Every gen Z kid I know is having an issue trying to pick a pro-Palestine candidate. They seem to dislike Biden more than Harris, but I have never heard of trump support. I’m sure some amount of gen Z are trumpers but they are a minority, saying young male voters are “flocking” to trump is pretty silly. “There are literally dozens of us!”
That’s because the US is not only deeply polarized by party affiliation, it’s deeply segregated regionally by political stripe. Look at how few “swing states” there are and how all the rest are “solid red” or “solid blue.”
Increasingly, people know and have personal contact with fewer and fewer members of the other side. We’re witnessing the creation of the Morlocks and the Eloi, groups that neither interact with nor understand one another to the point of being separate species.
I hate to say this, but you’re probably living in a bit of a bubble. I know I was.
A lot of men, across all age ranges, tend to lean fascist. There’s a lot of reasons for this, but the core problem is that progressive neoliberalism does a terrible job speaking to cis-het male anxieties, while fascism welcomes them with open arms.
It’s all bullshit, of course, but at least they’re being heard.
Progressive politicians really need to let the 1990s go. Third-way triangulation worked great then, but it’s ineffective now.
progressive neoliberalism does a terrible job speaking to cis-het male anxieties
Terrible is a bit of an understatement. Men complain about bleak social and economic prospects only to be meet with insults that go right to the metaphorical jugular of every mans ego.
On economic issues, Staunch Conservatives and the Free Marketeers share an overwhelming opposition to tax hikes on the wealthy, business regulation, and government-provided health care. They have high levels of social trust in other people and worry less about whether the system is rigged. They also take conventional conservative positions on the environment and on cultural issues like same-sex marriage.
Staunch conservatives make up 31% and Free Marketers make up 25% of Trump voters, that’s majority.
Further the high levels of social trust displayed by the staunch conservative set speak to them having successful lives. You don’t end up with high levels of social trust if you are beaten down, can’t find work, and people act like you just aren’t trying hard enough. The staunch conservatives also deny climate change, which is harder for young people who are experiencing pollution and hot, dry summers to deny.
So the majority of Trump voters are older conservatives with comfortable lives.
American Preservationists have low levels of formal education and the lowest incomes of the Trump groups — and non-Trump voters as well. Despite being the most likely group to say that religion is “very important” to them, they are the least likely to attend church regularly. They are the most likely group to be on Medicaid, to report a permanent disability that prevents them from working, and to regularly smoke cigarettes. Despite watching the most TV, they are the least politically informed of the Trump groups.
By contrast, the “poor” group, American Preservationists, only clock in at 20% of Trump voters. This lie that they’re all pushed to Trump by economics when the “poor” group is also the uneducated group you’re gonna have a hard sell on proving to me that they even understand enough about economics to be upset about it. Or, barring that, whatever they’re upset about they still don’t actually understand with enough depth to really be making an informed decision.
Either the young men are truly in the minority or they are working long overnight shifts and not actually heading to the voting booth when they get off work. In the latter case, they aren’t a meaningful political bloc if they don’t vote.
This exactly. The destruction of third spaces under Reagan was either a genius move to radicalize lonely, isolated Americans or a hell of a coincidence that ended up helping the right.
I say it could be a coincidence because idk if Reagan’s administration was looking quite that far ahead but… They were crafty and very intelligent people.
This process began long before Reagan. I think it started with the automobile manufacturers, and General Motors in particular, in their war on public transit.
The death of the streetcar brought with it the death of streetcar suburbs and mixed-use zoning, which was the foundation upon which most third places rested (neighbourhood pubs, cafes, and barber shops).
Anyway, definitely watch that video if you have the time. Compare the vast landscapes full of roads and parking lots with the old-fashioned neighbourhood of Riverdale, with its narrow streets and cozy houses huddled together on small lots. It’s easy to see which one is more conducive to community, civic engagement, and good government. The car-dependent landscape looks like some dystopian nightmare by comparison.
Not the person who made the comment, but here’s my understanding. A “third place” is somewhere you spend a lot of time when you’re not at home (the first place) or school/work (the second place). Third places such as community centers were vital to the civil rights movement in the 60s, it was where much of the movement’s meeting, debating and organizing took place.
The Reagan administration systematically defunded any of these politically active third places that were receiving federal funds, probably because they were worried that they’d be infiltrated by those scary communists. They were so worried about what the organized people might do in the future that they did everything they could to kick the financial struts out from under these community organizations. In many cases this destroyed some or all of the local community benefits that those organizations were actually providing.
This trend cut across the political spectrum too. The Clinton administration did its own wave of defunding, though I suspect that was more for economic (i.e. neoliberal) than political ideology. Combine the lack of community investment with the rise of the internet, and you arrive at the situation we have today where third places are becoming increasingly scarce. It’s hard for communities to develop and maintain a cohesive identity when there’s no longer any metaphorical “town squares” where the people in that community gather.
I’d go a step further than that. It’s not all bullshit.
If right at the moment that young men are starting to figure out, hey it’s important to make some money, it’s important not to be a coward, I think I’m gonna start working out and waking up early and keeping my house clean, hey I think at least some of these people I see who are downtrodden by life are at least partially responsible for their own situation and problems and I don’t wanna be that way… if right at that exact moment all the left has to offer them is getting in their face and saying NO NO NO, FUCK YOU THAT’S ALL WRONG TRANS RIGHTS VEGAN CAT FOOD FUCK YOU ARARGBGLGLLGLGL then they’re not gonna wanna join with the left. The left is going to seem stupid and crazy to them, and for a certain segment of the left, they’ll have a point about that.
Trump like all fascism is a malicious lie which will bring them only misery. But just being conservative (like authentic conservatism) in your viewpoint isn’t automatically wrong or “the enemy.”
I really do think you nailed it. There is a certain contingent - most especially online, I think - that are just very toxic to any kind of reasonableness and are telling anyone that hasn’t won a very specific set of Oppression Olympics that they need to sit down and just listen, that their opinion doesn’t matter (unless it’s just to parrot what is being said by this very radical fringe), that their experiences and feelings don’t matter, only those at the top of the Oppression Olympics pyramid matter. They are also told there are no greater human experiences, everything has to be sliced up and subsegmented into things (vs. universal truths and universal conditions of humanity, etc. that unite us) and all the “old white man” canon is to be discarded, etc.
Again, I think this is mostly online stuff, but if someone is young and finding their way and especially if they are lonely, they are going to be online.
For a prime example of this, I’ve said this before, check out the comment section on Boing Boing. Boing Boing used to have a very fun and vibrant comment section. Yes, it was liberal. Now, it’s bordering on oppressive. Don’t believe me? Try taking a position that is one iota different than the mods and ringleaders on the forum now. If I was the impressionable and uniformed sort, I would see something like that and think all liberals/leftists are like this and seek some other groups out.
I think groups like that do more to create Republicans and Nazis than almost anything else.
That’s pretty fair and probably pretty accurate, what I will say is I live in a deeeeeep red state but most of my interactions are with post college gen Z so that almost certainly skewes it toward the left.
A lot of men, across all age ranges, tend to lean fascist. There’s a lot of reasons for this, but the core problem is that progressive neoliberalism does a terrible job speaking to cis-het male anxieties, while fascism welcomes them with open arms
Yeah I try to explain this to people who aren’t white males, it’s definitely a big issue. I didn’t mean to downplay this particular issue, and make no mistake I do view it as a major issue, but I do view this as a pretty fringe group % wise. Now that can definitely change very very rapidly but I personally haven’t seen it trend towards that yet, I would say the white male -> fascist pipeline started in the mid 2010’s and while it’s grown gen Z seems to ,as a whole, still be very very progress.
Obviously this is all biased in my opinion and experiences which isn’t a good indicator of reality but I do hold this opinion until I see/read something which can change that.
I’ve thought very hard about doing this. I used to be the same way and have changed my thinking. The problem is I don’t think I can properly articulate this because 1. I am still trying to swallow that pill 2. I would just feel like a hypocrite so I wouldn’t be able to deliver properly.
I do encourage others who do have the capability to try to point out the issues with single-issue voting.
The unfortunate truth is that neither Harris nor Trump is good for Palestinians, however there’s certainty that Trump will be worse. Voting third-party with enough momentum may change things over a long period of time, but that won’t help Palestinians now.
So if it’s a given that either Harris or Trump will be President next year, it’s either about weighing the other important issues, or accepting the candidate that hasn’t called for the eradication of Palestinians after removing restrictions on Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory.
This is a great example where single issue voting leads you. There’s no understanding that it may not be that simple, no understanding that there’s a huge range of possible actions different than yours and NOT “both the same”, no understanding that there are many issues with huge impact on the world not just the one you feel most strongly about.
This is a great example of you dismissing someone as being emotional when we are talking about fucking genocide. It’s fucking genocide dude. Get off your high horse and stop defending fucking genocide. This is not about an issue I feel strongly about, you creep.
I didn’t suggest accepting genocide. I said that’s it’s a fact that either Harris or Trump will be President next year. Your acceptance of that fact does not change its inevitably.
You do, however, have the ability to prevent Trump from encouraging the eradication of Palestinians.
In this case, the genocide you’re referring to is eradication. The difference isn’t between eradication and genocide. It’s between supporting Israel’s defense or funding and encouraging eradication while repealing laws that prevent them from settling on Palestinian territory.
It’s probably a regional and demographic issue. I’m in Canada in Ontario and our province elected a conservative leader even though we are known as a very liberal/ center/ even left bunch we got a right wing party leading us.
All our highly populated cities and towns with majority populations elected center or left parties … almost all the rural areas elected the right-wing party.
The thing that tilted the balance was apathy. Not enough people voted. If enough people everywhere had voted, we would have had a center or even a left party leading. But because not enough voted, the right leaning rural areas were able to out balance the few left/center leaning cities.
The thing that wins elections in Canada and the US is general apathy. If you can cut down the number of voters, you have a better chance of deciding who will get into power.
Every gen Z kid I know is having an issue trying to pick a pro-Palestine candidate. They seem to dislike Biden more than Harris, but I have never heard of trump support. I’m sure some amount of gen Z are trumpers but they are a minority, saying young male voters are “flocking” to trump is pretty silly. “There are literally dozens of us!”
That’s because the US is not only deeply polarized by party affiliation, it’s deeply segregated regionally by political stripe. Look at how few “swing states” there are and how all the rest are “solid red” or “solid blue.”
Increasingly, people know and have personal contact with fewer and fewer members of the other side. We’re witnessing the creation of the Morlocks and the Eloi, groups that neither interact with nor understand one another to the point of being separate species.
The segregation is more on a county level, though. Every state has red and blue counties.
😜
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Massachusetts
Ok, almost every state. But MA does have red municipalities and precincts.
I hate to say this, but you’re probably living in a bit of a bubble. I know I was.
A lot of men, across all age ranges, tend to lean fascist. There’s a lot of reasons for this, but the core problem is that progressive neoliberalism does a terrible job speaking to cis-het male anxieties, while fascism welcomes them with open arms.
It’s all bullshit, of course, but at least they’re being heard.
Progressive politicians really need to let the 1990s go. Third-way triangulation worked great then, but it’s ineffective now.
Terrible is a bit of an understatement. Men complain about bleak social and economic prospects only to be meet with insults that go right to the metaphorical jugular of every mans ego.
Except Trump voters were more likely to be small business owners.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/
How is it that the left isn’t discussing inequality enough for these guys? That’s a load.
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/the-five-types-trump-voters
Staunch conservatives make up 31% and Free Marketers make up 25% of Trump voters, that’s majority.
Further the high levels of social trust displayed by the staunch conservative set speak to them having successful lives. You don’t end up with high levels of social trust if you are beaten down, can’t find work, and people act like you just aren’t trying hard enough. The staunch conservatives also deny climate change, which is harder for young people who are experiencing pollution and hot, dry summers to deny.
So the majority of Trump voters are older conservatives with comfortable lives.
By contrast, the “poor” group, American Preservationists, only clock in at 20% of Trump voters. This lie that they’re all pushed to Trump by economics when the “poor” group is also the uneducated group you’re gonna have a hard sell on proving to me that they even understand enough about economics to be upset about it. Or, barring that, whatever they’re upset about they still don’t actually understand with enough depth to really be making an informed decision.
Either the young men are truly in the minority or they are working long overnight shifts and not actually heading to the voting booth when they get off work. In the latter case, they aren’t a meaningful political bloc if they don’t vote.
This exactly. The destruction of third spaces under Reagan was either a genius move to radicalize lonely, isolated Americans or a hell of a coincidence that ended up helping the right.
I say it could be a coincidence because idk if Reagan’s administration was looking quite that far ahead but… They were crafty and very intelligent people.
This process began long before Reagan. I think it started with the automobile manufacturers, and General Motors in particular, in their war on public transit.
The death of the streetcar brought with it the death of streetcar suburbs and mixed-use zoning, which was the foundation upon which most third places rested (neighbourhood pubs, cafes, and barber shops).
Anyway, definitely watch that video if you have the time. Compare the vast landscapes full of roads and parking lots with the old-fashioned neighbourhood of Riverdale, with its narrow streets and cozy houses huddled together on small lots. It’s easy to see which one is more conducive to community, civic engagement, and good government. The car-dependent landscape looks like some dystopian nightmare by comparison.
Would you mind expanding on this? The idea piqued my interest, but couldn’t find information on that connection when looking for myself.
Not the person who made the comment, but here’s my understanding. A “third place” is somewhere you spend a lot of time when you’re not at home (the first place) or school/work (the second place). Third places such as community centers were vital to the civil rights movement in the 60s, it was where much of the movement’s meeting, debating and organizing took place.
The Reagan administration systematically defunded any of these politically active third places that were receiving federal funds, probably because they were worried that they’d be infiltrated by those scary communists. They were so worried about what the organized people might do in the future that they did everything they could to kick the financial struts out from under these community organizations. In many cases this destroyed some or all of the local community benefits that those organizations were actually providing.
This trend cut across the political spectrum too. The Clinton administration did its own wave of defunding, though I suspect that was more for economic (i.e. neoliberal) than political ideology. Combine the lack of community investment with the rise of the internet, and you arrive at the situation we have today where third places are becoming increasingly scarce. It’s hard for communities to develop and maintain a cohesive identity when there’s no longer any metaphorical “town squares” where the people in that community gather.
I’d go a step further than that. It’s not all bullshit.
If right at the moment that young men are starting to figure out, hey it’s important to make some money, it’s important not to be a coward, I think I’m gonna start working out and waking up early and keeping my house clean, hey I think at least some of these people I see who are downtrodden by life are at least partially responsible for their own situation and problems and I don’t wanna be that way… if right at that exact moment all the left has to offer them is getting in their face and saying NO NO NO, FUCK YOU THAT’S ALL WRONG TRANS RIGHTS VEGAN CAT FOOD FUCK YOU ARARGBGLGLLGLGL then they’re not gonna wanna join with the left. The left is going to seem stupid and crazy to them, and for a certain segment of the left, they’ll have a point about that.
Trump like all fascism is a malicious lie which will bring them only misery. But just being conservative (like authentic conservatism) in your viewpoint isn’t automatically wrong or “the enemy.”
Except the left isn’t saying that. A handful of people are, but it’s mostly a right-wing caricature of the left.
I really do think you nailed it. There is a certain contingent - most especially online, I think - that are just very toxic to any kind of reasonableness and are telling anyone that hasn’t won a very specific set of Oppression Olympics that they need to sit down and just listen, that their opinion doesn’t matter (unless it’s just to parrot what is being said by this very radical fringe), that their experiences and feelings don’t matter, only those at the top of the Oppression Olympics pyramid matter. They are also told there are no greater human experiences, everything has to be sliced up and subsegmented into things (vs. universal truths and universal conditions of humanity, etc. that unite us) and all the “old white man” canon is to be discarded, etc.
Again, I think this is mostly online stuff, but if someone is young and finding their way and especially if they are lonely, they are going to be online.
For a prime example of this, I’ve said this before, check out the comment section on Boing Boing. Boing Boing used to have a very fun and vibrant comment section. Yes, it was liberal. Now, it’s bordering on oppressive. Don’t believe me? Try taking a position that is one iota different than the mods and ringleaders on the forum now. If I was the impressionable and uniformed sort, I would see something like that and think all liberals/leftists are like this and seek some other groups out.
I think groups like that do more to create Republicans and Nazis than almost anything else.
That’s pretty fair and probably pretty accurate, what I will say is I live in a deeeeeep red state but most of my interactions are with post college gen Z so that almost certainly skewes it toward the left.
Yeah I try to explain this to people who aren’t white males, it’s definitely a big issue. I didn’t mean to downplay this particular issue, and make no mistake I do view it as a major issue, but I do view this as a pretty fringe group % wise. Now that can definitely change very very rapidly but I personally haven’t seen it trend towards that yet, I would say the white male -> fascist pipeline started in the mid 2010’s and while it’s grown gen Z seems to ,as a whole, still be very very progress.
Obviously this is all biased in my opinion and experiences which isn’t a good indicator of reality but I do hold this opinion until I see/read something which can change that.
You should educate them on the dangers of single-issue voting. Pro-life has kept the Republican Party afloat for decades.
I’ve thought very hard about doing this. I used to be the same way and have changed my thinking. The problem is I don’t think I can properly articulate this because 1. I am still trying to swallow that pill 2. I would just feel like a hypocrite so I wouldn’t be able to deliver properly.
I do encourage others who do have the capability to try to point out the issues with single-issue voting.
The unfortunate truth is that neither Harris nor Trump is good for Palestinians, however there’s certainty that Trump will be worse. Voting third-party with enough momentum may change things over a long period of time, but that won’t help Palestinians now.
So if it’s a given that either Harris or Trump will be President next year, it’s either about weighing the other important issues, or accepting the candidate that hasn’t called for the eradication of Palestinians after removing restrictions on Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory.
So kind of just accept genocide is the only option.
Oh okay, yea I guess I can just keep living my life as long as people I care about aren’t being eradicated.
This is a great example where single issue voting leads you. There’s no understanding that it may not be that simple, no understanding that there’s a huge range of possible actions different than yours and NOT “both the same”, no understanding that there are many issues with huge impact on the world not just the one you feel most strongly about.
This is a great example of you dismissing someone as being emotional when we are talking about fucking genocide. It’s fucking genocide dude. Get off your high horse and stop defending fucking genocide. This is not about an issue I feel strongly about, you creep.
This is about genocide.
I didn’t suggest accepting genocide. I said that’s it’s a fact that either Harris or Trump will be President next year. Your acceptance of that fact does not change its inevitably.
You do, however, have the ability to prevent Trump from encouraging the eradication of Palestinians.
Okay, so prevent Trump from eradicating the Palestinians as opposed to just accepting the mere genocide that Kamala will allow and fund.
I guess I don’t understand the difference between eradication and genocide.
You’re probably right. At least with Kamala there will be a few Palestinians left at least?
In this case, the genocide you’re referring to is eradication. The difference isn’t between eradication and genocide. It’s between supporting Israel’s defense or funding and encouraging eradication while repealing laws that prevent them from settling on Palestinian territory.
It’s probably a regional and demographic issue. I’m in Canada in Ontario and our province elected a conservative leader even though we are known as a very liberal/ center/ even left bunch we got a right wing party leading us.
All our highly populated cities and towns with majority populations elected center or left parties … almost all the rural areas elected the right-wing party.
The thing that tilted the balance was apathy. Not enough people voted. If enough people everywhere had voted, we would have had a center or even a left party leading. But because not enough voted, the right leaning rural areas were able to out balance the few left/center leaning cities.
The thing that wins elections in Canada and the US is general apathy. If you can cut down the number of voters, you have a better chance of deciding who will get into power.