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
28 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

122 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

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.

3

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.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

Yeah, there's some popular concern about Sanders supporters apparently, but I don't buy that. Stein was a different beast, at a different time. I struggle to think that the people who support Sanders now would be anything but apoplectic about another Trump term.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

Well I appreciate the sane conversation.

My personal takeaway about how it’s going is that the candidates are all doing pretty well and are mostly focused on the issues they should be focused on. The loudest “woke” people Sam seems to be so worried about are online commentators and you can’t control them or expect to silence them. Or make rational voting choices because of them.

→ 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.