politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The subheadings alone won't give you a very good idea about it; they honestly don't really indicate much on their own. If you are trying to get a sense of what the article says in TL;DR form, you could do a lot worse than this little excerpt:
And it lays out a bunch of specific prescriptions for what to do about that weird disconnect.
I mean I read it before I posted that, I was just picking it out because I think it warrants dissection.
Whats interesting is that they associate the 'brahmin left' with issues that I largely associate with RW issues projection (moral panic over transrights/ dont say gay/ book banning/ immigrant crime/ border crisis/ you fucking name it).
Like its only being brought up and defended because some RW pr firm trotted it out as a new talking point, and there is always some one willing to write an article on why the RW moral panic is stupid. But the term is pretty fucking perjorative, and dismissive of the fact that without the progressive left of the left-wing of the Democratic voting block, they don't get elected, period. Its this kind of weird, anti-activist performative centrism.
Like this class of individuals exists mostly as a response to RW moral panic, then the RW touts them around as having made those arguments in the first place. Its a kind of circular straw man where you engage in a moral panic, some one speaks out in defense, then you project the arguments you want them to have made onto them. Its what the right does, and its what the author is doing to.
This one is a 'leave' in the take it or leave it of the authors bullets.
Hm... I actually 1,000% agree with you on this part:
I don't think I see this discussed nearly enough -- Sometimes the left picks up some strawman the right has come up with and actually runs with it, which I'm sure delights the right. It's a common enough pattern to have a big impact and I basically never see it discussed, so yeah.
Did they list all these things? I thought it was just trans rights and "defund the police" mostly. I could have missed it?
I think the author is talking about more of performative leftist stuff. "I put my pronouns on my Starbucks nametag but I have no appetite for starting a union there" style of left that I would also be critical of. But, on the other hand, police reform is a grey area arguably in the core leftist category and the author puts it in the "Brahmin left" category... so yeah, maybe you're right, and the author is throwing out some stuff that shouldn't be thrown out (even if it would tactically a "good idea" for appealing to not-politically-conservative-but-not-real-leftist working-class voters.)