Just a thought

Damn . . . tags in the wrong places . . . not that it was actually funny in the first place of course . . .

@3: trouble is, outside films, that model actually works for the cheerleader…

…trouble is, outside films, that model actually works for the cheerleader…

Quite true. It is one big reason why the Republicans win so many of these ‘group identity’ elections. But only, I would argue, because the Dems have not played the group identity game intelligently. It would not be at all difficult for them to define they Republicans as a group that Swing Voters do not find themselves wanting to identify with…

When are you coming back to Bloggingheads.TV?

This might be of interest:

What Makes People Vote Republican?

John, you’re not helping. Prevaricuda, like Hilzoy’s the wrong type of charismatic megafauna, is exactly the sort of academic elitist joke that feeds the narrative. Philosophy professors, humph!

I would argue that in a political culture where the only sort of really inclusive group identity that has any leverage is nationality, and where any political viewpoint that prioritises equality [or even equity] over individual striving is beyond the pale, the Republicans really do hold all the cards.

It’s interesting that you believe such things.

It would really not be as difficult as you imagine for the Democrats to build themselves into a majority party by embracing a group identity that is loosely centered around the idea of “we are not them, we are virtuous.”

Just as the Republicans have basically defined themselves as “not Democrats”, the Democrats can just as easily define themselves as “not the Republicans, those non-virtuous people who unashamedly pursue the “interests of their class” with fierce determination, even if that effort ends up depriving those who are less well off.

No, I don’t see any difficulty at all in the challenge you identify.

…and fail…because they have no leverage for that identity amongst the swing-voters who could give them an overwhelming mandate?

The leverage they lack amongst the swing-voters is not due to their failure to put together packages of promising economic proposals. My argument is that they lack leverage among this group because they have never really understood the voters who can switch from supporting one candidate one week, and the switch to supporting the other guy the next week. The Republicans do.

The typical swing voter is a headline-reader and a sound-byte nibbler. He might have actually cared about the issues initially. He’d listen to the arguments of his Democrat friends and find himself agreeing with them. Then he’d listen to the arguments of his Republican friends and find himself agreeing with them. Finally he just gives up trying to understanding the nuances and falls back on his impressions of the candidate, based on the buzz he’s heard in the media. The votes of these people matter. You generally can’t win an election without them. That’s why the Republicans are absolute masters of character assassination.

It is my belief that if Democrats would start communicating with these people on the level that they need—i.e., emotionally—they would be able to cut through the Republican phony outrage performances and bring ’em on home.

How can you tell Sarah Palin is lying?

Her lipstick is moving…..

The typical swing voter is a headline-reader and a sound-byte nibbler. He might have actually cared about the issues initially. He’d listen to the arguments of his Democrat friends and find himself agreeing with them. Then he’d listen to the arguments of his Republican friends and find himself agreeing with them. Finally he just gives up trying to understanding the nuances and falls back on his impressions of the candidates…

Or it might have something to do with Democrats having trouble thinking about Republican and swing voters alike without coming off anthropologists studying primitive tribes?

I know this is almost inconceivable, but what if…what if these voters don’t actually agree that electing Democrats would be in their economic self-interest? What if they don’t buy into the notion that the zero-sum status competition is what really matters and inexplicably care more about their absolute standard of living rather than whether Brin and Page have added another billion to their net worth? And what if they remember how they lived in the 1970s and find the Democratic proposition that they are materially worse off to be wrong? What if when they look at the house they live in, the car they drive, the dining out they do, the vacations they take, the iPods, computers, internet, cell-phones, the heart-bypass operations, the cholesterol-lowering drugs, yadda, yadda — they are subconsciously fooled into thinking that their living standard has improved rather than deteriorated compared to 30 years ago (and don’t quite trust those who try to win elections by insisting they they’re gotten steadily poorer)?

‘Jim in Austin’ posted the link to the exchange at the edge. Take a look at the contribution from Michael Shermer. Republicans are inexplicably happy — somebody must be fooling them big time.

I’ve been calling her Bushwinkle.

Palin’s greatest role: Ken Shabby.

That we have spent this much time dignifying Heart (and their critique of McCain-Palin) is patently ridiculous. Hmmm. . . weren’t Heart just recently thrust (momentarily) back into the limelight via Carly Smithson on “American Idol”? You know, that family-oriented conservative capitalist “singing competition.” Didn’t hear too many complaints from Heart then. Come to think of it, wasn’t Bon Jovi, that lover of Democrats and surely the hippest performer at their celebrity-studded convention, also recently thrust into the limelight via Blake the Human Beatbox on 2007’s season of “American Idol”? You know, that family-oriented conservative capitalist “singing competition.” Didn’t hear too many complaints from NJ’s baddest bad boy then (except when he got upset at Blake for reworking his “classic” tune “You Give Love a Bad Name.”) If Feist or Panda Bear start making public statements about the election, I’ll listen. Heart and that guy who scored “Young Guns II”? They’re on mute–permanently.

http://www.carburetordungtoo.blogspot.com

Number of readers who get a warm glow of satisfaction at their vast superiority over those dumb Rethuglicans clinging to their guns and religion: pretty much all of them.

I want some of your mind-reading potion, Dude. Do you buy it online, or what?

Caribouda?

Re: the link in 10. He may be right, but I still like my “European Enlightenment” values (I actually happen to think that these values are a lot more universal and pre date the 16th century, just that Europeans like to give themselves credit for everything) and my Mill.

Anyways. I took one of those little quizzes. It seems I care about “Harm” as much as Liberals, about “Fairness” less than both Liberals and Conservatives, about “Loyalty” slightly more than Liberals (no finking to the teacher!) and less than Conservatives (unless it’s really bad), and both “Authority” and “Purity” much less than both those groups. I really do have some morals, somewhere…

They can’t do it because the Democrats are not soc1alists, they are liberals, just like the Republicans

You haven’t explained why you believe it is impossible for The Democrats to nurture a collective self-identity roughly = “we’re not Republicans” without also necessarily embracing some kind of ‘pure socialism’ ideology.

Democrats can certainly advocate increasing the government’s share of the economy without also necessarily being Marxist control freaks. The idea is to move the balance between public and private sectors in a more beneficial direction. We’ve had the ‘less is better’ crowd running things for quite a while and they’ve improved almost nothing for the American people, economically. The answer to less-is-better is not more-is-better, but rather achieve-the-proper-balance.

In the hands of the Democrats, it would be possible for the federal government to achieve most of the idealistic goals that Dems want to achieve for The Average American by simply being a big purchaser of various goods and services. If it were willing, the federal government could increase public INVESTMENT levels enough to create a modest labor shortage, where there are substantially more jobs available than there are people to fill them. There would be no need for minimum wage legislation, welfare programs, unemployment insurance, etc.

One exception: health care. A more purely socialist approach, like Britain’s National Health Service, would provide the American people in general with a dramatic improvement in the quality of health care services. It makes no more sense for Americans to embrace private health care services than it would for us to replace our current public police/fire protection institutions with privately-owned police/fire protection providers. Just imagine: families in need of a police officer would first have to call all the local police protection companies to compare their prices before deciding on one to call for emergency assistance. Or in another variation, if the police arrive at the scene of a crime, they would first seek to determine if all those present have kept up with their police insurance premiums.

Does the old British phrase “Too Clever by Half” sound familiar? It should, as it applies to most of those “on the left” who smugly post here. I don’t know why I never cease to be amazed…..I’m a slow learner, I guess. My philosophy of life/politics goes something like this: If one wants to be alerted to the existence of a societal problem, consult the left, as the right has too much of a Chamber of Commerce mentality about the status quo. Thus give an “A” to the left and an “F” to the right. If one wants to know WHY the societal problem exists, it’s best to consult both sides. The left’s single track theory of history, like a stopped clock, is occasionally correct, and the right is as wrong as often as they are right. Give a gentleman’s “C” to both sides. If, however, one then proceeds to ask what course of action should be taken to correct the perceived societal dysfunction, then the “right”
usually earns an “A” and the left an “F” as the left’s “progressive” solutions usually end up in the advocacy of a totalist political/social
schema inemicable to liberty and freedom.

Re: Jim Austin link in comment#10…

It appears as though Prof. Haidt is saying that he believes Democrats have been unable to appeal to swing-voters because they have not created for themselves a moral identity that can compete with the moral identity that the Republicans wrap around themselves. That is true as far as it goes, I suppose, but I think it is wrong to suggest that the reason why swing-voters do not perceive the Democrats to have an appealing moral identity is because because they do not have one, or because they are not interested in having one. The contrast in moral identity is created by the constant finger-pointing sanctimony of our modern-day Pharisees: the Republican Christian. That is the part of this problem that Democrats need to fully understand.

James Kroeger, listen,
Democrats can certainly advocate increasing the government’s share of the economy without also necessarily being Marxist control freaks.

Of course they can and they do, but they are in a bind, because they too are anti-government/pro-capitalist.

Republican says: the government (except the “defense” part) is evil, so lets’ cut it, kill it.
Democrat says: yes, the government is evil, but let’s nevertheless expend it a bit, for the sake of capitalism.
Which slogan is catchier, more convincing?

There is no mainstream ideological force, no soc1alist party (and for structural reasons can’t be) that says: “redistribution is good, more government/public property is good”. If there were, the Democrats would happily occupy their normal niche, arguing: the libertarians have some good ideas and the soc1alists have some good ideas, so let’s mix them together and find a compromise, the “third way”, the middle road. But without soc1alists Democratic “middle road” is between the Republicans and abyss. They have to keep steering away from the cliff. They become a moderate wing of the right-wing party, the single ruling party.

Is this a buying opportunity on Intrade or would it be better to wait for even more absurd odds?

Is there enough liquidity to do arbitrage against other markets?

I always thought Democrats had trouble with swing voters because they tend to be predominantly white, not in a union, and somewhere above the poverty line. Using antidotal evidence, my family members didn’t start voting Democrat until they reached the middle class / upper middle class tax bracket. The cost associated with the Democrat proposed social programs was being paid out but they never seemed to qualify for the benefits.