I am not from the US, but I have a curious anecdote.
My friends that consistently vote for extreme right wing are, perhaps ironically, the ones that will suffer the most if they ever get on power.
Why do they vote for the extreme right wing, you may be wondering? Mostly out of spite. They really hate people on the left, who they see as smug.
I am sort of a centrist, so I can get along with people no matter their political views (and mostly because I don't put politics front snd center of life anyway).
I feel like unpacking that, "They're smug," sentiment might yield important insights. I don't know why and I don't know what those insights might be yet, but that's my gut feeling. I also feel like there might be some analogy to the phenomenon where people who say, "I only give people respect when I get it from them," actually mean, "I only give people basic dignity when they defer unconditionally to my judgment or will."
Then again, maybe expectation is what's at the root of most suffering.
> I feel like unpacking that, "They're smug," sentiment might yield important insights.
I agree, but I never dug enough to get these answers. I just noticed the pattern of behavior.
I think that the progressive discourse since the turn of the millennium did get increasingly preachy, to the point where even I, who am sympathetic to many of their pleas, find them annoying quite often.
Another friend I have hypothesizes that what is generally seen as "left" during that time frame moved on from class struggle and economic inequality (which used to be major talking points in the 80s and 90s) to more soft social issues. As a result, some of the lower classes started to embrace ideas of those that blamed others for their misfortune (be it immigrants, gays, blacks, etc). I find that an interesting argument, but never took the time to more thoroughly inspect it.
I can't buy your friend's conclusion, because people have been blaming immigrants, [insert analague for gays here], blacks, etc. in America and beyond for at least 100 years.
That said, I think what I'm interested in picking at that word, "preachy". It's an inherently subjective sentiment, so what does it really mean, to this person or that one? Are they offended (or maybe angered, or maybe threatened, or maybe repulsed) by the message, or the way the message is conveyed, or real/imagined ramifications of the message, or...
I just don't want to take this feeling for granted without really understanding what it is, you know? Anything like it is rooted both in reality and our interior lives, even when the two are at odds; teasing out how much goes into which is a part of that process of understanding.
> I can't buy your friend's conclusion, because people have been blaming immigrants, [insert analague for gays here], blacks, etc. in America and beyond for at least 100 years.
Well, as I said, I am not from the US. This blatantly discriminatory discourse was a lot less fashionable back in the day. Not that there was no discrimination, but the political discourse was not as contaminated by it.
> That said, I think what I'm interested in picking at that word, "preachy". It's an inherently subjective sentiment, so what does it really mean
Of course it is subjective. A lot of things in politics are subjective, related to feelings, abstract ideas, concepts.
And I am the first party that used the word "preachy" to describe my perception to more progressive discourse. This word implies an excessive appeal to morality, which used to be a hallmark of reactionary discourse when I was young - homosexuality, videogames, heavy metal, Dungeons & Dragons, et cetera and so forth was rallied against for being evil, moraly abject, satanic, and ao on.
From the turn of the millennium, more or less when progressive discourse shifted from socioeconomic concerns to more purely social issues, the talking points adopted the same tone. You don't fully support affirmative action? You are racist. You don't fully support abortion? You hate women. You like action movies that feature a strong male figure? You are misogynistic. It's all very tiresome.
> You don't fully support affirmative action? You are racist. You don't fully support abortion? You hate women. You like action movies that feature a strong male figure? You are misogynistic.
It's everywhere, this thinking in sides with no ground in between. Someone says something which in their mind it is in support of cause A, so if you contradict them -- even ask them a honest question they can't answer -- you are undermining their effort to support A, therefore you must be anti-A. If you're not in camp A, you're in camp B.
> This is a very common - and very self-serving - trope: the poor dummies who vote against their economic interests.
I did not call them poor dummies, and I never said anything about economic interests. Are you projecting your own perceived prejudices on me?
> Haven't you and I voted for taxes ? Possibly progressive taxes ? Possibly even progressive taxes whose sole purpose was wealth redistribution ?
> I have voted for things like that and they are absolutely counter to my own economic interests.
Except those things are not counter to my economic interests? I certainly wouldn't suffer with less economic inequality.
> Shouldn't we expect participants in a democracy to consider more than simple economic benefits when casting votes ?
Absolutely. I just mentioned that my friends that vote for the extreme right wing do so out of spite. They put their spite and anger above other interests. That is nuanced on its own right.
> If your own decisions are complex and nuanced why would you assume that's not the case for others ?
Once again you are assuming that I consider my own voting decisions somehow superior - or "complex and nuanced" as you put it. What implies that I consider them to be simpletons.
Except my original reply had no such connotations. I am not a giant my friend, I am just a windmill.
That's interesting, I didn't know od this book. But it is similar to the anecdote I was pointing to.
They would rather vote for politicians that will increase economic inequality by benefitting the upper classes with tax breaks and dismantle every semblance of a safety net for the general population, just because they really hate the people on the left.
I perceive this because whenver their extreme right has any victory (and I say this in the broader sense, for example, if the leftist government gas to withdraw a proposal because it was successfully blocked) they don't celebrate that the proposal that was withdrawn was bad, they celebrate that those assholes in the left got pwned.
The left and the right have routinely ignored “rural White America”. Trump at least pays lip service to them. Of course all of his policies actively hurt them. But as long as he can stir up discontentment and use the religious right, he is good.
I’m not saying that’s the reason he won this time. It’s entirely the fault of the DNC and them doing the real life version of “Weekend at Bernie’s” with Biden.
You can't post like this here and I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
meh. majority of this country couldn’t be bothered to vote against fascism, i’m content to watch the rubes continue to get fucked by trumpism and scream for more.
rural white america is a cancer that needs to be exterminated. the whole world can see the writing on the wall for these chucklefucks except themselves. rural people in general just don’t need to exist anymore.
My friends that consistently vote for extreme right wing are, perhaps ironically, the ones that will suffer the most if they ever get on power.
Why do they vote for the extreme right wing, you may be wondering? Mostly out of spite. They really hate people on the left, who they see as smug.
I am sort of a centrist, so I can get along with people no matter their political views (and mostly because I don't put politics front snd center of life anyway).