countering fascism is a deep reluctance to ever admit that people do actually want it. That's not to say it's good- people want terrible things all the time- but it's also not to say people have to be tricked into wanting it.
People like the promises it makes. It relieves them of responsibility and promises to hurt people they want hurt. It promises action and decisiveness, it promises them a place and certainty. It doesn't have to lie to them, but they often have to lie to themselves.
Until people can accept there's no need for "brainwashing" and that, at least, authoritarianism does appeal to people who are not being deceived it can't be properly stamped out.
"Here’s what bothers me whenever the same liberals who share anti-Trump social media posts from Adam Kinzinger and Joe Walsh also imply that a Black or woman Republican is inherently self-loathing. That argument suggests that only white men have a true choice between the two major political parties."
"It’s why former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi keeps insisting we need a “strong” Republican Party."
That argument always makes me cringe. We don't need a strong Republican party. We don't need a Republican party at all. What we DO need is at least two parties. Simply so that there won't just be one party. There are no specific dynamics at either party needs a hold, just simply that there needs to be more than one of them. Because here's the conundrum. Whenever there are multiple solutions proposed for a problem, There is Almost always going to be the best solution to the problem. Imagine if you had five solutions for the problem of how to get a man to the moon and back. One of them is going to be the best and one of them is going to be the worst. and theoretically you should always be able to pick the best solution to a problem. So even though two parties are necessary, one of the parties is going to be an obstacle to progress. One party is going to exist solely from keeping good stuff from happening. What I would like to see is the Republican party be obliterated, and current centrist Democrats become the new right and allow the progressives to take another notch or two to the left. I think parsing that could leave us with some Good solutions even if not perfect
"It sounds as if liberals are calling them inferior, which is hardly a great canvassing strategy."
Not a great strategy but wholly accurate. People consumed with hate and sadism are by definition inferior human beings. they exist to be defeated. To the extent that Mollycoddling them Is a means to that end, that's up for debate. But I'm up for anything
I once asked a woman of color why she voted GOP: because someday she and her husband would hopefully be rich and they wanted to keep their money. I asked another woman why she was so incensed about immigrants: her family came here legally and anyone who didn’t wasn’t worthy. There’s your answer.
I really dig this version of Everybody Wants to Rule the World, by Robert Glasper with Lalah Hathaway and Common. I play it on DJ nights and people always come to the both to ask about it.
In the Confederacy hierarchy, God gives white men authority, with the duty to protect white women and children; white women, then, are above children, slaves, and other inferior people. As this hierarchy persists in American conservatism, many women embrace the combination of protection and superiority. Not difficult to understand but still fucked up.
Canuckistan perspective here, but we have a similar dynamic between conservative and liberal which has become more heated and partisan.
I work in the oil and gas sector (Albertastan) and the people I work with vote conservative because of singular, often petty reasons. They do not see beyond what benefits them, be it the promise of lower taxes and legislation discriminating against people they don't like. It doesn't personally affect them either way who is in power, but like a sporting event, they choose sides and cheer. They are intelligent, articulate and successful, but politically will go for the candidate that panders to their worldview.
However, as Stephen points out above, you cannot tell these people how to vote. The proof of that was here in 2015, when the incumbent conservative premier (who was a transplant from down east) when confronted about shaky economic outlook told a news outlet that Albertans had to 'look in the mirror' to see who was to blame, not the 4 decades of Conservative government.
He was trounced in the following election and Albertans voted in the lefty New Democratic Party in a landslide as a punishment to being blamed by their ruling dynasty. We reverted back to conservative in the next election (with the further right loopy Danielle Smith) but the upshot was you don't tell Albertans what they don't want to hear. Even if you're the dynastic rulers.
“However, as American composer Frank Wilhoit observed in 2018, “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
The point with asking why (white) women would vote Republican is that if they do so they are voting against interest and the vast majority of them must be aware of that on one level or another. Every woman knows how close she came to getting pregnant when she didn’t want to be, every woman knows how easily pregnancies can go wrong, every woman can sympathise with the desperate longing for a child even if she hasn’t felt it herself. Even if none of that has affected them personally it’s impossible not to know that it might affect your sister/daughter/niece one day.
So asking this question is not a suggestion that they are somehow second class citizen, it’s asking why would you do this, if not to yourself but to your sisters?
I think the thing is they don't expect to ever need an abortion themselves, and figure that if they did, they could get one (they know a friendly doctor who can make it look like a 'miscarriage', they could travel out of state for it). Or they would just not want one.
They just have a different perspective for what is in "their interest." It doesn't make them reasonable, or good people, but it explains why people vote that way and why we shouldn't be too surprised when they do so.
Same goes for white men--"why would they favor policies that screw them over?" They don't think such policies do screw them over! And I'm sure they love the women in their lives, or have black or Hispanic friends they care about--they just don't think they're hurting them.
Republicans don’t have “sisters and brothers” — they have fellow powerful people. That is the problem with assuming they are voting against their self interest.
The character in a sci fi film who sells out the human race to alien invaders in exchange for power is acting fully in their self interest
Manic Pixel: You are so correct. Republicans lack empathy and will only change positions if that personally benefits them. For example, Nancy Reagan opposed stem cell research until it would have benefitted Ronnie.
Ok, I get the lack of empathy, it’s a characteristic of the Right everywhere in the world so far as I can see. But not recognising your own self interest is another level of stupid.
One could argue they are SO self-interested a la a Byron Donalds type so high on his own supply that he becomes a Jim Crow-apologist, that they lose the self-interest forest for the egomaniacal trees. Regardless of their identity or background, some people never see themselves as part of any particular group, they are solely invested in their own self-aggrandizement. Weapons-grade solipsism. So anything that might be bad for the group they ostensibly belong to has nothing to do with them and they genuinely don’t care. They are subsequently always taken by surprise when the leopards inevitably eat their face.
If Byron Donalds got elected as a Democrat in one of the party’s dwindling few safe seats from Florida, no one would know his name. He wouldn’t be on the short list for VP, etc. He could possibly replace DeSantis as governor. He’s doing just fine.
The Dark Side is tempting, believe me. I speak from experience but even in the liberal political writing world, white liberals are often supportive of Black people in general but less so specifically. It’s like how RBG had no Black law clerks. Whereas conservatives might crap on Black people in general but will elevate those close to them. I’ve seen this in practice.
You’re right, of course. I’ve even heard it said that the open racism of the South (or elsewhere) is sometimes even preferred because at least you know what you’re dealing with. It seems like Donalds is using that to his advantage. He is more than happy to be used as a fig leaf if it means he can advance and damn everyone else affected by policies he can happily ignore or excuse.
Yep--Byron Donalds (to take one example) sees a very clear self interest in supporting GOP policies. He also probably agrees with a lot of conservative stuff (anti-abortion, pro-business, etc.) and thinks those things are in his interest. So how does he reconcile with supporting a party that is hostile to black people?
Because when you support everything else they stand for, you can rationalize that they are NOT hostile to black people.
Also, as Dems learned with immigration, class often trumps race. Latinos don’t think Republicans hate them or even all immigrants, just illegals immigrants, and conservative Black people probably think the GOP is hostile to poor people and “thugs” in general not just Black people. Dems alienate a lot of minorities when they suggest that we are all on welfare, etc
Good point. Likely to be the fate of many Trump supporters and apologists, not least the MSM who seem to have forgotten the old saying about “he who rides the tiger”. Act in haste, repent at leisure.
The world you see around you is republic, in action and deed. Global in scope and millennia strong, republic has no leaders (nor wants one), respects no borders, and answers to no law but its own.
Very good points Stephen--I think the notion of "how could [woman/racial minority/gay person] vote against their interest" just comes from this idea that it is so blindingly obvious that the Right are evil that we cannot fathom that others don't see it that way, or that people value some things more than others. If for example you truly believe that liberals are soft on criminals and hard on cops, and you fear criminals more than you care about any other issue (health care, racism, etc.) then you might just be willing to vote Republican even if you think Republicans are bigoted towards you.
And why is it so hard to believe a lot of racial minorities or women do not believe Republicans are bad for racial minorities or women? It's not like every white man who votes Republican is sitting there thinking "yep, I will vote Republican to screw over the women and minorities!" Most of them surely convince themselves that Democrats are full of shit (they think we're full of shit about everything else) on race and women's issues, so it's not surprising a lot of right-leaning women and minorities convince themselves of this too. They consume their own media sources, and see things through their own frame of reference, so it's not that hard a leap to imagine they buy into the right wing line.
“Writer Jessica Ellis aptly responded, ‘I feel like I have to say this once per election, but women are not fundamentally more moral or virtuous creatures by nature than men, and they can believe the exact same level of fucked up shit and to the same degree.’”
and
“I can’t go long without seeing a liberal remark that Bush and son, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were Republicans they could at least respect. It’s a form of short-term memory loss by way of Stockholm syndrome.”
Excellent points, and thank you for making them, Stephen.
I think some white women have internalized sexism to the point that they want more for their sons than their daughters or themselves. Policies that limit white male power are unwanted because they might limit sons. These women don’t view themselves nor their daughters as full people.
"if Democratic leaders said that the GOP is not inseparable from MAGA and can be redeemed, they’d give longtime Republicans “permission” to vote for Democrats."
We need a good, strong punch and once we have removed the turd from the bowl, this will once again be some that people should drink.
As with the five or six opinions I have, I repeat this one constantly-
One of the biggest problems the US has with countering fascism is a deep reluctance to ever admit that people do actually want it. That's not to say it's good- people want terrible things all the time- but it's also not to say people have to be tricked into wanting it.
People like the promises it makes. It relieves them of responsibility and promises to hurt people they want hurt. It promises action and decisiveness, it promises them a place and certainty. It doesn't have to lie to them, but they often have to lie to themselves.
Until people can accept there's no need for "brainwashing" and that, at least, authoritarianism does appeal to people who are not being deceived it can't be properly stamped out.
"Here’s what bothers me whenever the same liberals who share anti-Trump social media posts from Adam Kinzinger and Joe Walsh also imply that a Black or woman Republican is inherently self-loathing. That argument suggests that only white men have a true choice between the two major political parties."
Point taken and corrected for
"It’s why former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi keeps insisting we need a “strong” Republican Party."
That argument always makes me cringe. We don't need a strong Republican party. We don't need a Republican party at all. What we DO need is at least two parties. Simply so that there won't just be one party. There are no specific dynamics at either party needs a hold, just simply that there needs to be more than one of them. Because here's the conundrum. Whenever there are multiple solutions proposed for a problem, There is Almost always going to be the best solution to the problem. Imagine if you had five solutions for the problem of how to get a man to the moon and back. One of them is going to be the best and one of them is going to be the worst. and theoretically you should always be able to pick the best solution to a problem. So even though two parties are necessary, one of the parties is going to be an obstacle to progress. One party is going to exist solely from keeping good stuff from happening. What I would like to see is the Republican party be obliterated, and current centrist Democrats become the new right and allow the progressives to take another notch or two to the left. I think parsing that could leave us with some Good solutions even if not perfect
"It sounds as if liberals are calling them inferior, which is hardly a great canvassing strategy."
Not a great strategy but wholly accurate. People consumed with hate and sadism are by definition inferior human beings. they exist to be defeated. To the extent that Mollycoddling them Is a means to that end, that's up for debate. But I'm up for anything
I once asked a woman of color why she voted GOP: because someday she and her husband would hopefully be rich and they wanted to keep their money. I asked another woman why she was so incensed about immigrants: her family came here legally and anyone who didn’t wasn’t worthy. There’s your answer.
IOW, I got mine (will be getting mine) so fuck everyone else.
Yep. Excuse me while I pull up the ladder.
Some people simply are just not evolved
I really dig this version of Everybody Wants to Rule the World, by Robert Glasper with Lalah Hathaway and Common. I play it on DJ nights and people always come to the both to ask about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_lRJ_T5xYg
In the Confederacy hierarchy, God gives white men authority, with the duty to protect white women and children; white women, then, are above children, slaves, and other inferior people. As this hierarchy persists in American conservatism, many women embrace the combination of protection and superiority. Not difficult to understand but still fucked up.
I'd wager that In that hierarchy male children Are held above women
Canuckistan perspective here, but we have a similar dynamic between conservative and liberal which has become more heated and partisan.
I work in the oil and gas sector (Albertastan) and the people I work with vote conservative because of singular, often petty reasons. They do not see beyond what benefits them, be it the promise of lower taxes and legislation discriminating against people they don't like. It doesn't personally affect them either way who is in power, but like a sporting event, they choose sides and cheer. They are intelligent, articulate and successful, but politically will go for the candidate that panders to their worldview.
However, as Stephen points out above, you cannot tell these people how to vote. The proof of that was here in 2015, when the incumbent conservative premier (who was a transplant from down east) when confronted about shaky economic outlook told a news outlet that Albertans had to 'look in the mirror' to see who was to blame, not the 4 decades of Conservative government.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/prenticeblamesalbertans-goes-viral-after-jim-prentice-s-look-in-the-mirror-comment-1.2982524
He was trounced in the following election and Albertans voted in the lefty New Democratic Party in a landslide as a punishment to being blamed by their ruling dynasty. We reverted back to conservative in the next election (with the further right loopy Danielle Smith) but the upshot was you don't tell Albertans what they don't want to hear. Even if you're the dynastic rulers.
“However, as American composer Frank Wilhoit observed in 2018, “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
I’ve never seen it stated so perfectly.
The point with asking why (white) women would vote Republican is that if they do so they are voting against interest and the vast majority of them must be aware of that on one level or another. Every woman knows how close she came to getting pregnant when she didn’t want to be, every woman knows how easily pregnancies can go wrong, every woman can sympathise with the desperate longing for a child even if she hasn’t felt it herself. Even if none of that has affected them personally it’s impossible not to know that it might affect your sister/daughter/niece one day.
So asking this question is not a suggestion that they are somehow second class citizen, it’s asking why would you do this, if not to yourself but to your sisters?
I think the thing is they don't expect to ever need an abortion themselves, and figure that if they did, they could get one (they know a friendly doctor who can make it look like a 'miscarriage', they could travel out of state for it). Or they would just not want one.
They just have a different perspective for what is in "their interest." It doesn't make them reasonable, or good people, but it explains why people vote that way and why we shouldn't be too surprised when they do so.
Same goes for white men--"why would they favor policies that screw them over?" They don't think such policies do screw them over! And I'm sure they love the women in their lives, or have black or Hispanic friends they care about--they just don't think they're hurting them.
Republicans don’t have “sisters and brothers” — they have fellow powerful people. That is the problem with assuming they are voting against their self interest.
The character in a sci fi film who sells out the human race to alien invaders in exchange for power is acting fully in their self interest
Fair question but some people lack empathy. And they generally vote Republican.
Manic Pixel: You are so correct. Republicans lack empathy and will only change positions if that personally benefits them. For example, Nancy Reagan opposed stem cell research until it would have benefitted Ronnie.
Yup. That’s generally how they roll.
Ok, I get the lack of empathy, it’s a characteristic of the Right everywhere in the world so far as I can see. But not recognising your own self interest is another level of stupid.
One could argue they are SO self-interested a la a Byron Donalds type so high on his own supply that he becomes a Jim Crow-apologist, that they lose the self-interest forest for the egomaniacal trees. Regardless of their identity or background, some people never see themselves as part of any particular group, they are solely invested in their own self-aggrandizement. Weapons-grade solipsism. So anything that might be bad for the group they ostensibly belong to has nothing to do with them and they genuinely don’t care. They are subsequently always taken by surprise when the leopards inevitably eat their face.
If Byron Donalds got elected as a Democrat in one of the party’s dwindling few safe seats from Florida, no one would know his name. He wouldn’t be on the short list for VP, etc. He could possibly replace DeSantis as governor. He’s doing just fine.
The Dark Side is tempting, believe me. I speak from experience but even in the liberal political writing world, white liberals are often supportive of Black people in general but less so specifically. It’s like how RBG had no Black law clerks. Whereas conservatives might crap on Black people in general but will elevate those close to them. I’ve seen this in practice.
You’re right, of course. I’ve even heard it said that the open racism of the South (or elsewhere) is sometimes even preferred because at least you know what you’re dealing with. It seems like Donalds is using that to his advantage. He is more than happy to be used as a fig leaf if it means he can advance and damn everyone else affected by policies he can happily ignore or excuse.
Yep--Byron Donalds (to take one example) sees a very clear self interest in supporting GOP policies. He also probably agrees with a lot of conservative stuff (anti-abortion, pro-business, etc.) and thinks those things are in his interest. So how does he reconcile with supporting a party that is hostile to black people?
Because when you support everything else they stand for, you can rationalize that they are NOT hostile to black people.
Also, as Dems learned with immigration, class often trumps race. Latinos don’t think Republicans hate them or even all immigrants, just illegals immigrants, and conservative Black people probably think the GOP is hostile to poor people and “thugs” in general not just Black people. Dems alienate a lot of minorities when they suggest that we are all on welfare, etc
Yep--and white conservatives can be convincing to non-white conservatives, because the white conservatives believe this too.
Good point. Likely to be the fate of many Trump supporters and apologists, not least the MSM who seem to have forgotten the old saying about “he who rides the tiger”. Act in haste, repent at leisure.
The world you see around you is republic, in action and deed. Global in scope and millennia strong, republic has no leaders (nor wants one), respects no borders, and answers to no law but its own.
Global republic is criminal enterprise.
Global republic will be the death of this planet.
Very good points Stephen--I think the notion of "how could [woman/racial minority/gay person] vote against their interest" just comes from this idea that it is so blindingly obvious that the Right are evil that we cannot fathom that others don't see it that way, or that people value some things more than others. If for example you truly believe that liberals are soft on criminals and hard on cops, and you fear criminals more than you care about any other issue (health care, racism, etc.) then you might just be willing to vote Republican even if you think Republicans are bigoted towards you.
And why is it so hard to believe a lot of racial minorities or women do not believe Republicans are bad for racial minorities or women? It's not like every white man who votes Republican is sitting there thinking "yep, I will vote Republican to screw over the women and minorities!" Most of them surely convince themselves that Democrats are full of shit (they think we're full of shit about everything else) on race and women's issues, so it's not surprising a lot of right-leaning women and minorities convince themselves of this too. They consume their own media sources, and see things through their own frame of reference, so it's not that hard a leap to imagine they buy into the right wing line.
“Writer Jessica Ellis aptly responded, ‘I feel like I have to say this once per election, but women are not fundamentally more moral or virtuous creatures by nature than men, and they can believe the exact same level of fucked up shit and to the same degree.’”
and
“I can’t go long without seeing a liberal remark that Bush and son, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were Republicans they could at least respect. It’s a form of short-term memory loss by way of Stockholm syndrome.”
Excellent points, and thank you for making them, Stephen.
I want to see a conservative opposition that would at least say, "Great idea. How ya gonna pay for it?"
What I want and what reality offers up are two completely different animals.
How about a conservative opposition with one foot in The Reality Based Community?
Nope?
Damn, this isn't getting any easier, is it?