Excellent post. More or less correlates to what I’ve been thinking. It’s not that isn’t innately harder for ideologues to win elections, it’s the myopic centering of ideology as the sole and uncomplicated means with which voters make decisions.
However toxic certain progressive stances may be and however much influence Kamala’s perceived support for those positions may have hurt her chances, to chiefly blame ideology is to accept the pretense that Trump exists closer to the center ground of American politics. Even if you want to assume we’re an intractably center-right country, Trump and the activists that inhabit the GOP have a preponderance of incredibly unpopular positions on abortion, the environment, healthcare, the welfare state, etc, that they spew vocally and without constraint.
I think we’re all dissatisfied with the Dems current cocktail of ideology but trying to move forward needs to come with a stronger recognition that the political craftsmanship: Messaging, organizing, branding and candidate quality must come first. (this is for us leftists too) The Dems don’t fail *primarily* because they’re too progressive or too centrist but because they’re a staggeringly incompetent and ineffective political organization with no coherent vision or ideological project, no capacity to effectively talk to voters, and comatose, robotic drones as party leaders.
I love your work and I usually do not respond to things I read but your journalism holds a special place for me so I hope to share my thoughts here on that ending ‘Latinx’ reference.
As a Latino who worked in DEI, it was one of the most frustrating things especially given that the X's origins is not all encompassing for this diverse community but is specifically inspired from the Nahuatl language, making it incredibly uninclusive for the minority of Hispanics that are not Mexican in the United States.
On top of this, the X just sounds awful in Spanish if pronounced correctly Latin-'equis', and if not just forces an Anglo pronunciation to fix a problem in English for Spanish speakers that don't even know what it's about to feel included.
The people who always deploy it have been people who want to be viewed as socially progressive but have no further material analysis to understand where it comes from, how it feels and sounds to the community and just are dismissive to what they think in general!
Not that it is not a problem in terms of gender inclusivity, there are just so many other terms that just make more sense. In South America in particular there are lots of people in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, etc using the term 'latines' with e serving as a general more universal gender ending. We could just use the term 'Latins' or AT WORSE JUST SAY 'LATIN AMERICANS' and that would probably solve things, though I am not a linguist and this is my own speculation.
The point is though, Latinos are not there with the term, are underrepresented in the places where it is being used (mostly university spaces), are, have, and will react badly to a term that feels like a particulary frustrating Anglicismo about gender identity and in this last point, works against protecting the lgbtq community through this inherently negative framing and bad politics.
(Not to make some point that this is why Democrats lost, but it is one of those things that has to be noted, latinos demographically in the United States are one of the strongest groups that want more government to help in their lives while typically holding somewhat social conservative views!)
This is similar, but not quite the same, to my absolute distaste for the term "differently abled" for disabled people as someone with cerebral palsy. Yes, we're "differently abled;" we have less abilities, dipshit! The whole thing reeks of bicoastal elites who want to feel like they're being allies to the disabled or allies by "changing the conversation" instead of actually advocating for policy
I think a major thing to talk about is the lack of national coherence. Everyone knows Republican Governors names, but nobody knew who stars like Walz or Pritker or Beshar are unless you live in their states or spend too much time online. R Governors act with a national vision, but D Govs don't. Espcially highlighting the failures of center chasing moderation and centrism in places like New York should be focused on.
Big time write up here Ett, awesome analysis. The Democrats blind faith to the centrist model of electoral politics has caused irreperable damage. Trump has exacerbated the flaws in that belief system to the point where, at the absolute least, it will not win in any short term national election (2026-28)
Her 2019 stances weren't original either. What happened is she didn't know whether to compete against the moderates like Biden/Klobuchar or progressives like Warren/Sanders so she picked a bunch of policy positions from both because she thought she could win over both groups
Excellent post. More or less correlates to what I’ve been thinking. It’s not that isn’t innately harder for ideologues to win elections, it’s the myopic centering of ideology as the sole and uncomplicated means with which voters make decisions.
However toxic certain progressive stances may be and however much influence Kamala’s perceived support for those positions may have hurt her chances, to chiefly blame ideology is to accept the pretense that Trump exists closer to the center ground of American politics. Even if you want to assume we’re an intractably center-right country, Trump and the activists that inhabit the GOP have a preponderance of incredibly unpopular positions on abortion, the environment, healthcare, the welfare state, etc, that they spew vocally and without constraint.
I think we’re all dissatisfied with the Dems current cocktail of ideology but trying to move forward needs to come with a stronger recognition that the political craftsmanship: Messaging, organizing, branding and candidate quality must come first. (this is for us leftists too) The Dems don’t fail *primarily* because they’re too progressive or too centrist but because they’re a staggeringly incompetent and ineffective political organization with no coherent vision or ideological project, no capacity to effectively talk to voters, and comatose, robotic drones as party leaders.
I love your work and I usually do not respond to things I read but your journalism holds a special place for me so I hope to share my thoughts here on that ending ‘Latinx’ reference.
The Hispanic community do not care for, do not know, and resent the term and those very same liberals that use it nonstop. (https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/09/12/how-well-known-is-latinx-among-u-s-hispanics-and-who-uses-it/) (One of many articles, just google it for five minutes) (Here's another specifically about the resentment aspect! https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/many-latinos-say-latinx-offends-or-bothers-them-here-s-ncna1285916)
As a Latino who worked in DEI, it was one of the most frustrating things especially given that the X's origins is not all encompassing for this diverse community but is specifically inspired from the Nahuatl language, making it incredibly uninclusive for the minority of Hispanics that are not Mexican in the United States.
On top of this, the X just sounds awful in Spanish if pronounced correctly Latin-'equis', and if not just forces an Anglo pronunciation to fix a problem in English for Spanish speakers that don't even know what it's about to feel included.
The people who always deploy it have been people who want to be viewed as socially progressive but have no further material analysis to understand where it comes from, how it feels and sounds to the community and just are dismissive to what they think in general!
Not that it is not a problem in terms of gender inclusivity, there are just so many other terms that just make more sense. In South America in particular there are lots of people in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, etc using the term 'latines' with e serving as a general more universal gender ending. We could just use the term 'Latins' or AT WORSE JUST SAY 'LATIN AMERICANS' and that would probably solve things, though I am not a linguist and this is my own speculation.
The point is though, Latinos are not there with the term, are underrepresented in the places where it is being used (mostly university spaces), are, have, and will react badly to a term that feels like a particulary frustrating Anglicismo about gender identity and in this last point, works against protecting the lgbtq community through this inherently negative framing and bad politics.
(Not to make some point that this is why Democrats lost, but it is one of those things that has to be noted, latinos demographically in the United States are one of the strongest groups that want more government to help in their lives while typically holding somewhat social conservative views!)
Oh the latinx thing at the end was a joke lol, I think the term is really silly
lol
This is similar, but not quite the same, to my absolute distaste for the term "differently abled" for disabled people as someone with cerebral palsy. Yes, we're "differently abled;" we have less abilities, dipshit! The whole thing reeks of bicoastal elites who want to feel like they're being allies to the disabled or allies by "changing the conversation" instead of actually advocating for policy
I see Latine catching on some in the US.
Excellent research, thank you.
I think a major thing to talk about is the lack of national coherence. Everyone knows Republican Governors names, but nobody knew who stars like Walz or Pritker or Beshar are unless you live in their states or spend too much time online. R Governors act with a national vision, but D Govs don't. Espcially highlighting the failures of center chasing moderation and centrism in places like New York should be focused on.
Big time write up here Ett, awesome analysis. The Democrats blind faith to the centrist model of electoral politics has caused irreperable damage. Trump has exacerbated the flaws in that belief system to the point where, at the absolute least, it will not win in any short term national election (2026-28)
I wish we could turn back to the rudderless sleaze page
I think one key place to look is at the democrats that consistently over perform, including in Trump county
Banger article, sharing this
Excellent piece.
Would harris have been better off bringing back the more popular of her 2019 stances as a clear way to separate herself from Biden?
Harris sticking to some of her craziest stances in 2019 might have helped her seem less like a phony.
Her 2019 stances weren't original either. What happened is she didn't know whether to compete against the moderates like Biden/Klobuchar or progressives like Warren/Sanders so she picked a bunch of policy positions from both because she thought she could win over both groups
Her 2019 stances would be considered insane in today's world