The theory that a large oppressed class will inevitably overwhelm its oppressors and seize power, led by an enlightened educated vanguard that will maintain absolute rule as it restructures society to cater to the formerly oppressed, is--shall we say--not exactly novel in leftist circles...
Feb 15, 2022·edited Feb 15, 2022Liked by Mickey Kaus
Perhaps this is implied among the first couple reasons listed, but to me there is a deeper, related reason this rhetorical and strategic tack is so wrong, beyond it being obnoxious or leading in part to alienated/backlash votes for Trump. You could be a fifteen year old white kid raised by a single parent living in a more rural area, trying to figure out how you’re going to afford community college, and, unless you march to the cultural left tune without missing a beat and celebrate all the people more worthy than you from birth - whether raised in highest-wealth zip codes or conferred deeper dignity and nobility by approved identity group membership, you’re trash. Bill Clinton, for all phoniness, all the neoliberal policy sellouts, would’ve told that kid, biting down earnestly on his lower lip: don’t you let anyone tell you you’re worth any less, that you belong any less, just because you grew up without two parents in your home. Clinton knew what that kind of upbringing was like, said something very much like that in 1992 Convention speech, and probably mostly meant it. I heard it and it meant something to me. The Obama re-elect was more like a young black woman raised by two professional parents in an comfortable suburb standing up and introducing herself to fellow activists by saying “my parents both always told me that as a young African American woman I’d need to work five times as hard and be five times as good as the next person”. Uh…no. And by the time, it’d already been a good ten years since every single Dem and activist left organization followed every single job ad with a litany of identity characteristics they most encouraged in applicants - white and male and straight was the only one never included. But there was likewise zero focus on class or actual lived hardship or any other marker of real diversity in background or experience, other than the litany of mostly immutable, inherited identity traits. The effective message that only the recipients of those preferred-identity-shoutouts counted, of course came at a time when much of “flyover” America and so many of the profoundly struggling residents of those NYT “highest misery index” counties - people and places that RFK and MLK and even Jesse Jackson in the 1980s were both decent and shrewd enough to care about, were in economic free-wall, becoming ever-more geographically isolated and sorted, and simultaneously becoming the butt of every joke and the acceptable scapegoat for every problem. It came at a time when drug addiction and social breakdown and deaths of despair - endemic feelings of hopelessness were soaring. I guess what I’m saying is that more than even obnoxious or alienating electorally, the CoTA was cruel and wrong and anathema to who and what the Democratic Party had always claimed to stand for.
Total agreement except be careful with 10 and 14. On the former, nothing wrong with Americans believing in a bend toward justice, toward a better society (all sides hope this, it's very American). The problem is believing "our" (i.e. Dem) electoral success is identical to long-term justice! On the later, process cuts both ways. The woke left threatens by ignoring crucial, traditional notions of process (e.g. legal equality, fairness, etc.) to reach their goals. People opposing them need process norms, too. The left used to be "process" oriented, now it is goal/end oriented: "Screw the archaic liberal process!"
It risks misclassification. "Latinx" (formerly Hispanic) is a subset of minorities and, therefor, part of the “Coalition of the Ascendant.” In fact, the political views of many Hispanics are juxtaposed to progressives. This alone may transform the "ascendant" to the "descendant."
Boston-to-NoVa and Seattle-to-LA geographic distribution is a great way control media, tech, entertainment, finance, bureaucracy, major nonprofits and major universities; terrible way to win electoral college or Senate or more than a narrow majority in House. Actually, that's kinda what the constitutional convention had in mind.
I think you are right Mickey but did not the “delusion of the Dems” came to them honestly and from deep within? Obama’s claim that the “arc of history bent toward justice” was taken to literally and providentially. It is a common trope that reason whether political or otherwise is moving us inexorably towards a better common life. But once the interest group identity hierarchy fragmentation set in, many of their constituent groups did not sense much justice coming their way. Hispanics are one example but there are others.
Agree on all points -- especially the toxic effects on society of Point 2. Is there a difference between "Coalition of the Ascendant" and "The Emerging Democratic Majority"? All of the bad things in this list makes it seem like it wasn't really a well thought-out idea as much as a marketing stunt that piggybacked off the title of "The Emerging Republican Majority," but not its argument. Should be a companion piece on "The Best Idea of the Decade"
It's built on the premise of denial and projection: not just saying that opponents are in denial about xyz, but in a great many cases the lefties themselves are in denial - say about their own animosity toward successful Asian immigrants.
The promotion of gender fluidity and preferred pronouns as a mainstream concept. The concept will have a dramatic negative impact on society and interpersonal communication.
The theory that a large oppressed class will inevitably overwhelm its oppressors and seize power, led by an enlightened educated vanguard that will maintain absolute rule as it restructures society to cater to the formerly oppressed, is--shall we say--not exactly novel in leftist circles...
Perhaps this is implied among the first couple reasons listed, but to me there is a deeper, related reason this rhetorical and strategic tack is so wrong, beyond it being obnoxious or leading in part to alienated/backlash votes for Trump. You could be a fifteen year old white kid raised by a single parent living in a more rural area, trying to figure out how you’re going to afford community college, and, unless you march to the cultural left tune without missing a beat and celebrate all the people more worthy than you from birth - whether raised in highest-wealth zip codes or conferred deeper dignity and nobility by approved identity group membership, you’re trash. Bill Clinton, for all phoniness, all the neoliberal policy sellouts, would’ve told that kid, biting down earnestly on his lower lip: don’t you let anyone tell you you’re worth any less, that you belong any less, just because you grew up without two parents in your home. Clinton knew what that kind of upbringing was like, said something very much like that in 1992 Convention speech, and probably mostly meant it. I heard it and it meant something to me. The Obama re-elect was more like a young black woman raised by two professional parents in an comfortable suburb standing up and introducing herself to fellow activists by saying “my parents both always told me that as a young African American woman I’d need to work five times as hard and be five times as good as the next person”. Uh…no. And by the time, it’d already been a good ten years since every single Dem and activist left organization followed every single job ad with a litany of identity characteristics they most encouraged in applicants - white and male and straight was the only one never included. But there was likewise zero focus on class or actual lived hardship or any other marker of real diversity in background or experience, other than the litany of mostly immutable, inherited identity traits. The effective message that only the recipients of those preferred-identity-shoutouts counted, of course came at a time when much of “flyover” America and so many of the profoundly struggling residents of those NYT “highest misery index” counties - people and places that RFK and MLK and even Jesse Jackson in the 1980s were both decent and shrewd enough to care about, were in economic free-wall, becoming ever-more geographically isolated and sorted, and simultaneously becoming the butt of every joke and the acceptable scapegoat for every problem. It came at a time when drug addiction and social breakdown and deaths of despair - endemic feelings of hopelessness were soaring. I guess what I’m saying is that more than even obnoxious or alienating electorally, the CoTA was cruel and wrong and anathema to who and what the Democratic Party had always claimed to stand for.
Mickey. I like what you write. You should write more. And start charging.
Besides that Mrs Lincoln (and I don't mean Mrs Lincoln Project) how did you like the “Coalition of the Ascendant”?
Total agreement except be careful with 10 and 14. On the former, nothing wrong with Americans believing in a bend toward justice, toward a better society (all sides hope this, it's very American). The problem is believing "our" (i.e. Dem) electoral success is identical to long-term justice! On the later, process cuts both ways. The woke left threatens by ignoring crucial, traditional notions of process (e.g. legal equality, fairness, etc.) to reach their goals. People opposing them need process norms, too. The left used to be "process" oriented, now it is goal/end oriented: "Screw the archaic liberal process!"
It risks misclassification. "Latinx" (formerly Hispanic) is a subset of minorities and, therefor, part of the “Coalition of the Ascendant.” In fact, the political views of many Hispanics are juxtaposed to progressives. This alone may transform the "ascendant" to the "descendant."
If only we could encourage BBC producers and writers to come to the US for free and work for half the usual wages! What could go wrong?
A worse idea than the Super Bowl halftime show?
Boston-to-NoVa and Seattle-to-LA geographic distribution is a great way control media, tech, entertainment, finance, bureaucracy, major nonprofits and major universities; terrible way to win electoral college or Senate or more than a narrow majority in House. Actually, that's kinda what the constitutional convention had in mind.
I think you are right Mickey but did not the “delusion of the Dems” came to them honestly and from deep within? Obama’s claim that the “arc of history bent toward justice” was taken to literally and providentially. It is a common trope that reason whether political or otherwise is moving us inexorably towards a better common life. But once the interest group identity hierarchy fragmentation set in, many of their constituent groups did not sense much justice coming their way. Hispanics are one example but there are others.
Agree on all points -- especially the toxic effects on society of Point 2. Is there a difference between "Coalition of the Ascendant" and "The Emerging Democratic Majority"? All of the bad things in this list makes it seem like it wasn't really a well thought-out idea as much as a marketing stunt that piggybacked off the title of "The Emerging Republican Majority," but not its argument. Should be a companion piece on "The Best Idea of the Decade"
It allows the party to be taken over by the Pharma-MIC. It leads to totalitarianism.
also a belief in MMT with a caveat that the productive deplorables will be easily taxed
It's built on the premise of denial and projection: not just saying that opponents are in denial about xyz, but in a great many cases the lefties themselves are in denial - say about their own animosity toward successful Asian immigrants.
The promotion of gender fluidity and preferred pronouns as a mainstream concept. The concept will have a dramatic negative impact on society and interpersonal communication.