The idea and the topic is very good. The framing of the problem seems pretty relevant at first. Then the explanations start. Do the Democrats actually behave like the video suggests? Maybe some...
The idea and the topic is very good.
The framing of the problem seems pretty relevant at first.
Then the explanations start.
Do the Democrats actually behave like the video suggests? Maybe some parts of the party do some of the things to some degree, but the gradually emerging caricature that emerges one straw at a time really does become a strawman.
By the time we've arrived at the enlightenment argument at the 10 minute mark of the video, we're way beyond views held by practically any politician elected by a large constituency. Good ideas don't automatically win.
Democrats are very aware of the power of Citizens United. Every single one of them and a huge swathe of their voters.
How are the very legitimate issues of election finance, of gerrymandering, of how congressional procedure makes obstruction easier than running the country, solved?
How do you compete politically when you feel the other party is playing dirty?
When you lose elections because your supporters don't turn up to vote, and people are saying over and over again that they hate the fucking shitshow congress and national politics has become, what you do then is do what will get your supporters voting again.
When you're asking a group of people who believe in fairness, empathy, societal responsibility, in everyone's right to good health, you don't get those people fired up and voting by betraying all those values to play dirty because "they're doing it".
That's a recipe for disaster, however satisfying sticking it to the other team would surely feel however counter-productive it actually is.
Point out those who "aren't doing their job in congress" and show how that's completely different behavior to you. Stoke outrage that these people are elected to do a job that they then systematically sabotage.
In polls voters, potential voters, and nonvoters all consistently answer that their views align more closely with the Democrats than the Republicans.
Yet somehow the Democrats are losing elections. Even before we factor in gerrymandering and all the technical stuff. The Democratic advantage is that large and that squandered.
The apparatus of the other party is clearly doing things way better than you are. Copy their PR and information machine, their strategies that continually manage to get those who are personally the most worst off with Republican policies to consistently be those who vote for the Republican party the most.
When the video gets to the actual alt-right at the 15 minute mark. solutios like kicking the alt-right off social media, shutting down their websites, cutting off their funding, police their organizations as hate groups, attack them "if necessary" at counter-demonstrations.
Those aren't solutions at all, and they're illegal things to do that politicians don't actually control.
"They do it so we should too". No no no no no. Again, a perfect demonstration of why when they go low, you go high and yell and shout and scream, explain and demonstrate why they are lowlifes and you're not.
"They're both equally bad" is a thing loads of real, intelligent people believe already. What if it were actually remotely close to true?
Then we get to the end of the video, and when things really get stupid.
Obviously the whole battle, the whole point of it all is to show why the other group's beliefs are bad.
That's all politics is: showing why your solutions, beliefs and opinions are better than every other alternative. And to get others to think the same and vote for those things.
The Republicans aren't defining what constitutes "going high". Voters are.
The Democrats' issues are solved at the ballot box. Political problems need legislative fixes. To legislate you need to pass laws through elected bodies.
When the democrats control bodies in Washington, that's when they need to play tough by ramming through bills to make obstructionism way harder.
To get there, first you need to win elections, however unfair or unbalanced you feel the system is. The system is as it is until you get the votes and vote to change it.
I strongly disagree with your thesis that the democrats should play nice in order to win, especially with the idea that people are somehow being turned off by "going low", if anything it's the...
I strongly disagree with your thesis that the democrats should play nice in order to win, especially with the idea that people are somehow being turned off by "going low", if anything it's the opposite: the democrats are completely spineless to the point where no one, even the people who want to support them don't respect them. And how could you, when, for example, you have party leaders like Chuck Schumer say he won't support impeaching Kavanaugh? The Democrats shouldn't stoop to the level of lies and slander, but they shouldn't be afraid to be forceful either. Chuck Schumer could have stood up and said "By forcing through the nomination of a man who, in addition to being a suspected rapist and alcoholic, is clearly an partisan hack and stooge for the GOP to the supreme court the senate republicans have delegitimized both themselves and the court."
There's absolutely no reason to try to impeach Kavanaugh. There aren't enough seats up for reelection in the Senate that there'll be even remotely close to 67 votes for impeachment. This goes...
There's absolutely no reason to try to impeach Kavanaugh.
There aren't enough seats up for reelection in the Senate that there'll be even remotely close to 67 votes for impeachment.
This goes right back to the whole idea that the Democrats need to look at how they'll be effective and actually get things done rather than wasting time and political capital on losing issues.
Even then, anyone who's invested enough in politics to care about Kavanaugh is already voting, or should so obviously always be voting if the Democrats managed to show that the two parties aren't the same.
A prerequisite for that is that the two parties don't look equally bad and dirty.
Regular voters care about things that impact them directly. taxes, well-being, health care, wages, schooling, care, college, the economy, jobs, environment. Those are the issues you win elections on, not a platform that caters to an invested subgroup of your party.
When your platform is fairness and the fight against inequality, you have no legitimacy if you're playing dirty. You just look like a hypocrite. Who takes time out of their day to vote for a hypocrite? (that's also why Republican smear ads are so effective)
No, playing clean, tough and cynically is the way for the Democrats to win voters.
You're laying out a losing strategy that caters to those who're already Democrats, Romney's "47 percent" if you will.
Due to districting and demographics, the Democrats need around 55% of the popular vote to win the House of Representatives. Due to specific blue/red state populations, the math is even worse for the Senate.
Playing to your home 47 percent will always be losing math.
Instead of wasting time on Kavanaugh, if the Democrats against odds get a majority in the Senate, tipping the electoral scales back towards equality through granting statehood to D.C. is one strong play. No taxation without representation and all that.
Democrats need to get laws on the books that can't just be reversed like Obama's executive orders. To do that they need to win the houses and to do that they need to show voting matters.
If you're not comfortable reading the transcription, a general outline looks like this: The Republicans refuse to properly participate in our system of governance in the way it was intended. They...
If you're not comfortable reading the transcription, a general outline looks like this:
The Republicans refuse to properly participate in our system of governance in the way it was intended. They break norms and rules to do whatever they want.
The response to this by some Democrats (specifically Obama) is to take the motto "They go low, we go high." This means they try to look for compromise and ways to appease the other side while still playing in the rules. This predictably does not work (the author makes specific reference to the Supreme Court appointment of Merrick Garland)
*He then explains some of the reasons why Democrats take this approach
Liberals have to appeal to a more ideologically diverse group so they appeal to the process rather than specific points
Liberals want to maintain the moral high-ground
Liberals believe that the system in place is designed well enough to prevent bad ideas and bad actors
Liberals are less likely to govern based solely on their beliefs and instead often care more about creating the government process itself.
The "They go low, we go high" gets actively flipped by Republicans to be "You go high, we go low." Conservatives are counting on liberals to take the high ground so Republicans can do whatever they want
The alt-right does a similar tactic where they accuse the left of doing the exact things they already do and liberals sometimes feel they should take the high ground, e.g. "I disagree but will defend your right to say it"
The author suggests we should be willing to break the law or play dirty in times where it is necessary.
Thank you, I did read it and found myself sighing as it was a long and complicated read. Your outline does touch on the points I remembered. It seemed to prove the antithesis of "Cheaters never...
Thank you, I did read it and found myself sighing as it was a long and complicated read. Your outline does touch on the points I remembered. It seemed to prove the antithesis of "Cheaters never prosper" and saddened me.
The idea and the topic is very good.
The framing of the problem seems pretty relevant at first.
Then the explanations start.
Do the Democrats actually behave like the video suggests? Maybe some parts of the party do some of the things to some degree, but the gradually emerging caricature that emerges one straw at a time really does become a strawman.
By the time we've arrived at the enlightenment argument at the 10 minute mark of the video, we're way beyond views held by practically any politician elected by a large constituency. Good ideas don't automatically win.
Democrats are very aware of the power of Citizens United. Every single one of them and a huge swathe of their voters.
How are the very legitimate issues of election finance, of gerrymandering, of how congressional procedure makes obstruction easier than running the country, solved?
How do you compete politically when you feel the other party is playing dirty?
When you lose elections because your supporters don't turn up to vote, and people are saying over and over again that they hate the fucking shitshow congress and national politics has become, what you do then is do what will get your supporters voting again.
When you're asking a group of people who believe in fairness, empathy, societal responsibility, in everyone's right to good health, you don't get those people fired up and voting by betraying all those values to play dirty because "they're doing it".
That's a recipe for disaster, however satisfying sticking it to the other team would surely feel however counter-productive it actually is.
Point out those who "aren't doing their job in congress" and show how that's completely different behavior to you. Stoke outrage that these people are elected to do a job that they then systematically sabotage.
In polls voters, potential voters, and nonvoters all consistently answer that their views align more closely with the Democrats than the Republicans.
Yet somehow the Democrats are losing elections. Even before we factor in gerrymandering and all the technical stuff. The Democratic advantage is that large and that squandered.
The apparatus of the other party is clearly doing things way better than you are. Copy their PR and information machine, their strategies that continually manage to get those who are personally the most worst off with Republican policies to consistently be those who vote for the Republican party the most.
When the video gets to the actual alt-right at the 15 minute mark. solutios like kicking the alt-right off social media, shutting down their websites, cutting off their funding, police their organizations as hate groups, attack them "if necessary" at counter-demonstrations.
Those aren't solutions at all, and they're illegal things to do that politicians don't actually control.
"They do it so we should too". No no no no no. Again, a perfect demonstration of why when they go low, you go high and yell and shout and scream, explain and demonstrate why they are lowlifes and you're not.
"They're both equally bad" is a thing loads of real, intelligent people believe already. What if it were actually remotely close to true?
Then we get to the end of the video, and when things really get stupid.
Obviously the whole battle, the whole point of it all is to show why the other group's beliefs are bad.
That's all politics is: showing why your solutions, beliefs and opinions are better than every other alternative. And to get others to think the same and vote for those things.
The Republicans aren't defining what constitutes "going high". Voters are.
The Democrats' issues are solved at the ballot box. Political problems need legislative fixes. To legislate you need to pass laws through elected bodies.
When the democrats control bodies in Washington, that's when they need to play tough by ramming through bills to make obstructionism way harder.
To get there, first you need to win elections, however unfair or unbalanced you feel the system is. The system is as it is until you get the votes and vote to change it.
I strongly disagree with your thesis that the democrats should play nice in order to win, especially with the idea that people are somehow being turned off by "going low", if anything it's the opposite: the democrats are completely spineless to the point where no one, even the people who want to support them don't respect them. And how could you, when, for example, you have party leaders like Chuck Schumer say he won't support impeaching Kavanaugh? The Democrats shouldn't stoop to the level of lies and slander, but they shouldn't be afraid to be forceful either. Chuck Schumer could have stood up and said "By forcing through the nomination of a man who, in addition to being a suspected rapist and alcoholic, is clearly an partisan hack and stooge for the GOP to the supreme court the senate republicans have delegitimized both themselves and the court."
There's absolutely no reason to try to impeach Kavanaugh.
There aren't enough seats up for reelection in the Senate that there'll be even remotely close to 67 votes for impeachment.
This goes right back to the whole idea that the Democrats need to look at how they'll be effective and actually get things done rather than wasting time and political capital on losing issues.
Even then, anyone who's invested enough in politics to care about Kavanaugh is already voting, or should so obviously always be voting if the Democrats managed to show that the two parties aren't the same.
A prerequisite for that is that the two parties don't look equally bad and dirty.
Regular voters care about things that impact them directly. taxes, well-being, health care, wages, schooling, care, college, the economy, jobs, environment. Those are the issues you win elections on, not a platform that caters to an invested subgroup of your party.
When your platform is fairness and the fight against inequality, you have no legitimacy if you're playing dirty. You just look like a hypocrite. Who takes time out of their day to vote for a hypocrite? (that's also why Republican smear ads are so effective)
No, playing clean, tough and cynically is the way for the Democrats to win voters.
You're laying out a losing strategy that caters to those who're already Democrats, Romney's "47 percent" if you will.
Due to districting and demographics, the Democrats need around 55% of the popular vote to win the House of Representatives. Due to specific blue/red state populations, the math is even worse for the Senate.
Playing to your home 47 percent will always be losing math.
Instead of wasting time on Kavanaugh, if the Democrats against odds get a majority in the Senate, tipping the electoral scales back towards equality through granting statehood to D.C. is one strong play. No taxation without representation and all that.
Democrats need to get laws on the books that can't just be reversed like Obama's executive orders. To do that they need to win the houses and to do that they need to show voting matters.
There is a content warning at the commencement of the video which I have heeded.
Is there a high level summary of the points being made in this video?
If you're not comfortable reading the transcription, a general outline looks like this:
The Republicans refuse to properly participate in our system of governance in the way it was intended. They break norms and rules to do whatever they want.
The response to this by some Democrats (specifically Obama) is to take the motto "They go low, we go high." This means they try to look for compromise and ways to appease the other side while still playing in the rules. This predictably does not work (the author makes specific reference to the Supreme Court appointment of Merrick Garland)
*He then explains some of the reasons why Democrats take this approach
The "They go low, we go high" gets actively flipped by Republicans to be "You go high, we go low." Conservatives are counting on liberals to take the high ground so Republicans can do whatever they want
The alt-right does a similar tactic where they accuse the left of doing the exact things they already do and liberals sometimes feel they should take the high ground, e.g. "I disagree but will defend your right to say it"
The author suggests we should be willing to break the law or play dirty in times where it is necessary.
Thank you, I did read it and found myself sighing as it was a long and complicated read. Your outline does touch on the points I remembered. It seemed to prove the antithesis of "Cheaters never prosper" and saddened me.
I don't know of any summaries but the video creator has transcriptions for all their videos on their tumblr page. Here is the one for this video:
http://innuendostudios.tumblr.com/post/179749702607/new-video-essay-this-one-is-about-how