While Clinton clearly has a great team behind her new book that this is an adapted afterword to, I just can't shake the feeling that she's either written off the huge majority of people who have...
While Clinton clearly has a great team behind her new book that this is an adapted afterword to, I just can't shake the feeling that she's either written off the huge majority of people who have to be engaged to reach the goal of "mobilizing massive turnout" in the upcoming election.
Or she's so out of touch she entirely misses that entire group and how low the lowest common denominator actually is. These aren't the type of messages to get couch non-voters into polling places. Sure, big ideas and principles and so on. But how does this affect me?
What did Clinton learn from how she lost the election? To me this seems like a losing speech, although it was an interesting take because of who she is, not because of the content.
How does all this shit make my or your life worse. How specific can you get? How do you make this all relatable?
For sure. This is an academic's take on politics, not so much a winning politician's take on politics (which, in my view, has always been her biggest problem, whether we're talking about her as a...
For sure. This is an academic's take on politics, not so much a winning politician's take on politics (which, in my view, has always been her biggest problem, whether we're talking about her as a politician or as an advocate or public figure). Still, academically I think her weighting the problems of the trump administration not by the norm-breaking rudeness we see day-to-day but by what seems genuinely to be the impactful, more potentially destablizing news stories is a bit refreshing.
I think this article proves that she's given up trying to convince people to vote for her. Given that solicitousness was often one of the chief complaints with her political style ("it's too focus-grouped and stiff", a complaint I shared), it's an interesting read to see her talking in a way that doesn't feel too pandering.
Interesting. I read this the exact opposite way: she still wants people to pick her political ideas. She just doesn't know how to convey them or how they actually impact people's lives because she...
Interesting. I read this the exact opposite way: she still wants people to pick her political ideas. She just doesn't know how to convey them or how they actually impact people's lives because she only ever managed to talk to academics.
She isn't trying to win an election, she's trying to win the public debate and the public over. But she just can't communicate with regular people who live lives where daily life takes all day.
To me Clinton always seem like she tried to talk at normal people, but her rehearsed technique had the aim all wrong and missed everyone academics and plumbers Joe alike. That pattern continues.
Could be. I've always been a bit wonkier than average so talking to the "common person" tends to miss me hard. I tend to bristle at a lot of rhetoric that seems glib and/or pandering, especially...
Could be. I've always been a bit wonkier than average so talking to the "common person" tends to miss me hard. I tend to bristle at a lot of rhetoric that seems glib and/or pandering, especially when the facts are misleading or taken in the least fair light possible. And I have a huge weakness for people who can put their arguments into a historical context.
She wrote this like a college essay. That's a familiar style to me. Gets me feeling nostalgic for my own college days (and it's a pretty similar style to how I used to write, and which has informed my writing ever since). For people who have already turned off to her, that's not going to be at all compelling. Like, at all. It's a stuffy style best suited to undergrads and professors looking to survive their tenure. It is clear writing, but it is not necessarily persuasive writing (and usually the structure itself turns a lot of people off).
This seems to have come up in a lot of the town halls that the Great Slate candidates have been holding -- people in contestable districts respond to issues they care about, particularly...
I just can't shake the feeling that she's either written off the huge majority of people who have to be engaged to reach the goal of "mobilizing massive turnout" in the upcoming election.
This seems to have come up in a lot of the town halls that the Great Slate candidates have been holding -- people in contestable districts respond to issues they care about, particularly healthcare, while the Trump Show acts as a distraction at best. The fact that so many Democratic leading lights continue to hand-wave away the notion that people might vote for shit that affects their lives is pretty disheartening.
Agreed, though -- although I found the HRC excerpt in OP to be even-keeled and sensible, it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would connect with (or even reach) voters who didn't already agree with it entirely.
I've read this three times now, and I honestly can't tell if HRC actually believes this crap herself, or just thinks that most USians still do deep down inside. You can't protect what doesn't...
I've read this three times now, and I honestly can't tell if HRC actually believes this crap herself, or just thinks that most USians still do deep down inside.
The ball, of course, is protecting American democracy. As citizens, that’s our most important charge. And right now, our democracy is in crisis.
You can't protect what doesn't exist, and for most people in the US, "American democracy" not only doesn't exist now, it never, ever existed in the past. All "American democracy" means is that you get to vote for the officials the richest among us will use to rubber-stamp bills written by corporate lobbyists into law. No matter who you vote for, your workplace will still be a privately-owned dictatorship where you're expected to leave your rights as a citizen and a human being at the door. No matter who you vote for, the government will spy on you without a warrant. No matter who you vote for, you can be summarily executed by the police if you don't do exactly as they say, no matter how unreasonable or nonsensical their orders might be at the time.
Why is HRC defending such a system? Why is it worth saving? Why shouldn't we burn it all to the ground and proclaim a new republic?
John Adams wrote that the definition of a republic is “a government of laws, and not of men.” That ideal is enshrined in two powerful principles: No one, not even the most powerful leader, is above the law, and all citizens are due equal protection under the law.
Why only citizens? The constitution HRC was ready to swear to defend doesn't say a damn thing about citizens; it talks about persons. There isn't one rule of law for the citizenry and one for everybody else, that way lies tyranny once a government starts looking for ways to strip people of citizenship.
Second, the legitimacy of our elections is in doubt.
Our elections are a farce. Everybody is stuck voting for whoever they loathe least because of the way we mishandle elections in this country. As long as the choice is between two major parties, people are going to sit out elections. We need real reforms, like 100% publicly funded elections with proportional representation and instant-runoff voting so that people can actually vote their preferences/consciences instead of settling for the lesser evil.
While Clinton clearly has a great team behind her new book that this is an adapted afterword to, I just can't shake the feeling that she's either written off the huge majority of people who have to be engaged to reach the goal of "mobilizing massive turnout" in the upcoming election.
Or she's so out of touch she entirely misses that entire group and how low the lowest common denominator actually is. These aren't the type of messages to get couch non-voters into polling places. Sure, big ideas and principles and so on. But how does this affect me?
What did Clinton learn from how she lost the election? To me this seems like a losing speech, although it was an interesting take because of who she is, not because of the content.
How does all this shit make my or your life worse. How specific can you get? How do you make this all relatable?
Clearly not like this.
For sure. This is an academic's take on politics, not so much a winning politician's take on politics (which, in my view, has always been her biggest problem, whether we're talking about her as a politician or as an advocate or public figure). Still, academically I think her weighting the problems of the trump administration not by the norm-breaking rudeness we see day-to-day but by what seems genuinely to be the impactful, more potentially destablizing news stories is a bit refreshing.
I think this article proves that she's given up trying to convince people to vote for her. Given that solicitousness was often one of the chief complaints with her political style ("it's too focus-grouped and stiff", a complaint I shared), it's an interesting read to see her talking in a way that doesn't feel too pandering.
Interesting. I read this the exact opposite way: she still wants people to pick her political ideas. She just doesn't know how to convey them or how they actually impact people's lives because she only ever managed to talk to academics.
She isn't trying to win an election, she's trying to win the public debate and the public over. But she just can't communicate with regular people who live lives where daily life takes all day.
To me Clinton always seem like she tried to talk at normal people, but her rehearsed technique had the aim all wrong and missed everyone academics and plumbers Joe alike. That pattern continues.
Could be. I've always been a bit wonkier than average so talking to the "common person" tends to miss me hard. I tend to bristle at a lot of rhetoric that seems glib and/or pandering, especially when the facts are misleading or taken in the least fair light possible. And I have a huge weakness for people who can put their arguments into a historical context.
She wrote this like a college essay. That's a familiar style to me. Gets me feeling nostalgic for my own college days (and it's a pretty similar style to how I used to write, and which has informed my writing ever since). For people who have already turned off to her, that's not going to be at all compelling. Like, at all. It's a stuffy style best suited to undergrads and professors looking to survive their tenure. It is clear writing, but it is not necessarily persuasive writing (and usually the structure itself turns a lot of people off).
This seems to have come up in a lot of the town halls that the Great Slate candidates have been holding -- people in contestable districts respond to issues they care about, particularly healthcare, while the Trump Show acts as a distraction at best. The fact that so many Democratic leading lights continue to hand-wave away the notion that people might vote for shit that affects their lives is pretty disheartening.
Agreed, though -- although I found the HRC excerpt in OP to be even-keeled and sensible, it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would connect with (or even reach) voters who didn't already agree with it entirely.
I've read this three times now, and I honestly can't tell if HRC actually believes this crap herself, or just thinks that most USians still do deep down inside.
You can't protect what doesn't exist, and for most people in the US, "American democracy" not only doesn't exist now, it never, ever existed in the past. All "American democracy" means is that you get to vote for the officials the richest among us will use to rubber-stamp bills written by corporate lobbyists into law. No matter who you vote for, your workplace will still be a privately-owned dictatorship where you're expected to leave your rights as a citizen and a human being at the door. No matter who you vote for, the government will spy on you without a warrant. No matter who you vote for, you can be summarily executed by the police if you don't do exactly as they say, no matter how unreasonable or nonsensical their orders might be at the time.
Why is HRC defending such a system? Why is it worth saving? Why shouldn't we burn it all to the ground and proclaim a new republic?
Why only citizens? The constitution HRC was ready to swear to defend doesn't say a damn thing about citizens; it talks about persons. There isn't one rule of law for the citizenry and one for everybody else, that way lies tyranny once a government starts looking for ways to strip people of citizenship.
Our elections are a farce. Everybody is stuck voting for whoever they loathe least because of the way we mishandle elections in this country. As long as the choice is between two major parties, people are going to sit out elections. We need real reforms, like 100% publicly funded elections with proportional representation and instant-runoff voting so that people can actually vote their preferences/consciences instead of settling for the lesser evil.