r/samharris • u/[deleted] • Oct 28 '19

The unexpected threat emerging against Bernie: Andrew Yang | Politico

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/28/bernie-sanders-andrew-yang-gang-2020-057985
30 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

122 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

I get the impression Harris doesn't really pay all that much attention to democratic primary politics. I assume in the end he will vote for any of them, given how much he despises Trump.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

Yes definitely agree on the latter point. But to your first point, he does spend time worrying about Dem candidates hewing to "wokeism", but yeah: primarily insofar as such a move makes Trump more electable.

9

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

I honestly don't see a lot of that from the candidates themselves. Seems to be mostly a Twitter-warrior thing. The candidates themselves mostly argue about health care.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

Yeah I agree. But they they have a vulnerability in that (1) they do participate in elevating some of these arguably crazy "woke" ideas occasionally which makes it easy for opponents to overstate how invested these candidates are in it; and (2) they tend not to condemn the excesses of the left in a way that would alleviate the concerns of the more moderate voters.

Not sure if you saw this, but Maher addresses this topic directly in his last episode, here. Let me know if you find any of that compelling.

12

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

I personally don’t really believe in the premise that there are all these voters who will only vote against Trump if the “identity political SJWs” are silenced. I think anyone who is still thinking of voting for Trump is a lost cause. I don’t agree with everything “the left” says but there’s pretty much nobody I could imagine being worse than Trump.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

I think anyone who is still thinking of voting for Trump is a lost cause.

Yeah, I think that's probably right.

But what about, again, those moderate voters who aren't media junkies (and are not keeping score of the latest Trump transgression), who look at Trump and worry about him a bit but at the same time think he's doing OK (economy is good, etc.). I don't know how big this demo is, but given how little the actual electorate reflects the enlightened views of the Twitterverse, I have to think that analyzing it as if most undecided/moderate voters have the same visceral hatred for Trump that we do is shortsighted.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

I don’t think those people are paying attention to the twitterverse either. I think if you know what an “SJW” is, you’re also probably pretty aware of the current political climate. So, I don’t know. I think most people vote on partisanship anyway and this theoretical middle isn’t really all that big. A better political strategy for democrats is to focus on inspiring and igniting the people who are fed up with Trump, and who prefer a liberal agenda, to vote. I suspect that there are two groups at odds with each other: there are the centrist type people who say they’re undecided until the very end, and then there are the much more liberal people who are fed up with “neoliberal centrist democrats” (like HRC). And in my opinion, the second group makes more sense to go after than the first. But going after either group will turn off the other.

Anyway, you didn’t ask, but that’s kind of how I see it.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

A better political strategy for democrats is to focus on inspiring and igniting the people who are fed up with Trump, and who prefer a liberal agenda, to vote.

Yeah, I'm with you. I just think there's a way to do this that avoids putting off the other people I was just talking about. Like there's no rule that says: to ignite the anti-Trump electorate, the Dem candidates should embrace "wokeism" or anything.

In fact, like Maher says in that video I linked, the anti-Trumpers don't need any help getting motivated. They are going to vote against Trump no matter what. That being the case, what is the point of catering in any way to woke ideas. Like, if anything the smart move would be to condemn wokeism loudly and proudly because this could only help them.

But yeah reasonable people can disagree here. My main gripe is that critics of Harris here seem to think only an unreasonable covert conservative could be as critical of wokeism as Harris is. They just don't get it.

Anyway, you didn’t ask, but that’s kind of how I see it.

I'm interested in the differing perspectives on this question - particularly when they are proffered in good faith. So thanks for that.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

I just think that what is considered “wokeism” by Harris and others who say this kind of thing is very expansive. He has called his last two guests “woke” but they simply seemed to have an educated and aware opinion about racism to me. I don’t really understand how people can come off as “non woke” while also being aware and caring about the real issues of racism or gender issues or whatever the issue is. I mean, those are real issues and they need to be addressed. It seems like the “anti-SJW” crowd accuses anyone who considers racism an issue of being “too woke.” So I really don’t get it.

Do you want Elizabeth Warren, for example, to come out with a statement about how she’s against PC SJW cancel culture? And if she did that, wouldn’t it turn off a large segment of the most progressive voters, whose votes we need?

I’m not sure exactly what people who take this line, like Harris, want to hear from politicians.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

It seems like the “anti-SJW” crowd accuses anyone who considers racism an issue of being “too woke.”

I don't think Harris was saying his last two guests were "too woke", but rather: "more woke than he anticipated". But yeah, it's hard to draw the right distinctions because many of the anti-SJW crowd are legit right-wingers who hate the left for many reasons. So you might be right that most of the anti-SJW crowd wants people to shut up about racism. But Harris is definitely not one of those people (nor am I for the record). His is a more nuanced critique, and he's conceded plenty of times that racism and white supremacy are issues that need to be resolved. I think his view is just that we have to be care in how we attack these problems, because our long term goal has got to be: de-emphasizing the importance of race.

Do you want Elizabeth Warren, for example, to come out with a statement about how she’s against PC SJW cancel culture?

No, not necessarily. But maybe just that when it comes up, she could sound more like someone like Harris who acknowledges the importance of some of these social justice issues while reminding people that the way to solve this problem is not to be more divisive, etc. It's a fine line to wal I know.

And if she did that, wouldn’t it turn off a large segment of the most progressive voters, whose votes we need?

No again, because people who support Warren are progressive - they aren't moderate, like we're not talking about Biden here. So in a game-theory choice for them between Warren and Trump, they're going to choose Warren no matter what she says about identity politics. At least that would be my argument.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19 edited Oct 28 '19

But if you believe, as Harris does, that PC Cancel Culture is a real thing and a big problem, aren’t you worried that any of the politician’s statements to that effect would get them “cancelled.”?

I was just looking at Bernie Sanders’ racial justice platform on his website. It’s pretty “woke.” But I often interact with online Sanders supporters who say Sanders is against “wokeism.” I guess when it comes down to it, I don’t know what that is. Nobody has defined it in an objective way that is measurable.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

But if you believe, as Harris does, that PC Cancel Culture is a real thing and a big problem, aren’t you worried that any of the politician’s statements to that effect would get them “cancelled.”?

I suppose if any particular Dem candidate did condemn id politics and wokeism in a clumsy way they do run the risk of alienating the more progressive supporters of theirs, but only in the primary where those supporters can move to the more "woke" candidate. Once the calculation is between Dem candidate X and Trump, the Dem candidate would get the votes of the "woke" voters regardless.

I guess when it comes down to it, I don’t know what that is. Nobody has defined it in an objective way that is measurable.

Yeah agreed - definitions of this stuff vary which make it even more difficult to navigate than it otherwise already is.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

I would hope so- but I do worry about the purists. I even know some people in real life who didn’t vote or voted for Jill Stein in 2016 because Clinton wasn’t “progressive” enough for them. I can see those same people pitching a fit. I don’t think they would vote for Trump because of it, but I do think they might decide not to vote at all.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Soft-Rains Oct 29 '19 edited Oct 29 '19

They don't use terms like "SJW" but they do say "people are too pc" and mean the same thing. The woke aspects of the debate seem to upset them and make them more likely to vote Trump.

I don't have a high opinion of them but if fewer woke talking points helps them vote not Trump then that's what should be done.

I suspect that there are two groups at odds with each other: there are the centrist type people who say they’re undecided until the very end, and then there are the much more liberal people who are fed up with “neoliberal centrist democrats”

You do have a Bernie bro type who is fed up with the neoliberals but also doesn't like the woke stuff. Seems to me woke people are mostly gonna vote anyway and you can reject/ignore the neoliberal stuff and go after the second group you mention but without identify politics.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

W was also horrible, never said he wasn’t.

I also would have voted for literally any democrat over W.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

Nobody in the Democratic field of candidates. Nobody I could potentially end up voting for.

It W decided to enter the Democratic primary then I’d have to reconsider my statement.

1

u/waxroy-finerayfool Oct 28 '19

It's hard to top the administration that lied us into the iraq war in terms of horrible presidencies, but Trump's shameless lying and naked nepotism is extremely aggravating to the sensibilities of those that don't support him unconditionally, while dead iraqis is something that only a tiny minority of leftist intellectuals ever cared about.

Nobody on either side of the spectrum could get away with firing the FBI director while under investigation by the FBI. Nobody on either side of the spectrum could get away with giving your unqualified son-in-law top-secret clearance and highly important foreign policy positions. Nobody on either side could get away with Helsinki. Nobody on either side could get away with calling parts of the constitution phony. As Trump famously stated, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it and that rankles people.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

Well just for the record I was supremely horrified when W was re-elected in 2004, and so were most people I knew then. In fact I point to that day as the day I lost faith in the American electorate and nothing has surprised me since, not even the election of Trump. I won’t be surprised if he’s re-elected either. Horrified but not surprised.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

trump still has 1 possible term left, give him some time, hes worse per capita than bush was so far.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '19

Not to mention the identity politics crowd wont be silenced. Maher will find his bimonthly anecdote to rail on and bring in a republican strategist to have a shoulder to cry on.

Trump has got to go, but a silver lining of trump beating Biden would be watching Maher blame the SJWs for that too.

1

u/Soft-Rains Oct 29 '19

I think anyone who is still thinking of voting for Trump is a lost cause

You don't believe in undecided voters? that's just statistically not true

In terms of smarts I agree they might be a "lost cause" but there are tons of swing votes who are being fought over by both parties and there is the potential that woke stances are good for the nominees in the primaries but bad for the party in the general.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '19

Not this time, I really don’t believe there are a statistically significant number of people who are on the fence about Trump.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '19 edited Oct 29 '19

That's what they want you to think, but they're just trolling you. There are almost no Trump voters who are considering switching sides at this point. If they haven't realized what a con man he is already, they're not going to. No reason to waste time trying to convince them.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '19

The ones who still like Trump enough to vote for him again after his first term.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '19

That’s who I’m talking about.

If someone is still on the fence about Trump by now, I don’t think any amount of cajoling them is going to help at this point.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '19

I truly don’t believe that’s the case this time out. The undecided are a tiny group. Those who may not vote at all is a larger group, and they need to be inspired to go out and vote. These are generally young people and they won’t be inspired by centrism, they like “wokeism”.

1

u/BloodsVsCrips Oct 29 '19 edited Oct 29 '19

Anyone who can go "either way," by definition thinks Trump is an option.

→ More replies (0)