- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Many Democrats continue to believe that the racism of average Americans — many of whom voted for Barack Obama twice — explains why Donald Trump won. This moralism suits party elites who would rather demonize the public than address growing inequality.
You must log in or # to comment.
This party-unaffiliated voter continues to believe that the idiocy, myopicism, gerontocracy, and neoliberalism of the DNC explains why orangeboi won. At this point, I have no faith whatsoever in the party apparatus’s ability to win fucking anything. They demonstrably do not care about, and refuse to engage with - let alone acknowledge - the actual problems that exist in our society, because their political consultants are telling them those are topics they don’t need to worry about.
The options are:
- change the party (recommended)
- build a national winning team in another party
- abandon politics and/or the country
The timeframe is about 13 months.
My prediction is that 3p candidates are gonna do shockingly well in 2026 (assuming we even have elections at that point, and assuming the elections aren’t manipulated six ways from Sunday - neither of those are safe assumptions).
While I admit I don’t have the time to read this entire article, I have serious concerns with the proposition that her race didn’t play a factor. I don’t think there was any one cause as to her defeat, but to say that racism wasn’t one of those causes is hugely problematic to me. I get what the article is going for, and I agree the Dems are learning exactly zero lessons from 2024 and they try to deflect and shift blame on others (Gaza is a perfect example—that issue majorly costed Dems votes and yet they’re doubling down on their godawful support of israel). But racism runs so fucking deep in this country that I very much disagree with its wholesale dismissal as having an impact on this election. Same goes with her gender. Her being black and her being a her definitely made an impact.
I’d say it probably has an impact, but as you say it’s small enough to overcome for the right candidate. It’s generally been true that regardless of color, a person can be anything, but black people and women have to work harder compared to a white man to achieve the same success.
That said, it was the economy. Damn near every election comes down to the economy. Race, gender, Gaza, all incidental. Now the economy will go to shit and Dems will win next time regardless of whether they run Aunt Jemima or Whitey McCracker.
My parents never talked politics, at least not to me, but I think it was upon Reagan winning that dad made a comment about, “We (Americans) always vote by our wallet.”
Well I tried to read it. It started off inauspiciously with
Within the liberal pundit class, the tendency to attribute Vice President Kamala Harris’s loss principally to racism or misogynoir (hatred of black women) runs deep.
Don’t . . . don’t do that. If you have to define it in the sentence you’re using it in, there needs to be a good reason to use it at all, and per the rest of the article - there isn’t.
Secondly, the author’s thesis is that racism can’t be the reason because the 1996 Crime and Welfare Reform bills disproportionately affected black Americans. (Yeah, like I said, I tried to read it) Also, Harris did better among white voters than Clinton in 92 or Obama in 2012.
So far as I can tell that appears to be the core of the argument. The article concludes that while racism is indeed bad, and trump also bad, Harris lost because of the Democratic Party. Particularly things it did almost 30 years ago.
Just as nineteenth- and twentieth-century biologically grounded race theory functioned to harmonize slavery and Jim Crow with liberal capitalism, the insistence that Trump’s victory over Harris, like Trumpism itself, is an expression of eternal white racism provides cover for the failings of both late capitalism and the Democratic Party.
So, I am reminded once again that Jacobin is a link I am reluctant to click.
