Pete Buttigieg Offends Professional Loser Class With His Earnest Attempt To Win Elections
#NotAllProfessionalLosers
Pete Buttigieg delivered a masterful performance last week on comedian Andrew Schulz’s Flagrant podcast, but some liberals aren’t happy about it. It’s as if the 2028 Democratic primary has already begun.
One complaint is that Schulz’s podcast is right-leaning. That’s disputable — I’d argue it’s more “right-coded,” and it’s also precisely why Democrats shouldn’t cede these spaces to Republicans. Last October, Schulz had Donald Trump on his show, and he’s later said that Democrats fundamentally aren’t “cool.”
“I think Democrats are too stuck in the Ivy League,” he told Charlamagne Tha God last month. “There’s too much like pretentious finger-wagging. That’s not what everyday Americans are, and you need to get the working class back immediately.”
Buttigieg effectively challenged Schulz’s claim that the Democratic Party doesn’t have a compelling message. “I want everyday life to be better,” he said. (Watch below.)
He didn’t offer anything drastically different from the policies mainstream Democrats have long promoted, but he presented them in a relatable manner, based in individual choices. It reminds me of how the guy who sold me on waterproofing my basement didn’t just throw out facts and figures about why it was the smart decision. He specifically mentioned a personal item he’d seen stored down there that waterproofing would keep safe.
Buttigieg has a similar talent at closing the deal. Notice that he doesn’t speak in lofty terms about the Supreme Court respecting legal precedent and constitutional freedoms. He framed a far-right Supreme Court as a personal threat to your family.
“I want you to know that your family’s gonna be fine,” he said, “... despite there being some Supreme Court justice who wants to obliterate your family because it doesn't match his interpretation of his religion.”
I’ve never been that supportive of Buttigieg’s appearances on Fox News, as I think Democrats shouldn’t help legitimize a dishonest right-wing propaganda outlet. However, podcasts are different, and Schulz’s audience isn’t a total lost cause.
Buttigieg unapologetically promoted liberal views, in plain English, on a podcast that reaches voters Democrats desperately need and are actively losing. Unlike California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Buttigieg didn’t swoon over far-right bad actors nor did he sell out vulnerable groups in a misguided effort to seek “common ground.”
However, some people refused to see a distinction. That’s not surprising, as nuance is not a prized commodity on social media. What’s disappointing is how quickly the criticism resorted to personal insults.
Activist Leslie Mac, co-founder of the Ferguson Response Network, posted on Threads, “Y’all do know white gay men are some of the most problematic people in the USA right? Mayor Pete is the rule not the exception here when it comes to literally aligning with white supremacy.”
Buttigieg never aligned himself with Schulz’s own views. He simply recognizes that Schulz is a fellow citizen who votes. Refusing to engage and actively alienating people like him won’t help Democrats win elections. The math doesn’t math. If you don’t believe that young men like Schulz were once part of winning Democratic coalitions, you must think that 2008 to 2012-era Iowa, Ohio, and Florida were somehow Wakanda.
Even if you think Schulz is personally a creep, lumping him in with the likes of Stephen Miller only expands the opposition while shrinking our own coalition. It also reinforces the narrative that liberal Democrats are fundamentally hostile toward white people, specifically white men. I agree with Rep. Sarah McBride that Democrats should reach out to “imperfect allies” rather than demand an unachievable perfection.
Besides, if everything’s labeled white supremacy, then average voters will just tune out. It’s a defeatist position that puts everyone into the same toxic category, which itself leads to a cynical, bigoted view of the world.
I disagree with the idea that Buttigieg shouldn’t engage with someone like Schulz, but I can respect that position, even if it’s needlessly rigid. However, I don’t respect smearing an entire group of people. Just like Leslie Mac, Buttigieg deserves to be judged as an individual, not dismissed because of his identity.
A white gay man, presumably someone who follows Leslie Mac, dared defend himself from her callous dismissal, and he was hammered with “don’t come here with #NotAllWhiteGayMen!” responses. That’s an even more reductive variation of the #NotAllMen or #NotAllWhiteWomen hashtags. The argument is that if you’re the “exception” to a stereotypical generalization, you shouldn’t defend yourself. Instead, you should focus on “fixing your demo” (Yes, I’ve seen that stated online). Surely, we can look around at the flaming ruins of our society and realize how damaging this rhetoric truly is? No single person is responsible for the sins of people who resemble them.
Growing up in 1980s South Carolina, I was often deemed the “good one,” a generous exception to bigoted opinions about people like me. I didn’t appreciate it. Now I live in Portland, Oregon, so I’ve encountered a good number of white liberals who do enjoy the “good one” treatment. And even when they lose that designation — as it’s so easy to do — they fall all over themselves to offer penance. You can almost hear them cry, “Thank you sir, may I have another?”
Not surprisingly, most normal people reject this cultural masochism. As well they should. #NotAllGroupYou’reMaligning isn’t a weak defense. If one person discounts your stereotypes about their specific group identity, then you should stop making sweeping statements about that group. Fascism prevails when people are defined solely by their identity. True liberalism doesn’t enable this.
An identity-centric mentality only makes your world smaller, not larger, and effective grassroots movements have united people around a shared humanity and common purpose, not divided them by their demographic group.
After the 2017 Women’s March, an image circulated of a woman holding up a sign that stated, “Don’t forget: White Women Voted for Trump!” That’s not constructive coalition building. Imagine waking up, making this sign, and then showing up at the Women’s March to actively stoke tension among people who clearly didn’t vote for Trump. Maybe that one annoying member of their book club went MAGA, but that has nothing to do with the white women in attendance.
But if you are obsessed with identity, you can’t see that this is group of allies. You can only see differences, which makes it easier to assign blame. Let me know when this ever actually works.
It seems strange to me that the same people who urge peaceful diplomacy when it comes to hostile foreign powers or outright terrorist groups don’t think we should meaningfully engage with our fellow Americans. Let’s try a cease fire before there’s actual firing.
“White men suck and need to be like how we say they should be” is not a winning strategy. We need to confront this head on. Buttigieg offered a better vision for the country on Schulz’s Flagrant podcast, but first, liberals must accept a better vision for the future.
You should watch Buttigieg’s full interview below, even if you find podcast technology scary.
I at least trust Pete Buttigieg on these programs rather than Gavin Newsom, who throws vulnerable minorities under the bus. That said there is (under Murc's Law) only accountability for Democrats, so it is always fraught going on such programs. But as Brian Tyler Cohen says, there aren't enough of us so we need to expand the reach.
Better them than I, because I am tired.
That comment from LeslieMac is SO OFFENSIVE. Generalizing about groups of people based on their demographics is one of the worst things about the left. Calling people “problematic” as a group alienates the whole group and those who know anyone in that group. Criticism like this is driving people away from the Democratic Party. This must stop if democracy in America is going to survive at all.