Liberals have always concentrated on the politics of social progressiveness since Martin Luther. Civilizations that thrive are the ones that leave their children marginally better off than their parents; civilizations that die are those that eliminate social mobility. This has been true since Sumer. The United States is in a radically better position than any nearly any other developed nation on earth because there are fewer than 30 nations with birthright citizenship. Fundamentally, this means that the kids of that heinous wetback taking the job that you weren't going to do anyway get to vote. They get to shape society. They get to pay taxes and tell you why Puerto Ricans aren't Mexicans. And in doing so, of course, they threaten the sanctity and security of your entire bloodline. The alternative is abhorrent. I don't know if you know anyone who gives a fuck about the federal funds rate. I sure don't. If I want to have a conversation about it I have to give about fifteen minutes of background info. You know what they do give a fuck about? You know what they give a fuck about? So yeah there's this ivory tower class of asshole sitting there going "bu bu bu bu my pension" who absolutely believes James "I'm 76 years old" Carville speaks truth when he says he's mad about pronouns but down here in the world they paid $150k for a degree that makes them $40k a year and when they need to float a car repair on Mastercard they're paying 28 fucking percent and the vig rich people charge other rich people is uhhhhhh pretty goddamn academic. Mr. "It's the Economy stupid" really meant "it's MY economy, stupid" and that dude gets $80k per speech. The problem is that the Democratic Party has, for the most part, forgotten its voters.
Liberals have always cared about workers too. I think you're misreading me. Of course voters don't care about the Federal Funds rate. I'm not saying they do. I'm saying that since Clinton, until Biden's actual progressive economics, Dem and GOP presidents have been worried more about banks than people. James isn't mad about pronouns. He's mad that Dems are focusing upon them rather than what keeps people up at night.
Oh hell yeah. Hilary Clinton was on Walmart's board of directors. Frontline did an entire 7-up style longitudinal series on the economic impacts of NAFTA. But James is absolutely mad about pronouns. he is saying. in as many words. That the horse-paste big-lie migrant-caravan hoi polloi would vote Democrat if only they could keep watching the Washington Redskins and it's fucking BULLSHIT. That, right there, is James Carville saying "if we keep talking the way old people talk, young people will fall in line" and he's saying that in this environment: So yeah. You're going to get crucified because both you, and James Carville, are very, very wrong.I'm saying that since Clinton, until Biden's actual progressive economics, Dem and GOP presidents have been worried more about banks than people.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with these phrases. But this is not how people talk. This is not how voters talk. And doing it anyway is a signal that you’re talking one language and the people you want to vote for you are speaking another language. This stuff is harmless in one sense, but in another sense it’s not.
I always tell people that we’ve got to stop speaking Hebrew and start speaking Yiddish. We have to speak the way regular people speak, the way voters speak. It ain’t complicated. That’s how you connect and persuade. And we have to stop allowing ourselves to be defined from the outside.
Carville is talking political strategy, and it's a mistake to think this is a simply young/old thing or to equate it with appeasing racists. You can make an argument that it is, and it probably rings true in a perma-blue state. But that argument makes people tilt their head in confusion in the Midwest.
Yeah - his political strategy is "appease old people." Meanwhile, the argument "my neighbors are real people and yours aren't" is beneath you. 36% of Washingtonians identify as Democrats. That, of course, beats the tar out of the 18% who identify as Republicans but that is due in no small part to the fact that the Republicans ran a speedbump from nowheresville whose principle qualification was refusing to enforce a gun ban so why the fuck would you bother. Carville is stuck in this red v blue checkers game that he won in 1992 by going Republican Lite when the real question is "can you make people under 30 hold their noses long enough to vote for someone James Carville thinks will win." I don't have many conversations about who to vote for. My conversations? Across the board? Are "should I vote at all."
California was reliably Republican until they decided to profile brown people. Arizona was reliably Democratic until Barry Goldwater encouraged military families to move in. Eventually it, too, became too racist to persist. you know what a "swing state" is? It's an ephemeral political abstraction weaponized to disenfranchise the coasts. Swing state Michigan: "Deep red" Texas:
