14 votes

Why Pete Buttigieg enrages the young left

44 comments

  1. [25]
    patience_limited
    Link
    I'm cranky from headline news withdrawal, but I'll argue that shallow think-pieces like this completely miss the point about why Pete Buttigieg is unacceptable as a presidential candidate. Can we...

    I'm cranky from headline news withdrawal, but I'll argue that shallow think-pieces like this completely miss the point about why Pete Buttigieg is unacceptable as a presidential candidate.

    Can we please focus on the overweening ambition and entitlement, approaching delusion, that he manifests? It's all very well to cheer for Washington outsiders. However, Buttigieg's lack of Federal process knowledge, connections, constituencies, legislative experience, business leadership experience, or any qualifications other than local government, academic pedigree, a brief McKinsey job, and military service put him far behind the rest of the pack.

    Even with nearly four years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama, as President, was vulnerable to all kinds of established insider influence as he began to govern. He didn't have the ability to resist the economic establishment that insisted on modest supports for individual homeowners. Setting health care as the highest priority in the midst of a recession was a strategic error that more experienced pols warned against. Obama left the Democratic Party vulnerable to the charge that they weren't helping end the recession fast enough, and created a political opportunity for a resurgent Republican Congress that hobbled his administration's effectiveness permanently.

    The Democrats can't afford another bright, but callow, candidate, let alone one who shows signs that he's not genuinely in the race for anyone but himself.

    34 votes
    1. [18]
      Loire
      Link Parent
      Thank you for your reply. I posted this specific article for exactly this response. This seems like some sort of group projection. Nothing about Pete says entitlement, let alone the ridiculous...

      Thank you for your reply. I posted this specific article for exactly this response.

      Can we please focus on the overweening ambition and entitlement approaching delusionment

      This seems like some sort of group projection. Nothing about Pete says entitlement, let alone the ridiculous assertion of delusion on his part, and every single candidate in the race is ambitious. You don't run for president without ambition. On the other hand the socialist wing of the party are sure to tell you that this is Bernie's time. That 2016 was stolen from him and thus 2020 is his. That he is the only viable candidate despite the wide range of capable candidates in the primary. They are sure to attack and smear every other candidate while pretending to be above it all. They promise that, despite the polls saying otherwise, Bernie is the only viable candidate to lead this country.

      Is that not entitlement a form of entitlement?

      Why are the recriminations directed in only one direction? Even Biden, the true threat to the Democrats at this point, doesn't face the level of attack that Buttigieg does.

      It has nothing to do with entitlement, and I am more prone to believe the editorial's assertion: a moderate millenial triggers the shit out of soc- types that presume the future belongs to them.

      The Democrats can't afford another bright, but callow, candidate, let alone one who shows signs that he's not genuinely in the race for anyone but himself.

      I would be genuinely happy to see actual evidence of Buttigieg being in the race only for himself.

      6 votes
      1. Icarus
        Link Parent
        Isn't this article and all the comments here projections onto others? I mean your comment is generalizing Sanders supporters as one hive-minded bunch. I like Sanders because of his track record,...

        This seems like some sort of group projection.

        Isn't this article and all the comments here projections onto others?

        I mean your comment is generalizing Sanders supporters as one hive-minded bunch.

        I like Sanders because of his track record, his passion, and his experience.

        I don't like Buttigieg for his lack of experience, his billionaire campaign donors, and his stance on free college tuition. I don't perceive him as authentic and I don't view him as a fighter for working class Americans. The only way that perception will change is him striking with union workers or just generally doing more for middle and lower class Americans. He has to take action because all I see are words from him.

        Those feelings that some have about his sense of entitlement is neither right nor wrong. It's just an individual opinion, like your opinion of Sanders and his supporters.

        People should vote for who they want to win and not let the loud 1% of people who make comments on the internet influence their perception of others. Judge those commenters all you want, but their existence is their own, not of the actual candidate.

        28 votes
      2. [11]
        patience_limited
        Link Parent
        For the record, I do not endorse either Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. My disdain for Pete Buttigieg doesn't arise from partisanship for other candidates, his age cohort, race, gender, sexual...

        For the record, I do not endorse either Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. My disdain for Pete Buttigieg doesn't arise from partisanship for other candidates, his age cohort, race, gender, sexual orientation, family background, military service, education, or religion.

        I'm treating the progressive objections to Joe Biden's candidacy as given; they're well-covered elsewhere.

        Let's not forget that both Cory Booker and Julian Castro are also Harvard-educated Rhodes Scholars, but each has held considerably greater public responsibilities. Please forgive my cynicism for perceiving a scintilla of racism in who gained media attention and support.

        Pete Buttigieg has not commented on why it's his time, let alone the structural obstacles for those better qualified, or his policy differences with them. I see this as an example of privilege and entitlement, but you're free to correct me.

        I'm not insisting that Mayor Pete get a 100% pass on progressive "purity tests", though Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez isn't wrong about their implications for candidates' values. Cory Booker wouldn't have passed the scrutiny I'm about to propose, either.

        I have concerns about Buttigieg's authenticity in the face of the following:

        1. continuing personal and client connections through McKinsey;

        2. continued acceptance of PAC and lobbyist support when progressive candidates refused to take any but individual donations;

        3. questions about quid-pro-quos for mayoral campaign financing during Buttigieg's tenure in South Bend;

        4. Buttigieg is a Silicon Valley darling to such a degree that Mark Zuckerberg placed two recommendations from Facebook on Buttigieg's campaign staff;

        5. Buttigieg's campaign essentially fabricated the sponsorships of his Douglass Plan for Black communities, including a noxious "opt-out" notification - there are many other complaints that he's out of touch with the legitimate concerns of Black people in South Bend, let alone the nation;

        6. The most generous profile of Buttigieg complains he's not yet formed a political identity.

        I could continue, but I think I've covered the highlights of why Pete Buttigieg is not achieving the levels of trust and acceptance you suggest he merits.

        As just one example of ambition tipping over into hubris, Pete Buttigieg has never won more than 11,000 votes in a public election, yet posits he'll win against Donald Trump.

        20 votes
        1. [2]
          OGWhales
          Link Parent
          I would love to hear about who you do intend to vote for and if you would be willing to share the reasoning behind it! Just appreciated your replies and would like to hear more from you

          I would love to hear about who you do intend to vote for and if you would be willing to share the reasoning behind it! Just appreciated your replies and would like to hear more from you

          5 votes
          1. patience_limited
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            In a perfect world, I'd be a Sanders supporter. Given his age, health, the general electorate, and the nature of the role of President, I believe Elizabeth Warren is a better choice. On the level...

            In a perfect world, I'd be a Sanders supporter. Given his age, health, the general electorate, and the nature of the role of President, I believe Elizabeth Warren is a better choice.

            On the level of personal, emotive considerations, I like the fact that Elizabeth Warren is a belated convert. Though Sanders has been largely ideologically consistent throughout his career, Warren has had to reexamine all the axioms of Republican Party ideology and capitalist democracy, and accepted the intellectually honest conclusions.

            At fundamentals, they're both mixed-market social democrats with similar policy agendas. Elizabeth Warren has arguably more exposure to the capabilities and limitations of U.S. Federal power. She's had to work directly with the Office of the President to establish a regulatory body, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

            I want to be very careful to avoid Green Lantern theories of presidential power; I'm more interested in who has the better grasp of what can be done, rather than just what should be done.

            There are some areas where I have concerns about how realistically Bernie Sanders evaluates government power in a democracy. I don't think a 90% income tax bracket, or nationalization of the energy sector, could possibly be enforced without authoritarian takings. Likewise, I have concerns about Elizabeth Warren's prior accommodations with the military-industrial complex, in regard to her legislation favoring military contractors based in Massachusetts.

            I think Indivisible's scorecard offers a good rubric for evaluating the Democratic Party candidates, particularly the high priority given to overall democratic reform, not just individual policy proposals. Both Warren and Sanders came out at the top of the group.

            I could go on in considerably more breadth and detail, but ultimately, once the primary is over, I will vote for any sane candidate opposing Donald Trump.

            Edit: Added previously omitted link to In These Times article.

            7 votes
        2. [4]
          Loire
          Link Parent
          I'm not suggesting Buttigieg deserves trust or acceptance. He wouldn't be my first choice in this primary. I posted this because I find the over the top disdain for Buttigieg's candidacy to be...

          I could continue, but I think I've covered the highlights of why Pete Buttigieg is not achieving the levels of trust and acceptance you suggest he merits.

          I'm not suggesting Buttigieg deserves trust or acceptance. He wouldn't be my first choice in this primary. I posted this because I find the over the top disdain for Buttigieg's candidacy to be incredibly interesting and I knew it would provoke the same response on tildes. There are more right-wing candidates and more duplicitous candidates, none of which recieve the same level of attention or disgust as Buttigieg. Likewise the disparity between "the internets" opinion and the reality of the polls interests me.

          3 votes
          1. patience_limited
            Link Parent
            I'll confess to some Obama hangover. I know intellectually that blaming his inexperience for the shortcomings of the neoliberal Democratic Party and the reactionary Republicans is Green...

            I'll confess to some Obama hangover. I know intellectually that blaming his inexperience for the shortcomings of the neoliberal Democratic Party and the reactionary Republicans is Green Lantern-ism of the first order.

            But instead of a more progressive Obama, I see the same vague politics and amorphous theorizing in Buttigieg, as well as comfort with political money and existing power structures. President Obama didn't actually kick out the lobbyists, but he made it abundantly clear in campaigning that he wanted to. I can't find instances of Buttigieg talking about campaign finance reform and regulatory capture at all.

            As much as I'm disappointed with Buttigieg himself, I'm angry that media narratives are again portraying a minor player as the Serious Intellectual Who Will Save the Party From Itself. That crap played the Republican Paul Ryan far past his capabilities in the House of Representatives, and I dread it for the Democrats.

            9 votes
          2. reifyresonance
            Link Parent
            Maybe he's in the uncanny valley of authenticity?

            Maybe he's in the uncanny valley of authenticity?

            5 votes
          3. spctrvl
            Link Parent
            Surely that has a lot to do with Buttigieg being more relevant than those candidates, no? I'm one of the people the article caricatures, and there are indeed several candidates I dislike more than...

            There are more right-wing candidates and more duplicitous candidates, none of which recieve the same level of attention or disgust as Buttigieg.

            Surely that has a lot to do with Buttigieg being more relevant than those candidates, no? I'm one of the people the article caricatures, and there are indeed several candidates I dislike more than Buttigieg. But Pete's the only one occasionally cracking double digits (besides Biden, who's obviously attracted plenty of vitriol). No point wasting energy getting worked up over Blomberg or Klobuchar when they have essentially zero chance of winning the nomination, and I've definitely noticed hostility towards Buttigieg increasing with his poll numbers.

            4 votes
        3. [4]
          AnthonyB
          Link Parent
          You've made it clear how you feel about him for the primaries, but if Buttigieg wins the nomination, will you support him against Trump?

          You've made it clear how you feel about him for the primaries, but if Buttigieg wins the nomination, will you support him against Trump?

          2 votes
          1. [3]
            patience_limited
            Link Parent
            Abso-fucking-lutely, yes. Even Biden would be an improvement; basically, I'll settle for anyone sane.

            Abso-fucking-lutely, yes. Even Biden would be an improvement; basically, I'll settle for anyone sane.

            10 votes
            1. [2]
              AnthonyB
              Link Parent
              PHEW. My worst fear is we get a repeat of 2016 with progressives sitting out because Democrats nominated a moderate.

              PHEW. My worst fear is we get a repeat of 2016 with progressives sitting out because Democrats nominated a moderate.

              2 votes
              1. patience_limited
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                There are days when I'd vote for the dogcatcher, the dog, or the dog's fleas rather than endure another moment of Emperor Manicula's bloody, terrifying whims. I'd like to believe that other...

                There are days when I'd vote for the dogcatcher, the dog, or the dog's fleas rather than endure another moment of Emperor Manicula's bloody, terrifying whims.

                I'd like to believe that other progressives are willing to let the imperfect be the enemy of the insane.

                4 votes
      3. [5]
        no_exit
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        You are one of the people I was looking for when I posted this comment, so I'll reiterate my interest in seeing your rationale for that, as well as the event described in the article I was...

        I would be genuinely happy to see actual evidence of Buttigieg being in the race only for himself.

        You are one of the people I was looking for when I posted this comment, so I'll reiterate my interest in seeing your rationale for that, as well as the event described in the article I was commenting under.

        a moderate millenial triggers the shit out of soc- types that presume the future belongs to them.

        It's the duplicity, not him being a moderate. He has previously stated his support for M4A and talked about how he considers taking billionaire/corporate donations to be a conflict of interest for a politician, but now what's he doing a few years later? Attempting to weasel around or outright disregard those ideas when there's actually money on the table. Hell, his campaign pulled another stunt a couple weeks ago where they had a challenge for people to donate the smallest amount they could, which could not have been a more transparent attempt to get closer to Sanders' and Warren's average contribution amounts and fight his billionaire toady image.

        15 votes
        1. [4]
          Loire
          Link Parent
          Me? Why me? I can't speak to the Douglass Plan boondoggle but to the donor disclosure, it's a non-issue outside of the internet echo-chamber. The fact of the matter is money wins elections in...

          You are one of the people I was looking for when I posted this comment,

          Me? Why me?

          I can't speak to the Douglass Plan boondoggle but to the donor disclosure, it's a non-issue outside of the internet echo-chamber.

          The fact of the matter is money wins elections in America. Full stop. That is how the system has been designed. Anyone with any aspiration to actually compete and not just be a voice in the primary needs to raise obscene amounts of money. At this stage in the race Buttigeig doesn't have the name recognition of Sanders or Warren or Biden. He will never be able to keep up with the support of small donors until his name is nation wide.

          His choice is to take money where he can find it or bow out. Obviously bowing out is not an option at this stage. The only reason they see fit to hide mega-donors is because the left is making such a huge deal out of billionaire donors. New Hampshire voters don't care about billionaire donors. Iowa voters don't care about billionaire donors. But the internet left-o-sphere does, and they are ready and willing to make a lot of noise.

          4 votes
          1. Icarus
            Link Parent
            They should. It is pretty undeniable the influence of the rich have over the political process in America. It is. Or it would be, if his campaign didn't get bailed out by billionaire donors. Or it...

            The only reason they see fit to hide mega-donors is because the left is making such a huge deal out of billionaire donors. New Hampshire voters don't care about billionaire donors. Iowa voters don't care about billionaire donors.

            They should. It is pretty undeniable the influence of the rich have over the political process in America.

            Obviously bowing out is not an option at this stage.

            It is. Or it would be, if his campaign didn't get bailed out by billionaire donors. Or it wouldn't have to be, if he had more experience and a history of fighting for working class values.

            14 votes
          2. [2]
            no_exit
            Link Parent
            It seemed like he was your candidate, or you were at least on here defending him a lot. Perhaps I was misremembering though. I mean sure, but the week before he said he was going to do it. The...

            Me? Why me?

            It seemed like he was your candidate, or you were at least on here defending him a lot. Perhaps I was misremembering though.

            to the donor disclosure, it's a non-issue outside of the internet echo-chamber.

            I mean sure, but the week before he said he was going to do it. The primary isn't even over, and both of those demonstrate to me that he either doesn't care enough to personally vet, or is actively lying, in campaign material that's supposedly representing him and his competence.

            2 votes
            1. Loire
              Link Parent
              I was also defending Warren when she was in the crosshairs. Buttigieg just takes the majority of the attacks so I can see it would come across that way.

              It seemed like he was your candidate, or you were at least on here defending him a lot. Perhaps I was misremembering though.

              I was also defending Warren when she was in the crosshairs. Buttigieg just takes the majority of the attacks so I can see it would come across that way.

              3 votes
    2. [6]
      spit-evil-olive-tips
      Link Parent
      This article from November is the most generous take I've read on Pete's ambition.

      Can we please focus on the overweening ambition and entitlement, approaching delusion, that he manifests?

      This article from November is the most generous take I've read on Pete's ambition.

      For all the talk of diversity, LGBTQ equality, and representation of gays in the media, many Americans still have limited exposure to gay men. Many know of comical gay men, like Jack from Will & Grace or videos of Billy Eichner’s street antics. They know of attention-grabbing gay men like Liberace and Billy Porter. They know of the hot gay men like Wentworth Miller and Gus Kenworthy. They also know the American sweethearts like Adam Rippon and Anderson Cooper. A subspecies they aren’t as familiar with, however, are the Type A, politically driven, never-take-their-eye-off-the-ball gays—a group of which Pete Buttigieg is an extreme example.

      ...

      in order to deflect attention away from their closeted sexuality, some gay men have overcompensated in their career or in other arenas that award success

      3 votes
      1. [3]
        Loire
        Link Parent
        That's an... interesting take. Am I interpretating it correctly? It comes across as almost... prejudiced against gay men. Why can't he just be a Type-A? Why can't a gay man be driven and...

        in order to deflect attention away from their closeted sexuality, some gay men have overcompensated in their career or in other arenas that award success

        That's an... interesting take. Am I interpretating it correctly? It comes across as almost... prejudiced against gay men. Why can't he just be a Type-A? Why can't a gay man be driven and successful without it representing overcompensation to deflect from their sexuality?

        Driven straight men are just driven, why does it have to be tied to his sexuality because he is gay?

        7 votes
        1. [2]
          tempestoftruth
          Link Parent
          Agreed, they even call him a "subspecies" as though all gay men fit into these rigid, completely arbitrary categories they've presented, definitely not a constructive way of thinking about the issue.

          Driven straight men are just driven, why does it have to be tied to his sexuality because he is gay?

          Agreed, they even call him a "subspecies" as though all gay men fit into these rigid, completely arbitrary categories they've presented, definitely not a constructive way of thinking about the issue.

          8 votes
          1. papasquat
            Link Parent
            Also, they're somehow pretending that Liberace, Wentworth Miller, and Anderson Cooper aren't type a, "never-take-your-eye-off-the-ball" people, despite all of them being ridiculously successful at...

            Also, they're somehow pretending that Liberace, Wentworth Miller, and Anderson Cooper aren't type a, "never-take-your-eye-off-the-ball" people, despite all of them being ridiculously successful at what they do in order to make their dumb point.

            4 votes
      2. emdash
        Link Parent
        This is downright insulting and, actually, almost a quasi-homophobic generalisation.

        in order to deflect attention away from their closeted sexuality, some gay men have overcompensated in their career or in other arenas that award success

        This is downright insulting and, actually, almost a quasi-homophobic generalisation.

        6 votes
      3. patience_limited
        Link Parent
        There's a troubling essentialism here, like interpreting Barack Obama as the iconic Black candidate, so that Pete Buttigieg is now the iconic gay candidate. It's great that barriers are being...

        There's a troubling essentialism here, like interpreting Barack Obama as the iconic Black candidate, so that Pete Buttigieg is now the iconic gay candidate.

        It's great that barriers are being broken, but Buttigieg has very consciously modeled his presentation after Obama's, right down to borrowing his language about "audacity".

        Unlike Obama, he fails to make a compelling case for why he has the vision, the comprehensive plan and policies, the broad connections to communities outside his own, and the knowledge to do the job, instead offering an assortment of lofty platitudes.

        "Schedule Spice" is not a good fit to run the entire show. "Schedule Spice" is at best a fixer, strategist, and logistician in some other executive's service, whose perfectionism is guaranteed to irritate the hell out of people even if they can complete a job. [Disclosure: It me.]

        3 votes
  2. determinism
    Link
    I'm a square. Most of the people I look up to or aspire to emulate are some kind of nerd. Buttigieg is an "ideological foe" which is enough to support a different candidate. Noam Chomsky - UPenn,...

    So it’s especially galling that the first millennial to take a serious run at the presidency is nothing like the left’s imagined savior. Buttigieg is a veteran, an outspoken Christian, a former McKinsey consultant, and, frankly, closer to Mitt Romney than Sanders or generational peer AOC in his aw shucks personal affect. In the eyes of radicalized young leftists, Buttigieg isn’t just an ideological foe, he’s worse than that: He’s a square.

    I'm a square. Most of the people I look up to or aspire to emulate are some kind of nerd. Buttigieg is an "ideological foe" which is enough to support a different candidate.

    And quite possibly, his elite credentials may also be an unwelcome reminder of their own. The editor-in-chief of Current Affairs, for instance, isn’t just a random antagonist: He’s also a fellow Harvard alumnus.

    Noam Chomsky - UPenn, MIT, etc.
    Ralph Nader - Princeton, Harvard
    Christopher Hitchens - Oxford
    Richard Wolff - Harvard, Stanford, Yale

    All of them alumni of elite schools, all of them have (in their own ways) criticized these institutions for their role in maintaining existing power structures. Christopher Hitchens had particular disdain for the Rhodes scholarship as a training program for nascent imperialists. Richard Wolff's entire schtick is that he was a PhD student who couldn't find anyone in the United States who focused on Marxian economics and that during his undergraduate orientation he was effectively told that he and his cohort would be the masters of the world (playing it up a bit). Ralph Nader I can't think of any specific examples but I'm sure I've heard him discuss the topic with some concern. Noam Chomsky's criticism of higher education is broad but I think the fundamental problem that he identifies is the creeping of business interests into universities curricula, managerial and organizational structure, core purpose and motivation.

    I think young people on the left who are aware of these people are unlikely to conflate them based on their affiliation with these schools. What differentiates them from one another and from Pete Buttigiege is what their careers have exposed about their ideologies rather than their elite credentials.

    The author is correct that Nathan Robinson isn't a "random antagonist", he's an editor of a leftist magazine who took a position on the Buttigiege candidacy which was consistent with his own ideological biases.

    18 votes
  3. [3]
    moonbathers
    Link
    I think people hate Pete because he's got no business being in the thick of the race. His best qualification is being the mayor of the United States' 300th largest city and yet he's gotten a ton...

    I think people hate Pete because he's got no business being in the thick of the race. His best qualification is being the mayor of the United States' 300th largest city and yet he's gotten a ton of attention. People hate him more than Klobuchar and Bennett because those two are both Senators and are at least qualified to be president by most people's standards. I've never heard anyone say they hate him because he reminds them of their own credentials; no one cares that he went to Harvard, it's what he did with that education and the views he has that people hate. That part is framed like the left hates education and qualifications which is absolutely not true.

    It is galling to some of us (myself included) that he's seen the bullshit the rest of us millennials have and is as moderate as he is. His Supreme Court plan is a compromise with a party that's hell-bent on destroying all opposition, a public option doesn't necessarily solve our healthcare woes, and he's had some bad takes (like the founding fathers not knowing slavery is bad).

    Edit: It took me way too long to type this and I think @patience_limited did a better job of explaining why people don't like him than I did.

    13 votes
    1. [2]
      Loire
      Link Parent
      From Nathan Robinson editor of Current Affairs, prominent American socialist, and frequently posted here on Tildes:

      no one cares that he went to Harvard, it's what he did with that education and the views he has that people hate. That part is framed like the left hates education and qualifications which is absolutely not true.

      From Nathan Robinson editor of Current Affairs, prominent American socialist, and frequently posted here on Tildes:

      I don’t trust the type of people likely to appear on “40 under 40” lists, the valedictorian-to-Harvard-to-Rhodes-Scholarship types who populate the American elite. I don’t trust people who get flattering reams of newspaper profiles and are pitched as the Next Big Thing That You Must Pay Attention To, and I don’t trust wunderkinds who become successful too early. Why? Because I am somewhat cynical about the United States meritocracy. Few people amass these kind of résumés if they are the type to openly challenge authority. Noam Chomsky says that the factors predicting success in our “meritocracy” are a “combination of greed, cynicism, obsequiousness and subordination, lack of curiosity and independence of mind, [and] self-serving disregard for others.” So when journalists see “Harvard” and think “impressive,” I see it and think “uh-oh.”

      3 votes
      1. moonbathers
        Link Parent
        Ok, I stand corrected on that part. I'll only speak for myself then: I don't care that he went to Harvard, I care that I don't like his views.

        Ok, I stand corrected on that part. I'll only speak for myself then: I don't care that he went to Harvard, I care that I don't like his views.

        5 votes
  4. [2]
    tempestoftruth
    (edited )
    Link
    I strongly reject this characterization, and I think most Jacobin readers would as well. This is an indication that the author has a view of U.S. politics that is reductive and without nuance....

    Jacobin, tribune of the socialist wing of the Democratic Party

    I strongly reject this characterization, and I think most Jacobin readers would as well. This is an indication that the author has a view of U.S. politics that is reductive and without nuance. Anyone can have a politics that can exist independently of the liberal two-party system. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm a socialist or a leftist. What is with the need to attach Jacobin, of all things, to the Democratic Party? Not to mention that Jacobin can be highly controversial among socialists.

    The unspoken truth about the furor Buttigieg arouses is that his success threatens a core belief of young progressives: that their ideology owns the future, and that the rise of millennials into Democratic politics is going to bring an inevitable demographic triumph for the party’s far left wing ... So it’s especially galling that the first millennial to take a serious run at the presidency is nothing like the left’s imagined savior

    This is just wrong. It plays into the reductive trope that millennials are entitled, which is probably the reason it's getting any attention as legitimate political analysis and why it got published. I don't believe socialism owns the future -- I would like it to, but that is a fight we are currently engaged in. There will be no 'savior', even if Bernie wins, there's still a ton of work to be done on the ground. Even if I believed that there would be I don't care what age that person would be, as long as they're committed to reducing inequality and helping the working class.

    12 votes
    1. Loire
      Link Parent
      It's a semi-snarky comment indicating that Jacobin is popular amongst the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. That's not to say that Jacobin is related to the Democrats, or that it is...

      I strongly reject this characterization, and I think most Jacobin readers would as well. This is an indication that the author has a view of U.S. politics that is reductive and without nuance. Anyone can have a politics that can exist independently of the liberal two-party system. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm a socialist or a leftist. What is with the need to attach Jacobin, of all thing, to the Democratic Party? Not to mention that Jacobin can be highly controversial among socialists.

      It's a semi-snarky comment indicating that Jacobin is popular amongst the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. That's not to say that Jacobin is related to the Democrats, or that it is literally for/of that political party, ala FOX. Just that it tends to be read by the left within the party. As for its controversy, well yes, the left is nothing of not ideologically fractured.

      This is just wrong. It plays into the reductive trope that millennials are entitled, which is probably the reason it's getting any attention as legitimate political analysis and why it got published. I don't believe socialism owns the future -- I would like it to, but that is a fight we are currently engaged in. There will be no 'savior', even if Bernie wins, there's still a ton of work to be done on the ground. Even if I believed that there would be I don't care what age that person would be, as long as they're committed to reducing inequality and helping the working class.

      Solid response, thank you for that.

      3 votes
  5. [4]
    Parliament
    Link
    Buttigieg has made decisions in his campaign that demonstrate a lack of authenticity. This is a death sentence for support from young voters. They tend to prefer authenticity over a candidate...

    Buttigieg has made decisions in his campaign that demonstrate a lack of authenticity. This is a death sentence for support from young voters. They tend to prefer authenticity over a candidate perceived to be savvy in doing whatever it takes to win. I know I've read a study on this linked here not too long ago.

    10 votes
    1. moocow1452
      Link Parent
      So I keep up with this Politics Podcast (http://www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/blog/2020/1/1/2020-begins) and the host had something to say about the Mayor Pete hate that boiled down to him not...

      So I keep up with this Politics Podcast (http://www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/blog/2020/1/1/2020-begins) and the host had something to say about the Mayor Pete hate that boiled down to him not being authentic enough for the progressive left. Couple that with the fact that being the first gay president is a shiny trinket in an election that really real policy change is on the table, as opposed to your average saving the world from each other the parties get up to. Because there's progressive talk, and then there's being an authentic ball of rage and determination, and that played pretty well the last go around.

      4 votes
    2. [2]
      skybrian
      Link Parent
      I'm wondering what people mean by "authenticity" when it comes to politicians? It's not like he faked any of his experience (as far as I know), and they're all trying to win.

      I'm wondering what people mean by "authenticity" when it comes to politicians? It's not like he faked any of his experience (as far as I know), and they're all trying to win.

      1 vote
      1. Icarus
        Link Parent
        For me, its what are they saying when they want my vote versus what have they been doing before they wanted my vote. Pete Buttigieg has a plan to double union membership. But why has he never...

        I'm wondering what people mean by "authenticity" when it comes to politicians?

        For me, its what are they saying when they want my vote versus what have they been doing before they wanted my vote.

        Pete Buttigieg has a plan to double union membership. But why has he never stood on a picket line?

        Pete Buttigieg wants to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. When he was mayor, he increased the minimum wage for city workers to just $10.10.

        His slogan on his website says this:

        We need a new kind of politics - one that will rally Americans together behind bold ideas so we can finally solve our greatest problems.

        Okay, lets see what Pete Buttigieg said from 2001 to 2017 about his issues that he is highlighting here:

        You can perform this exercise over and over with all his plans. His site is filled with platitudes but his history doesn't match up. I feel that when you can only talk the talk, and not walk the walk, his words move from messaging to marketing.

        14 votes
  6. Diet_Coke
    Link
    I agree with the points about his contrived image and being a sellout. I would also add, I'm one of those leftists that was a big supporter of 2008 Obama but felt completely sold out by what he...

    I agree with the points about his contrived image and being a sellout. I would also add, I'm one of those leftists that was a big supporter of 2008 Obama but felt completely sold out by what he became. He talked a really good game and then 3 years later a lot of his campaign organizers used their skills to help start Occupy camps against his policies. I think that is probably a defining aspect of my relationship with US politics. As a consequence, the consistency and authenticity of Bernie Sanders is a big part of his appeal. The lack of it is a big strike against Buttigieg. Maybe he really is a good guy, he should show us before we just stick him in the Oval Office.

    10 votes
  7. Kuromantis
    (edited )
    Link
    Whoever made this must be conflating the 'I am suffering from financial problems which put me into literally decades of debt' left wing people with buzzfeed 'check your privilege/male...

    Whoever made this must be conflating the 'I am suffering from financial problems which put me into literally decades of debt' left wing people with buzzfeed 'check your privilege/male tearz/identity politics' toxic left-wing twitter people,which I see almost none of. My opinion on Pete was vaguely positive since he seemed better (more mentally able) than Biden and if neoliberalism is really the most popular ideology in this country and the one which will win the elections to come, I'd rather he win. Until I realised that he took funds from private donors which makes sure none of his (actually pretty progressive but he pretends them not to be to steal neoliberal vote) policies would be passed due to lobbying and his transparency isn't really there. (Albeit Biden also does this, which makes me dislike both candidates.) Really he's just trying to eat Biden's vote, which is maybe working but his voters don't work like that, they're pretty slow to change. To most people he isn't a bigger deal than Kamala harris or Tulsi gabbard, and certainly not worth enough to 'enrage the young left', we have Trump for that.

    9 votes
  8. wycy
    Link
    I think it's fairly easy to see why the young left doesn't like him, and the reasons are pretty simple: He's a charlatan. He masqueraded as a leftist candidate who had a unique Supreme Court...

    I think it's fairly easy to see why the young left doesn't like him, and the reasons are pretty simple:

    1. He's a charlatan. He masqueraded as a leftist candidate who had a unique Supreme Court packing strategy and strongly supported M4A. He even previously even made some of the most novel arguments in favor of M4A, noting that it is essentially a compromise between the fully capitalist healthcare system of the US and the fully socialized system of the UK. Having failed to get traction on this message and seeing an opening in Biden's lane due to Biden's declining mental faculties, Pete has completely disavowed these proposals that previously made him an interesting candidate. Pete now acts like the policy he fully supported just months ago is the dumbest thing he's ever heard. Any objective observer can see that he was either lying 9 months ago when he supported those things, or he is lying now.

    2. Being the mayor of a tiny college town is his only qualification. Knowing Norwegian is not a qualification. It is entirely inadequate.

    9 votes
  9. [3]
    Silbern
    Link
    Since this is a surprisingly controversial thread, I'll throw my hat in the ring; I'm not a big fan of this article either, even though I respect Politico and they're a daily news source of mine,...

    Since this is a surprisingly controversial thread, I'll throw my hat in the ring; I'm not a big fan of this article either, even though I respect Politico and they're a daily news source of mine, because I'm a young 21 year old guy and I'm planning on voting for Pete in my state's primary next month. I don't really see with what sources cause this author to think young people hate Pete - far from it, he's one of the most popular second choice candidates for many, including among Warren voters iirc.

    And tbh, I would rather not see the Democratic primary become so hostile and aggressive, because if we want to defeat Trump, we all need to make the commitment to vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary. The one thing we can't afford is to let ourselves be split right now.

    6 votes
    1. wycy
      Link Parent
      This does not appear to be the case. From NPR, he's a distant third among the young:

      I don't really see with what sources cause this author to think young people hate Pete - far from it, he's one of the most popular second choice candidates for many, including among Warren voters iirc.

      This does not appear to be the case. From NPR, he's a distant third among the young:

      When asked who their first choice would be in the Iowa caucuses, 38% of those ages 18 to 29 picked Warren. Another 29% picked Sanders. Buttigieg was the third choice of these young voters, with 12% support.

      A glance at how candidates fared among voters age 65 and older puts Buttigieg on stronger footing at 23%, second only to former Vice President Joe Biden.

      4 votes
    2. Loire
      Link Parent
      It's not that all young people hate Buttigieg. A certain political demographic fairly universally hate him. I would suggest looking to the dominant posts in this thread to get an idea of what the...

      I don't really see with what sources cause this author to think young people hate Pete - far from it, he's one of the most popular second choice candidates for many

      It's not that all young people hate Buttigieg. A certain political demographic fairly universally hate him. I would suggest looking to the dominant posts in this thread to get an idea of what the author is referring to. See here or here for examples of sources.

      1 vote
  10. Loire
    Link

    Buttigieg is a young professional with an elite pedigree who’s chosen to buy into the system as a reformer instead of attacking it as a revolutionary. To a certain class of left-wing thought leaders, he’s an unwelcome reminder of the squeaky-clean moderates with whom they once rubbed elbows. And quite possibly, his elite credentials may also be an unwelcome reminder of their own. The editor-in-chief of Current Affairs, for instance, isn’t just a random antagonist: He’s also a fellow Harvard alumnus.

    And it’s not his ideology: The resentment he inspires runs much deeper than that earned by the Amy Klobuchars and Michael Bennets of the world—both of whom have more politically moderate tendencies than Buttigieg, who has, among other positions, argued for raising the minimum wage to $15, introducing a public health care option, expanding the size of the Supreme Court and abolishing the Electoral College. (Asked for comment for this article, a representative from the Buttigieg campaign told Politico that staffers are occasionally vexed by the cold reception to a platform that’s well to the left of any recent Democratic presidential nominee.)

    If influencers on the left successfully discredit and weaken Buttigieg, the most likely outcome is then to bolster Warren, Sanders’ nearest competitor. Biden, meanwhile, continues to sit comfortably atop the polls, even as most of his voters say their second choice would be ... Bernie Sanders. A Biden nomination is a suboptimal outcome if your goal is to usher in democratic socialism, but to tweak a conservative idiom, hey—at least you had fun owning the neolibs.

    5 votes
  11. BuckeyeSundae
    Link
    I don't know. I'm irritated by all this attempt to use political identity as a bludgeon to silence people who feel slightly differently about this or that political topic. I tire of these "this is...

    I don't know. I'm irritated by all this attempt to use political identity as a bludgeon to silence people who feel slightly differently about this or that political topic.

    I tire of these "this is why Young people hate this" or "this is why young people love that" articles. We're not a monolith. Don't lump us all together as if we're uniformly Shaun King or something.

    Call what is happening for what it is. People who would prefer a more left leaning candidate than they believe Buttigieg to be care more about ideology than identity, and they don't see a lot of record to ease their suspicion of another pretty face that seems to lean much further right than they want to support (even if, at the end of the day, it's still left of the American center).

    There's blood in the water. Everyone knows Trump is going to be a weak incumbent. Liberal activists are pretty obviously using this moment to get the best bang for their buck in the primary, and they're hoping that they can trade some of Trump's weakness with moderates for a candidate that is closer to their ideal. This political calculation is why the left wing of the party isn't particularly willing to fold in behind a perceived moderate, more than anything else. I don't see anything gained by framing this argument as a statement from "the young left" as though we're some coherent political group. We're not. Pretending that we are is irresponsible narrative crafting that verges on propaganda.

    On the merits, this hatred is convenient and oversold. The people who hate the most are the sort that most would prefer someone more provably liberal. There isn't a lot of trust in empty platitudes and blue eyed white men from the left these days--I feel that distrust viscerally. Some identities matter more to the left than others. And despite our tendency to offend our elders by drinking pumpkin spice lattes in October, I don't think many of us care that much about seeing another pumpkin spice latte drinker rise to the top of our political hierarchy out of nowhere.

    Anyway, I bet he drinks his coffee black. He's got enough cream.

    4 votes
  12. Odysseus
    Link
    I don't like Pete because he seems smug and entitled. I could go into his policy positions I disagree with, but truth be told, I disliked him before I even looked at that. I'm not going to rule...

    I don't like Pete because he seems smug and entitled. I could go into his policy positions I disagree with, but truth be told, I disliked him before I even looked at that. I'm not going to rule out voting for him until I learn more about him, but I don't like the guy. He seems out of touch and arrogant.

    3 votes