Hacker News Reader

> At some point over the past ten or fifteen years, the Democrats switched their focus

Clinton was elected on explicit Third Way positions nearly 30 years ago. If you think something changed in the past 10-15, you're falling for GOP propaganda. What you're noticing is the democrats finding a new base a decade after losing their working class supporters, through a combination of Third Way politics, the Republican Southern Strategy. The GOP saw this coming and stoked / capitulated to increasing racist elements of the party during Obama's presidency. This is the only major change in the past decade.

(Well, the democrats aren't really that smart - it's not so much they're finding a new base as they're left with the ones the new GOP ideology intentionally excludes. As a party, they are doing a terrible job mobilizing this!)

I think Southern racism has very little to do with the Republican shift in the Midwest. We've had heavy hispanic immigration for twenty years and they've all been fairly well integrated.

I would guess what actually happened to the older people I know is that they grew up in union jobs at factories that got sent to Mexico after NAFTA went through.

Unions lean heavy Democrat. When the union fails you, I think that leads fairly directly to losing faith in the Democratic party.

Further, the insistence by many within the party that the only reason someone would want to leave the Democratic party is that they're racists really doesn't do them any favors.

> If you think something changed in the past 10-15, you're falling for GOP propaganda.

You think that Democrats have not moved in the past 10-15 years? You think that the idea that they have is merely Republican propaganda? I think you haven't been paying attention.

Or maybe you were paying too much attention. 15 years ago, AOC wasn't even old enough to vote. Were there Democrats in the House who held the same positions 15 years ago? Perhaps so. They didn't have the press attention that AOC gets, though. So they may have been there, but in the eyes of the public they weren't "the position" of the Democrats. Instead, they were fringe.

Now AOC gets as much press coverage as Nancy Pelosi (maybe more, before impeachment). To the average person, AOC and people like her now represent the Democratic Party. That's a massive shift, at least in perceptions, if not in actual position.

And I think the actual position has shifted, too. There are considerably more of the farther-left people like AOC, both in congress and running for president. The median Democratic officeholder position has shifted left. (Or so I strongly suspect. I assert it without statistical evidence.)

Your entire post is about AOC, who has spent less than two years in office. My statement was about the (non-)events in the democratic party 25-30 and 10-15 years ago. The "AOC as a bogeyman" talking points are a transparent attempt to derail the discussion along the lines the GOP wants.

I agree we've seen a shift in the democratic party - not yet in its leadership - in the past 2-4 years (beginning with Sanders, its first major electoral effects in the 2018 midterms). What does that have to do with what happened 10-15 years ago?

What did happen 10-15 years ago is Obama's election. Obama's politics do not place him in the left of the democratic party, and in some areas he's firmly in the right part.

So what's the objection to what happened 10-15 years ago, but not 30 years ago? To put it more bluntly - What's the biggest difference between Obama and Bill Clinton? One hint: it's not any political policy.

And why, if the objection is supposed to be about support for the working class, is what's happening in the past 2-4 not good? The return to labor rights as a central plank of the party should be drawing people back if that's the reason they left, but apparently it's not.

True, the topic of AOC runs through my post, but that's not what it's about. It's about the change in the position of the average/median Democratic politician.

And I'd say the change has happened at least somewhat in the Democratic leadership - in many of the presidential candidates, even if not in the House and Senate leadership.

And I'd argue that this change was going on before, but you didn't see it, because of Obama. He, in one person, was the face of the Democratic party, and that hid what was going on underneath. As you say, Obama was not on the left, and because he was the public symbol of the party, it was easy to not see the left growing.

Was Obama to the left of Clinton? I could accept "no" as the answer. But was the median Democratic politician during Obama to the left of the median Democratic politician during Clinton? To me, it appears that the answer is "yes".

I don't think that abandoning the working class is something that just happened in the last 2-4 years. I could even argue that it happened under Clinton, but he had the political savvy to hide it. It was probably there, and growing, under Obama. It became glaringly apparent under Hillary, when she had no interest in even talking about the working class, and Trump did. That's what changed in the last 2-4 (let's call it 3) years - Trump stole what the Democrats thought was "their" issue, so solidly "theirs" that it didn't even need to be mentioned.

I'm trying to understand how you see Republican positions changing over time as well. From the perspective of policy or cultural issues. If I grant your point about how the last 15 years has seen a resurgent left, something that I'm stoked about, could you explain a little about how you've seen the republicans change over 10 to 20 years?

Honestly? I see Republicans unable to explain their own positions, perhaps because they don't understand it themselves. I see them stumbling around, too often not operating on principle or thought, and sometimes stumbling into saying things that manage to win an election.

It's unfair to say that that's all Republicans. But it's some of them, and it fits the one that collects all the press at the moment...

Republicans just lowered taxes for the working class and increased it for the management class. How is that typical capitalist right wing? It was basically tailor made to hurt the coastal elites since only there do a significant number earn enough to get the extra taxes.

This political perspective is completely incoherent. Democrats have shifted rightward since WWII, along with every other political group in the country. Former Democrats who become Republicans because they feel the party has shifted out from under them are creating excuses to mask their own changing opinions.

> Former Democrats who become Republicans because they feel the party has shifted out from under them are creating excuses to mask their own changing opinions.

To me, this is the incoherent view. Of course the voter base has changing opinions. It's completely to be expected that over the course of decades political alliances will shift.

The entire point of what I said is that the political opinions of the Democratic party moved in a direction that did not match that of my general demographic. Now that opinions have shifted, we find that our interests are better served by Republican talking points than by Democratic ones. So we vote red.

People like to bemoan the fact that America has a two party system, while many other places have a parliamentary system with many parties. The fact is America just handles its coalition building at an earlier step. There is no single "prototypical" Republican or Democrat. There are many factions throughout the country that weigh the political winds and throw their weight behind the group they see as most likely to benefit their own particular concerns.

None of this should be nearly so divisive a topic as it clearly is. The post I replied to noted that there were a bunch of "Rockefeller Republicans" who shifted and become Democrats.

I replied that a similar thing had happened around me, only in the opposite direction. Blue collar Democrats from the 70s-00s, found that after the financial crisis, the political winds pointed them to the Republican party.

> The entire point of what I said is that the political opinions of the Democratic party moved in a direction that did not match that of my general demographic. Now that opinions have shifted, we find that our interests are better served by Republican talking points than by Democratic ones.

I agree that the Democratic platform has moved, but it moved rightwards. The Republican platform has also moved (considerably more) rightwards. If your political positions were once aligned with the Democrats but are now better aligned with Republicans, your personal opinions have necessarily moved dramatically rightwards, and your new alignment has nothing to do with the shift of the parties.

Political opinions aren't a straight line, as much as we like to pretend it is.

Obviously not, but it is possible to make accurate macro-scale generalizations.

In what way do you think the Democrats have switched focus?

Increased focus on racial and sexual minorities to the exclusion of working-class interests (which has been going on for decades), spilling over into outright contempt of lower- and middle- class whites (which has mostly become prominent in the past 10-15 years).

> Increased focus on racial and sexual minorities to the exclusion of working-class interests

Are these actually in conflict? Are they also not part of the working class? What sort of policies do you think should have been enacted against this?

Not being from the US I don't know how Democrats view this, but in general, yes, it seems to me they are somewhat in conflict. Diversity activism tends to pit working class members against each other. Meanwhile, the rich don't have to care either way, except to occasionally be seen as backing the more popular view.

There's only so much time, attention, and energy. If your focus is on, say, trans rights, you're not spending that time focusing on working-class economics.

And even if you can do it all, there's only so much attention the voters have. If all they hear about you is on trans rights, they don't perceive you doing anything about their economic problems.

The Democrats' central message used to be "we care about the working people". Now their central message is "we care about illegal immigrants, minorities, and trans people". If your biggest problem is that you have no money because you have no job, that doesn't resonate.

More: As the Democrats become dominated by the coastal elites, the party has too many people leading it who don't even know about the working-class problems in the middle of the country.

> If your focus is on, say, trans rights, you're not spending that time focusing on working-class economics.

This is a bizarre statement since most trans people I know are either working class, precariat, or working poor. The trans rights they want beyond extremely basic anti-discrimination protection are things like easier access to university and universal health care. These are things that benefit all workers, not just trans people. (Three of the Google employees fired for union organizing were trans! Don't try to feed me some line that there's some conflict between trans rights and workers' rights. The claim is just some shit-stirring by capital for its own ends.)

It is also a bizarre statement given the indifference or even slight hostility to trans rights by DNC frontrunners (Biden, and previously Clinton). The DNC doesn't care about trans people, and trans people know it. To the extent they support the party, they do so uneasily, outside the DNC, and for largely economic reasons.

Time spent on anti-descrimination policies is inherently time not spent on economic issues. There will always be policy focus opportunity cost. I can totally understand why working class people in the heartland who have never met any LGBT person, let alone someone trans or someone non-binary, would think that focusing on equality efforts for them is not a high priority issue and that legislators should focus on economic issues affecting many more people. People mostly care about what is affecting them and people they know.

> Time spent on anti-descrimination policies is inherently time not spent on economic issues.

Can you give anything close to a concrete example of this?

Even ignoring the indivisibility of the economic and social spheres (ask a black person if the CRA was an "economic issue" - ask a trans person if whether they can safely pee at work is an "economic issue"), and that it's not a zero-sum game (for example, the heightened scrutiny required by transphobia tends to cost more resources), I can't imagine there's enough meaningful work to "saturate" 100% of some candidate's time with economic issues. And as mentioned, the people who are furthest left and most vocal on economic issues are often the people furthest left and most vocal on civil rights. Conversely, people who spend a lot of time talking about how social issues should not be such a big deal (Peter Thiel, for instance - Paul Graham also, albeit with a much smaller platform) are the same who lean right economically.

How many examples do you need to see this is a false dichotomy? How many examples did you see to convince yourself it was a dichotomy at all?

> I can totally understand why working class people in the heartland who have never met any LGBT person, let alone someone trans or someone non-binary

I am not sure you know what those words mean ("any ... T person, let alone someone trans" is nonsense), but also, we're talking about people who live in Nebraska or Ohio, not hermits. We are long past any plausibly deniability to not even know a gay person - if you don't know any, it's because you're actively trying to avoid them.

> Can you give anything close to a concrete example of this?

Sure, although I feel like your response is largely due to an uncharitable reading of my post. Whether someone can use a specific bathroom has an impact on a tiny percentage of the US population; pretty much only trans or non-binary people. Sure it's still economic in some contexts and it was incorrect for me to insinuate that it was totally social, but it is not economic or social policy that affects the vast majority of the population. Tax policy, immigration, trade policy, regulation, worker education, general schooling, government grants and investment, etc matter to far more people. Time spent on niche issues is going to appeal to fewer people by definition, and I could see people getting angry that legislative time is being spent in this manner while broader economic issues appealing to more people remain unsolved. Personally I feel that supporting those communities is morally important, but I understand why other people believe it takes a lower priority relative to economic issues affecting them personally.

> I can't imagine there's enough meaningful work to "saturate" 100% of some candidate's time with economic issue

People are clearly signaling through their voting that grossly insufficient time is being spent on economic issues. Key problems remain unsolved.

> I am not sure you know what those words mean ("any ... T person, let alone someone trans" is nonsense)

That statement implies I am referring to lesbian, gay, or bi people. I don't see what is unclear about that based on my wording. The concept of being trans is more of a logical leap for a straight person than the concept of being bi, gay, or lesbian for pretty obvious reasons. I don't think this requires further explanation.

> We are long past any plausibly deniability to not even know a gay person

You have very clearly not been to large swaths of the United States. Many, many, many people have never met an openly LGBT person. Even more are not friends with one in a close enough manner to have the types of honest, informative discussions to cut through popular misconceptions.

> if you don't know any, it's because you're actively trying to avoid them.

Yes, a large number of people intentionally self segregate into communities where other people are like them. They still get to vote.

> > Can you give anything close to a concrete example of this?

> Sure, [a bunch of broad non-specific examples]

OK.

> You have very clearly not been to large swaths of the United States.

Grew up in WI, close family / friends in MI, MN, NE, IA, and IL, dated a boy from TN and a girl from WV, but sure, tell me how there's no gays in the midwest.

Bathroom example is a specific example; there was a huge uproar about bathroom rights in North Carolina I want to say about 5 years ago, and it resulted in national media attention and subsequent legislative attention in many states. Further you didn't contradict anything else I said or any of the other basic claims I've been making. Sorry political reality and the concept of self-interest make you unhappy.

> Grew up in WI, close family / friends in MI, MN, NE, IA, and IL, dated a boy from TN and a girl from WV, but sure, tell me how there's no gays in the midwest.

Last I checked there were more than 8 states in the United States. Further, your response doesn't invalidate what I said in any way. You are an n of 1 and we are talking about tens of millions of people in there states. Just because you met a LGBT from a state doesn't mean that everyone else from that state met them or any other LGBT. Please point out where I said there were no gays in the Midwest.

> there was a huge uproar about bathroom rights in North Carolina

So because the republicans passed a law positively discriminating against trans people (and doing a bunch of other weird shit - this was not a well-planned bill), and people are sick of the social issues, they... voted republican?

Not to mention the economic fallout of HB2 was brutal - despite its short life it cost the state thousands of jobs and millions of dollars.

Again we see things aren't really in tension - the democratic position was less political work, greater economic benefit, and justice. The "political reality" is that republicans started a fight by stripping rights, then got to play a fake victim.

> it resulted in national media attention and subsequent legislative attention in many states.

That attention was primarily passing more transphobic legislation. What were we supposed to do? "Well, I guess you can keep taking our rights away one by one, because the economic issues are more important!"

There's no more productive conversation to be had concerning your views on sexuality in some mysterious, isolationist states. They're simply unmoored from reality.

Are you saying that as the Democrats became distanced from working-class issues, the republicans got closer to working-class issues?

Could you explain that in terms of the policy that they adopted or is it a response to Dems adopting minority rights issues?

What I mean to say is that if they are both bad in the same way on working class issues, what is it about minority rights that would make you vote R?

Genuinely trying to understand here...not trolling.

R said that they will bring back working class jobs and give them something to be proud of. R also said that they will limit low skill immigration which will help reduce competition for working class jobs. R said that they will reduce taxes for working class people (and they even increased taxes for better paid workers, so it is not like they just reduced it overall).

All of these are typical leftist talking points, Democrats just left those votes on the table and R just swooped in and took them.

> Are you saying that as the Democrats became distanced from working-class issues, the republicans got closer to working-class issues?

I don't know that the Republican actually got closer to working-class issues. In the last election, though, they at least got to the point of talking about such issues, in the same election that the Democrats didn't bother to do so.

So if I were a working-class minority person, whose major pain point was economics, in the last election I still might vote Republican, because they at least were talking about the thing I cared most about, even if the Democrats were talking about my secondary issue.

The population of the United States is dominated by the coasts. The GDP of the United States is dominated by the coasts. The tax base of the United States is dominated by the coasts.

You’ve perfectly summarized the OP’s final point.

Democrat [poltiicians] represent the ruling class just as much as Republican [politicians] do (evidenced by the fact that except for a few exceptions such as Bernie Sanders they go about fundraising in the same way: primarily from large donors). Given that, taking a more moderate stance regarding minorities is one of the few ways to differentiate themselves in a way that looks good to their base. In their ideal world 5 CEOs still own 95% of the country's wealth, but 3 of them are black, and maybe one's a lesbian.

You've got that all wrong. The former didn't happen and didn't spill over into the latter, the Democratic Party abandoned working class interests (not just “white working class”) pretty sharply after Clinton's election. It didn't really accelerate on the other fronts, it just didn't back off of them as hard because racial/sexual/etc. equality is compatible with the center-right neoliberal capitalist economics that became the focus of the new dominant faction of the Party.

OTOH, there's evidence that that faction of the party is losing dominance to one focussed on working class interests again.

The white working class part of their coalition, which tends to more socially conservative, are not a focus of the party anymore. It used to be a bedrock part of their strategy in the Midwest. At least that is the perception - forget for a moment if a) it’s actually true, that they’ve dropped focus, or b) that voting block was ever a permanent part of that party’s coalition or merely on borrowed time.

This is part of a generalized development in Western politics though - it even explains why Brexit and Boris Johnson won in the UK. The "left" is now explicitly the party of managerial, globalizing crony capitalism, pushing for maximum openness and free mobility for all factors of production - not of the working classes with their petty, localized concerns, or of traditional "business" classes with their long-time appreciation for economic diversification and the value of free markets. Some people might want to map this to ethnic stereotypes of some sort, or posit that it's the outcome of some kind of intentional conspiracy, and of course this would be quite incorrect. Nonetheless the shift was very real.

Your position is that the UK Labour party, led by life long socialist and eurosceptic Jeremy Corbyn, who's manifesto proposed nationalising several industries, is "explicity the party of globalizing crony capitalism"?

In a strong field this might be the weakest political take I've read in the last month.

Jeremy Corbyn is only one player out of many in the British Labor Party. He's a pretty divisive figure for other reasons, and many Labor supporters are even starting to acknowledge this.

In fact, if anything positive can be said about the shift towards favoring globalizing crony capitalism, is that it happens to be somewhat less divisive than the old-fashioned Marxist alternative that Corbyn favors. As strange as it may seem, this was very much a shift towards intentional moderation.

The shift from Blair/Brown to Corbyn was a shift towards intentional moderation?

Political polarization has increased so this is happening on both sides, people moving towards democrats and republicans.