David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics • Hacker News Board

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#51

Post by marcus_holmes » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 1:19 PM UTC

casept wrote: post #47

insickness wrote: post #45

This article gives a perfect, if unintentional synopsis of why Trump is in power. The left has embraced hook-line-and-sinker Critical Theory and Identity Politics. All power and victimhood is seen through the lens of identities, causing the left had to abandon class because it is not an immutable category. The working class abandoned the Democratic party because the party abandoned the working class and then poured s…

When was the democratic party ever truly "left"? My impression of them is that they were arguably mildly SocDem in the past, and then turned into (neo)liberals in the 90's. Liberals are not leftists.

Same as the Labour party in the UK, and the Labor party in Australia. While the politicians might be socialist, the parties are definitely centre-left neo-liberal.

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#52

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 1:20 PM UTC

raxxorrax wrote: post #50

EdwardDiego wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious that you're downvoted without comment. I was hoping some of your detractors would've explained why they think you're wrong. As an outsider to the US bunfight, your statement seems, based on what we see, pretty self-evident.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/456523-donald-trumps... https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/456523-donald-trumps... I don't believe he is a racist. He has strong opinions and no fear of hiding them. That is actually a huge draw for people voting for him. Accusations of racism are mostly political play. I don't really see how it is self-evident though. What do you think makes him racist? The Obama stuff co…

The whitewashing of this guy is the big issue. He can do no wrong, that supporters don't contort the evidence (and their own good sense) to struggle to reinterpret him as 'ok'.

You want to understand, read outside your bubble. Not extremist view, just speeches and responses to direct questions and whatnot.

Some reports may seem extremist because of the shocking response they have to our potus. It's a normal reaction to a fundamentally troubling character that's somehow in power. Somehow its not honest for them to speak out like that, while the candidate gets every benefit of the doubt?

I suggest using those contortionist skills, to understand outrage and shock at the spectacle of an incoherent, largely immoral money-grabber in the White House.

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#53

Post by raxxorrax » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #35

alttab wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This dude knows nothing about why Trump won if he thinks I went from Obama to Trump because I'm a closet racist. Maybe it had to do with all the war, bombing, and drone campaigns?

It's the company you keep... As if the Republican side didn't have enough bombings, drone strikes and so on. Yes, Obama disappointed on quite a few fronts. But choosing Trump of Clinton was just plain stupid, face it.

> It's the company you keep...

... is a very common saying in actually racist groups that think themselves above others.

Alternatively it can also be the language you speak... that gives you away.

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#54

Post by raxxorrax » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 1:22 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #52

raxxorrax wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/456523-donald-trumps... https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/456523-donald-trumps... I don't believe he is a racist. He has strong opinions and no fear of hiding them. That is actually a huge draw for people voting for him. Accusations of racism are mostly political play. I don't really see how it is self-evident though. What do you think makes him racist? The Obama stuff co…

The whitewashing of this guy is the big issue. He can do no wrong, that supporters don't contort the evidence (and their own good sense) to struggle to reinterpret him as 'ok'. You want to understand, read outside your bubble. Not extremist view, just speeches and responses to direct questions and whatnot. Some reports may seem extremist because of the shocking response they have to our potus. It's a normal reaction…

I think Trumps has many flaws and it is true that there is some white washing. I do think his strong opinions can be a source of much bigotry.

But he is judgmental about everyone and I don't think it is connected to race.

His voters specifically let him say controversial stuff. They like it if it hits sensibilities of his political enemies since it signals his voters that the others just think themselves to be exalted above the allegedly less sophisticated members of society.

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#55

Post by raxxorrax » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 1:32 PM UTC

insickness wrote: post #45

This article gives a perfect, if unintentional synopsis of why Trump is in power. The left has embraced hook-line-and-sinker Critical Theory and Identity Politics. All power and victimhood is seen through the lens of identities, causing the left had to abandon class because it is not an immutable category. The working class abandoned the Democratic party because the party abandoned the working class and then poured s…

I think you are on spot with that assessment and it might even happen again since the strategy is mostly unchanged.

A bit sad to see what the author believes about his countrymen and he doesn't seem to have noticed that many of those already picked up on them while even having fewer prejudices.

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#56

Post by rendall » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 1:33 PM UTC

raxxorrax wrote: post #49

rendall wrote: post #39

From the article: But a lot of people on the Clinton campaign tricked themselves into the idea that they didn’t have to placate the social views of racist white people. This seems like a pretty important insight and I really wish the interview could have unpacked this a lot better. It seems to be an operating assumption of the Democratic campaign, and I imagine if one is locked into this view (by implacable statistic…

I think it is dead wrong on almost all accounts. I don't think people are widely racists and the accusation wasn't even underhanded, it was very well perceived. That did cost a lot of votes. Especially since the democrats even wanted to penalize people for allegedly being racist. Like a monarch that went crazy. This is really bad overall advice in my opinion. > that “moderate” voters don’t have moderate views, just i…

"I think it is dead wrong on almost all accounts."

I suspect it is too, but I would at least like to see the reasoning behind it if any

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#57

Post by davidshor » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 1:37 PM UTC

rendall wrote: post #41

shoo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here's some pointers to results summarising 1. higher racial resentment correlated with higher votes for trump 2. most positive views of rising diversity correlated with switching from voting for romney to voting for not-trump ; least positive views of rising diversity correlated with switching from voting for obama to voting for trump 3. correlation of support for trump and more negative views of rising diversity th…

> "This is all pretty pretty clear, I don't know what else you could want." I do wish he would have talked more about what "racially charged internet searches" meant. As Paula Wright pointed out, I'd like to know what those "racially charged internet searches" which you have described as "racist" were. Immigration is surely not a race issue in the US, an ethnically diverse culture. Wouldn't illegal immigration be jus…

Hi - “racially charged” meant commonly used racial slurs against African Americans, not anything about immigration.

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#58

Post by rayiner » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #36

rayiner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree the advice is astute. But you don’t necessarily get to pick what to talk about. Luckily, this election became a referendum on COVID—where the general empathetic association of Democrats plays strongly. But say COVID hadn’t happened. Instead, the last major pre-election issue was what happened this summer and law-and-order issues? (As Schor notes, this issue favors Republicans.) A whole lot of progressive Demo…

Possibly, but you could project the same argument backwards: "why is this King guy talking about race when it's incredibly unpopular with white voters?"

That fails to distinguish between politics and activism.

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#59

Post by rendall » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 2:02 PM UTC

nyanpasu64 wrote: post #42

rendall wrote: post #39

From the article: But a lot of people on the Clinton campaign tricked themselves into the idea that they didn’t have to placate the social views of racist white people. This seems like a pretty important insight and I really wish the interview could have unpacked this a lot better. It seems to be an operating assumption of the Democratic campaign, and I imagine if one is locked into this view (by implacable statistic…

Took a while to find, but "How Ideological Moderation Conceals Support for Immoderate Policies: A New Perspective on the “Disconnect” in American Politics" http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.688...

Thanks. Oof. 54 pages is no joke. It will take me some time to absorb it

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#60

Post by weakfish » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 2:03 PM UTC

AYBABTME wrote: post #19

weakfish wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment lives in an alternative reality. Calling someone a Karen is racist? Please.

It depends how you define racism! According to "Defining Racism" by Beverly Daniel Tatum, it isn't. But in other interpretations of the word, it would be. I don't think it's far fetched to assume it might rightfully feel like a racist slur to the grand-parent. Whether racism or not, it's probably an -ism of some sort. Despite disagreeing with the GP, at least their painting of "Karen" as an -ism gave me pause and mad…

No, I'm personally not a fan of the term because I generally don't like reducing people to caricatures - but IMO equating it to a slur is just... wrong. It's ignorant of what actually has been happening to the oppressed people in this country since... forever? And is trying to equate someone, who is generally in a position of power (a middle class white woman) to minority groups who have experienced racism since this country's founding.

Food for thought: In the (rough) words of John Mulaney, if you equate something to another word, but you won't even say the other word, then one is clearly worse than the other.