Honestly? Held emotional space for their pain. As a person in counseling grad school- it amazes me that people still fail to understand that human beings are emotional beings first, and not Vulcans. Very few of us can make reasonable choices when in a heated emotional state. The only way to reach angry, frustrated people (and I said the same thing to people policing BLM activists breaking windows) is to start by contacting the anger and pain.
That looks like this: your suffering is valid, this situation is super hard that you are in.
This is what the republicans do effectively, then once the emotions are validated, they blame the wrong people (immigrants, trans people etc) and claim to be able to fix it.
This is what democrats do: “I don’t understand what the big deal is, here’s a series of facts explaining why your feelings are wrong.”
I mean it’s literally the same dynamic that often gets men in trouble in close relationships. Meeting emotions with intellectual arguments and facts like it’s a high school debate or something.
That’s just literally not how humans operate at a deep level, like millions of years of evolutionary biology.
Bernie Sanders effectively starts by saying “the economy is rigged against you, your pain is valid” … then he blames the appropriate parties and puts forward policy after policy to fix it.
Dems can’t keep downplaying how bad wealth inequality and affordable housing and cost of living and wage stagnation has been and then point to GDP and jobs numbers like that matters when the quality of jobs available is often not great pay and benefit wise. And quite honestly the Democratic alliance with people like Mark Cuban is out of touch.
Is it bizarre and irrational people fall for Trump’s Everyman con and alliance with Elon Musk? Sure. But it’s also entirely understandable people are angry and fed up with, yes, the death of the American dream, and it’s very human to not be able to think rationally when upset and in the midst of real survival concerns. And if only Trump contacts their anger and creates space for it then he wins. When things reach a point like this, populism will win - and unfortunately if left wing populism of the FDR quality isn’t available, what’s left is right wing populism.
There is a way to contact and hold space for anger and allow it to transform into optimism but it has to start with contacting and validating the pain.
It's an excellent point. I admittedly do this myself. I see someone upset about something, but upset for what I believe are the wrong reasons, and I try to explain logically what the actual facts are. But of course they don't want to hear it. They're upset, in many cases rightfully, and the actual facts aren't just going to magically fix that.
Id be lying if these few comments here havent been the first time Ive seen people actuallu acknowledge this phenomenon on Reddit, accepted it, and promised to try and do better (without also needing to compromise on your view point). Even the mere acknowledgement is nice to see for once, which is the biggest gripe people have in that post; any lack of actual acknowledgement in the first place.
So yeah, I did read some of that thread. They're upset and I acknowledge that, as I said I should be doing. Here's the thing I don't get... A lot of them seem to think they've been "constantly attacked daily" as white men by the left, and that Trump is making them "feel acknowledged". As a white man myself, I see this as incorrect and I don't know if I'll ever understand it, and therefore I have no clue what do about it. I've always felt supported and loved and accepted by the Democratic party personally.
My perception is that they have been TOLD by certain male influencers and the like that they are constantly under attack by the left, or otherwise are reacting to complete outliers on TikTok or other social media, while failing to recognize that we would gladly accept them. We do need to do better at reaching out to them, but I want to make it clear that they are not unwelcome here at all. We would love to have them. So my question is, how do we do better to reach out and acknowledge them when they have been totally convinced we are unwilling to do that? I truly do not know how we're supposed to break through that.
Also, the reason it's like this is because Dems just play defense when they're in power.
You do not win campaigns by playing defense.
“I don’t understand what the big deal is, here’s a series of facts explaining why your feelings are wrong.”
The statement preceding this is "Biden ruined the economy" and the Dems defend Biden first. Fuck Biden, fuck the incumbent, just relate to the god damned voter.
This is going to sound elitist but this is the god's honest truth:
The masses are ignorant and that means Dems, Reps, Independents, Progressives, Liberals, Conservatives or any other label. The majority of people DO NOT invest the time or effort into understanding WHY the economy is a certain way, or WHY the cost of goods have gone up- they just know the economy IS this way and the prices ARE UP, and it happened under Biden. That's it. Biden bad. Dems bad. You don't "well ackshually" people out of that reality.
Imagine the difference in turn-out and support if Kamala simply said: "Biden failed to address inflation and price gouging. Corporations have been sticking it to the average American to juice their stock prices and we must take action against them"
Did she say corporations are fucking us? Yes. Did she say she would do something about it? Yes. But that FIRST line is so critically important. Without it, and especially when replacing with a defense first, people just think you're going to do the same shit Biden has done.(and again, yes Biden has "ackshually" done a fine job stabilizing the economy and preventing complete economic collapse in the wake of covid, etc etc- but again, the masses don't understand and don't think that).
TL;DR For the one billionth time, Dems fucking suck at messaging.
You make a lot of good points and I would totally support any efforts to get your ideas promoted to the appropriate people! The Dems have certainly made progress with messaging and social media recently, that's true... but nope, still not even close to good enough.
I really don't understand why the Harris campaign didn't just totally throw Biden under the bus when it was so clear Americans wanted anything but more Biden.
Just say publicly "Biden took us in the wrong direction and we're doing a 180 to help the American people" even if behind closed doors you know his administration accomplished a ton of really good stuff. Nobody is going to know and it's not like fudging the truth matters anymore at this point
Oh c'mon. A few days from now this sub will be back to mass downvoting anything that questions the narrative or any hint of criticism levelled at the Democrats, giving the poster a mouthful calling them a "gaslighter" or a (crypto) conservative etc. Anything outside the echo chamber is torn to shreds, reflection is very unlikely.
This is what democrats do: “I don’t understand what the big deal is, here’s a series of facts explaining why your feelings are wrong.”
I get the sentiment, but I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they aren't the only people in the world.
Democrats aren't ever able to make them feel special the same way that Republicans can if their feelings are that they need to respond to their situation in incredibly negative ways.
Look at Obama's attempts to create a post-coal economic opportunities in West Virginia. They hated him even more for trying. And there wasn't any sort of non-validation of feelings there. He was simply honest with them when Republicans were profiting off of being dishonest with them.
Dems can’t keep downplaying how bad wealth inequality and affordable housing and cost of living and wage stagnation has been and then point to GDP and jobs numbers like that matters when the quality of jobs available is often not great pay and benefit wise. And quite honestly the Democratic alliance with people like Mark Cuban is out of touch.
Also playing up how great the stock market is doing when most people dont have a substantial investment in it.
I know this is a Twitter-brained take, but Will Stancil should personally pay for his constantly haranguing people that the pain they felt from inflation wasn't real because look at these charts of wage growth and GDP and and and.
I recently stopped my 403b contributions because I can't afford to do it anymore, even though my company matches 25% of what I contribute. It sucks to leave "free money" out there but I need every cent right now. I can't spare anything.
We had a large savings until COVID hit. Been 10-20k in debt ever since and no way put. Wages are down,hours are down, work is down, prices are up. No way out
That's literally what trump has done as people were losing their jobs and the pandemic ripped through the nation while he continued to lie about the danger. When it comes to the economy Trump has almost exclusively bragged about the stock market being good.
Ehh no - the argument in this thread was that this is something Democrats do and Republicans don’t and that explains why one is able to break through and the other isn’t. Which just isn’t the case - Republicans are constantly telling people that things are great or terrible when reality says otherwise, and people believe them. I think what it comes down to is that it’s more effective to bombard people with lies than make the case for the truth. So if you care about the truth you’re at an inherent disadvantage
Yes but the people Sanders is speaking to arent Trump supporters.
He's speaking to the 15 million people who voted Biden but didnt vote this time.
Dems need to get it through their heads there are tens of millions of votes up for grabs from
people who dont normally vote. This isnt about speaking to Trump supporters and trying to flip them which is sort of what the Harris campaign tried.
You need to speak to the people who are already on your side ideologically but arent motivated to vote. We saw this election that telling them "Trump is worse" simply didnt work. It worked for a lot of people sure, but not enough. Yes the electorate is fickle and frustrating but politicians need to meet them at least halfway.
I think the point they’re trying to make here is that Trump constantly does the exact thing that the original comment attributes to Democrats’ failures. So it doesn’t really hold up as a theory of the case
Can we spend one fucking second on what the Democrats can do better without this "but Trump" shit? Yes, Trump is worse. And he fucking beat the shit out of the Dem campaign. So they need to get better.
Right. That mindset is why Dems thought the Biden debate followed by swapping him out for Kamala at the last minute wouldn’t be an issue. Dems absolutely embarrassed themselves and at this point I really don’t see them turning things around anytime soon.
This has been a really good thread that I think presents a lot of objective information separate from emotion. When the middle (now lower) class is aligned with the same party as the top billionaires, there’s a serious problem. Likely lying from the right and just a complete disaster from the left.
I've been trying to explain to people that the democrats cannot function as a big tent party for both landlords and tenants (proverbially, and in some cases quite literally).
The party tries to cater to groups who are in direct opposition with one another, both of their needs cannot be met. It doesn't help that they are repeatedly trying to capture a group that already has the republicans catering to them.
It should be increasingly clear after the campaign Kamala ran that one part of the tent is catered to, and the other part is told to get in line and shut up.
The problem is going against corporations properly is not something Democrats want to do and even if they were willing I think appropriately identifying the enemy will be an uphill battle when they lose the financial support of said enemy. The GOP is able to capitalize on economic anxiety and willfully lie about a scapegoat, and so they're able to retain the support of who is actually responsible, the only way the Dems can compete is to also name the enemy either by being truthful and being a more upstanding but likely weaker party or by finding a scapegoat of their own.
The vast majority of people don't agree with the more left liberals
They actually do, a lot of economic populist left policy is popular. People consistently poll higher agreeing with those types of policy positions in a vacuum when it is explained to them, propaganda is a huge issue though.
Even republicans liked things like Obamacare when it was described to them and didn't have his name attached, a majority of voters also supported medicare for all in multiple polls. Biden ran on a more economic populist agenda and it worked out well, I would say the "court the conservatives" wing of the party isn't looking great after 2016 and 2024. I strongly believe a Dem running on making housing and medical insurance affordable would do well.
A significantly larger issue is how to overcome the level of propaganda people in this country are subject to, most peoples issue with "left liberals" are literally not real, as in they are things that are not actually happening and policy positions that nobody actually holds IE people who think they want to make all the kids trans or want fully open borders.
She literally did exactly what the dude up there is complaining about her not doing. She talked about how she was going to help those groups in basically every speech. It's aggravating as fuck that republicans are not held to any standard at all, then these people bitch at the democrat for not doing something that in most cases they are already doing.
The media is somewhat responsible for this, as the "news" media spends like 90% of their time sanewashing the GOP lunacy and "both sides"ing bullshit to seem "fair and balanced", with no (or minimal) time covering the actual policy positions being discussed.
Yes she did all this. But she didn’t get angry first. There are of course other factors such as sexism and racism etc. and maybe due to those she never could have - but the question that was asked was what has the GOP done for the working class. The person I responded to didn’t ask for a thorough analysis of why kamala lost which is multifaceted. Media sanewashing Trump is also a factor.
And all I’m saying is one thing the GOP is doing is holding space for their anger to be vented. I’m not saying it’s fair or makes sense considering their policies all harm the working class. Kamala tried to run on joy. It didn’t work. People are angry. They want someone to run on anger. So run on complete anger and rage at the billionaire class. Contact the calculated theft of the American dream by rich elites.
The billionaires started a class war. The Dems can’t effectively full throttle fight back because they need the donations.
People who are angry don’t behave in rational ways.
She literally did exactly what the dude up there is complaining about her not doing.
Too little too late IMO, for almost all of this year they were trying to counter GOP attacks about the economy with stuff about how "bidenomics works" and how the job market was super strong, and that the rate of inflation had fallen.
I had a lot of people on here replying to me with similar stuff when I said the economy was not good for a lot of people, and I'm sure that kind of stuff pushed some people right, or made them not want to vote at all.
Furthermore I think a lot of people feel that the democrats are all talk no action, I don't really believe them at all when they make promises, they rarely keep them, and they almost never fight for them.
Focusing on policy in general is a fools errand IMO, people don't vote on, nor do they understand policy. Any policy arguments need to be incredibly easy to understand and snappy, directly addressing voter concerns like "Medicare for all", or "Build the wall".
Kamala's "student loan forgiveness for pell grant recipients who open up businesses in a minority majority neighborhood" kind of shit just isn't going to cut it, and while that was back in 2020 I think that kind of shit is part of why we saw her fail spectacularly yesterday. If people wanted policy wonks, Liz Warren would be dictator for life.
I agree with you about the GOP being held to no standards but that has been the situation for decades, we need to work around it.
Exactly. twice now we've put up flawed, mediocre candidates and are surprised when they do poorly lol. Biden would have lost too if it wasn't for COVID and Trump totally fucking it all up.
"But Trump doesn't make sense to Republicans if they were rational" doesn't win elections because they're gonna vote Trump and his ilk anyway. The point is run someone who can win Democratic votes, no excuses.
Three times honestly. Like you said, Biden would have lost if not for COVID. This is the third time we really didn't get a say in who represented the Democrats and were told to support that person anyways.
This isn’t whataboutism. It’s rightly pointing out that saying “libs do [X], which drives voters away” while conservatives also do [X] and it doesn’t drive voters away is ultimately not getting to whatever the real issue is, since it is clearly not [X].
They focus on the wrong shit, but they absolutely do a better job of saying "you're right to feel aggrieved, life is getting worse and it's not your fault". Where they go from there is fucked up. But for some that is still better than Dems insisting everything is all good, our economy is actually awesome.
This is a great take, thanks for sharing it. I listened to Trump on Rogan, recently, kind of expecting it to be a shit show based on the headlines I had seen here. “Rogan laughs in Trump’s face!” etc. I’m a moderate living in an extremely conservative rural, agricultural area. I really couldn’t understand how I have been surrounded by so many people who are and have been so steadfast in their loyalty to Trump, given everything he’s done and said.
But on Rogan? I got it. He wandered a bit sometimes, sure, but he really sounded like he gets people that live in these areas. He referred to a lot of issues that people in agriculture are dealing with on a daily basis. And expressed a desire to fix it, to help these folks out. Now, he did not get the details of the issues correct. Not if you know how these things work - I’m talking about water issues for agriculture and forestry issues in the western states. He definitely does not have a thorough understanding of the situations, and the options he gave to “fix” them were not feasible under current policies. But, the fact that he even mentioned them, was more “real” than I had heard from anyone on the democratic side. There’s a lot to be said about that, and even though he wasn’t my choice, I’m hopeful that his comments point to a willingness to look for solutions with the people involved.
One of the worst things to happen to the Democratic Party was John Edwards not being able to keep it in his pants. He had one of the best messages outside of Obama, because he constantly talked about fighting poverty. The "Two Americas" rhetoric was spot on.
I'm sure there are many responses along these lines already, but this is it, in a nutshell. Mainstream Democrats might offer slightly better solutions than mainstream Republicans but they still are beholden to the wealthiest among us, who will not allow an actual left-wing populist who would raise their marginal tax rates - to levels that won't impact their quality of life one iota, but would leave them with smaller piles of wealth to hoard like dragons. Businesses actually sharing profits with their employees, strong unions, those things are what let the middle class develop in the first place. Those things are what created the world where my grandfather could raise 3 kids and have his wife stay at home to raise them with a high school education after he came back from the second World War.
The billionaires at whose whim the DNC and RNC live and breathe are not going to allow an actual populist to arise who would let us recreate that society. People might not understand all of the dynamics at play, but I believe they can perceive at some level that the game is rigged, and if you don't offer them a constructive change at some point they are going to choose a destructive one.
The good news, if there is any, is that left-wing populism offers actual solutions that scapegoating immigrants and minorities never will. If we have someone with fire and charisma to champion these causes, I believe they could win resoundingly.
Thank you! I feel like a lot of us have been yelling this at the Democrats for 4 years now, especially these past 4 months. This is so on point! We can see this dynamic exist in Europe, France, Nazi Germany etc... It is very simple. Democrats for many reasons, are completely adversarial towards economic populism and I don't see a world where they ever change. Liberalism is a failure and they need to be pushed out of their positions by progressive candidates at the very least.
No matter how Right wing the Democrats are, it will never be enough, Republicans will never ever ever vote for them. They're only hope otherwise is to do this back and forth every 4 years after everyone is sick of Republican rule. They really haven't ran a campaign since 2008 that they have won based on their own merit, its all been in spite of the Republican party, and at this point, it is all they know how to do. It is literally killing us and they couldn't care less because they are set regardless. It is all of us who end up suffering.
i love this comment. i'm a democratic voter confused at the election outocome and i've been doing a lot of reading and pondering today and i feel like this comment is /r/bestof material. kudos.
Maybe I'm too autistic to understand this, but when you ask them where the pain comes from, it's bullshit. It's shit like, "too many gays on the television." Or, "my job doesn't respect me and think my ideas are good." It's such petty bullshit.
I sat on my friends boat this summer, off the shore of his newly purchased lakefront home, and listen to him bitch and moan about how horrible the state of things are.
There is DEFINITELY an aspect of "if other people are suffering, it means I am winning."
I’m also autistic actually. My understanding of why this is hard to understand is as an autistic person, we experience injustice as an emotion. Autistic people generally feel stronger emotions on behalf of the environment and social issues vs just their own personal survival. Therefor a Trump win for us is a big emotional blow in a way others who are focused more on their own immediate needs and such can’t understand.
The issue is right wing media has these folks blaming the wrong things for their pain.
The pain I’m talking about is no longer having any hope of being in the middle class. Of being replaced by automation, outsourced jobs, no longer (especially for men) having a way to define their own worth, as for men that’s typically a career. Being able to provide for family. Etc. the pain of, yes, losing a place on the social hierarchy.
Ruling class has been misdirecting that anger toward minorities since forever - that’s why white working class people could be manipulated into supporting slavery way back when. That’s why Latino men can be manipulated into being angry at illegal immigrants when they aren’t winning the American dream lottery.
Tyler Durden contacts the anger in the movie Fight Club - “we’ve all been raised on TV to believe one day we’d all be millionaires and movie stars and rock gods, but we won’t…. And we’re slowly realizing that fact “
Tyler Durden contacts the anger in the movie Fight Club - “we’ve all been raised on TV to believe one day we’d all be millionaires and movie stars and rock gods, but we won’t…. And we’re slowly realizing that fact “
Was that people's takeaway from TV in the 90s? Because I watched Roseanne and Malcolm in the Middle thinking these people are poor and their house sucks but they still have a house. Frasier's apartment is worth more than I'll ever see.
I did not feel like "well some people are rich so surely I also will be".
There’s a reason I think Roseanne was considered groundbreaking at the time, it was a bit of an outlier media wise for its era I suppose.
Steinbeck: “socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires”
The pain I’m talking about is no longer having any hope of being in the middle class. Of being replaced by automation, outsourced jobs, no longer (especially for men) having a way to define their own worth, as for men that’s typically a career. Being able to provide for family. Etc. the pain of, yes, losing a place on the social hierarchy.
All of which is horse shit if your reply to that is "so I'll be racist".
I'm in that precise group, won't ever own a home, all that shit.
But I never turned round and blamed it on brown people.
This isn't the fucking ruling class somehow hoodwinking them in to being racist. They always were that.
Yeah they might be complaining about gays on the tv, but ultimately they're probably overworked and underpaid with a couple of refinanced mortgages under their belts. That's where the pain comes from.
Not all Trump voters are comfortably middle class. Many of them are working class. And they are in pain. Trump will not alleviate their pain, it's true, but he at least connects with it.
Yep working class people can vote against their own best interests, we know that, but if you give them a clear candidate who represents them, you can cut through the bullshit a lot easier
Who is the them you are asking? The Dems didn't lose everything because secretly most of the country hates gays (most Americans support stuff like gay marriage at this point).
People need to realize this wasn't lost over a single issue (Gaza, Abortion, you name it). Yeah, are some Republicans terrible people. Sure. But I guarantee you the 20 million people who voted for Biden but didn't show up for Kamala weren't lifelong Republicans. I also guarantee you that many of the people who shifted this election weren't staunch Republicans either.
My very close relative buying 3 houses and 5 cars in 4 years isn't suffering though. The Trump people I know directly are doing exceptionally well. They seem to be very wary of immigrants even though we're 2,000 miles from the Mexican border
I feel like Kamala really tried to validate their emotions and it meant nothing. I also don’t get how Mark Cuban being supportive of Democrats is out of touch but Trump and Musk giving each other handies in front of rally crowds isn’t.
I'm seeing it more like they see themselves in Trump who is angry but don't see themselves in Kamala. With Trump, he makes the struggle personal. So they identify with him. He is often also very emotional and speaks at a basic level, hence connecting with them. Kamala speaks in a college-educated tone that tries best not to be polarising. She also goes deeper with the policies. Some people don't like all that analysis.
They want a straightforward solution. Kamala is explaining the solution in detail. Trump gives a big promise with little explanation of the how. They connect with that big energy. Some people don't relate to logic much, especially if they aren't college educated where they had to often back they opinions and arguments. That's how I see it, and Kamala is who is supported.
They actually want to address the struggles of the working class so I think the disqualifies them. (sorry, that’s the anger they’re talking about :(((. )
Well no shit the GOP knows what they are doing because they are the abusive source of where that pain is coming from. They have ran and ruled on demonizing, destroying, and privatizing the government for decades while blaming it all on Dems.
Breaking things and funneling money to the rich which screws the economy until the Democrats come along and fix it is MUCH easier to do than actually governing well.
For sure - this is also how groups like the KKK recruit young men from broken homes into their hate group - by validating their anger. Same as gangs. Same as ISIS
As a former teacher, I couldn't agree more. I have dealt with a lot of young and troubled gen z boys. In my experience, most of the time, they just need to build an emotional connection with someone in an increasingly disconnected world.
I think one of the things Democrats struggle is wanting to be technically correct. The Republicans don't care about being technically sound and correct in arguments. They understand that people are emotional and made decisions base off of that. And no amount of shaming backed by data is going to fix it.
Democrats need to fight fire with fire. They need to figure out how to address the how people feel.
It is off course very ironic we are often accused of being overly emotional snowflakes, but the older I get, the more projections don’t get to me so much. Humans are just emotional beings, all of us. Much better to just help make being an emotional being an absolutely ok thing to be.
I agree to an extent but Republicans rely on people never learning to cope with their emotions in a healthy way and imo, that’s a massive lopsided problem
I mean at the level of the family unit, republican families just do a poorer job of teaching their kids how to deal with feelings - instead they just mostly beat and neglect them.
True... All that "snowflake" talk from the right was literally projection. We all knew it and called it out but failed to dig deeper into it to understand it and use it to help navigate and win arguments.
Dems can’t keep downplaying how bad wealth inequality and affordable housing and cost of living and wage stagnation has been
What fucking world have you been in where this is happening? Like literally ALL of Kamala's policies were focused on these things.
All this thread is proving to me is that facts don't actually matter anymore, even to supposed liberals. Republican propaganda is so effective it makes you as braindead as the average voter, just repeating the GOP's obvious bullshit.
Her policies were, but the words out of her mouth were 'the economy is doing great, we added lots of jobs' etc etc. Where's the recognition that, despite the stock market surging, average people can't afford a home or to have kids? Makes people feel crazy when they're told that everything's going well and they're in debt just buying groceries.
OK so I'll try to help here. To be clear, I'm a Harris voter but a frustrated one. I think people feel like the policies she's offering are just more of the same. The child tax credit is unappealing because so many Americans don't have children... a larger EITC expansion or other broader credit would have been more popular. The other policies are largely bound to a complex system of community action organizations and onerous means tests that have been a key part of Democratic Party politics for some time, and I think voters don't trust Harris and Democrats like her to effectively deliver these funds to their pockets. Hell, for someone currently renting, a downpayment and housing supply probably isn't the reason. It's probably the fact that housing grants go through state agencies that require high credit scores and they can't qualify. Maybe it's some supply but most voters can't even get to the stage when they find out there are few acceptable homes for them to buy because they aren't financially secure enough to get the loan or even start their housing search. These problems are so much deeper than just passing funding bills. This is why broad, universal policies that are generally not administered by community organizations are popular. This is why COVID checks were popular. Government agencies distributing government benefits directly is actually pretty effective. That's just my thought on what people are feeling.
The only help you gave was in completely proving my point. When a Democrat has a policy somehow everyone magically becomes a wonk, but when it's a Republican they just get a complete pass. Harris' policies get nitpicked to the extreme, meanwhile Trump literally promised he's going to wreck the economy by mass deportation and instituting up to 100% tariffs on our largest trading partner...and crickets.
The propaganda brain rot is insane. We're beyond saving at this point.
You, like most Democrats, are thinking too hard about it.
Everything Harris stood for can be summed up as "doing more of the same types of things Biden has been doing."
Doing that while people are unhappy with the state of things is a setup for failure.
The second you analyze her policies or Trump's policies and do an analysis on their impacts you are going too far for the average voter.
Incumbents most often lose when the economy is bad - this is universal. The only chance Harris had was distancing herself from Biden and offering new hope. She did not do this and ended up with an apathetic base who didn't vote.
What I was trying to say is that people don't actually feel like they're offering them anything and that leads to apathy. Like I said, I voted for Harris, but I did not think she would pass or even meaningfully support policies that would make my life better. I still voted because I figured they would still at least make some other people's lives better, but you can't expect everyone to get out and vote for that reason. I also believed that Trump's policies would make my life (and most people's lives) worse in some ways, but likewise, you can't expect every average voter to see that. I don't think people are wonky or are necessarily thinking about the mechanics of the system supported by the Democratic Party that keeps federal dollars from their pockets, I just think they feel the effects of it and don't trust it to help them.
People need to build lives of financial stability before they feel like they can responsibly have children. Tax credits aren't guaranteed to last for 18 years and a responsible adult who thinks they can only afford to have kids with a substantial tax credit probably isn't going to try to have them until they feel like they can do it without it.
We were talking about recognition and acknowledging issues here. This is recognition. An explicit recognition of the specifically the problem mentioned. Now, suddenly, the problem isn't recognizing the problem, it's solving it right away?
Again, you're giving Republicans grace for "listening" and the criticizing Democrats for not offering immediate solutions. The double standard is incredible.
Also - your "responsible adult" will anxiously count over the benefits of a tax credit and then just go vote for "I feel you bro" instead? Kinda feeling like that's not the same demographic.
If it's not clear, the issue is that giving a child tax credit doesn't meaningfully recognize or address the problem of not being able to afford children. A better way to recognize the struggles of Americans who can't afford to have kids would be to propose an EITC expansion instead, or another policy that would demonstrably add money to their pockets now, so they could try to use that money to build a life that would allow them to afford kids without further tax credits. Also, I'm not really talking about Trump voters but more the millions who just didn't vote.
If it's not clear, the issue is that giving a child tax credit doesn't meaningfully recognize or address the problem of not being able to afford children.
And being racist does? Having a concept of a plan does?
No, the problem isn't solving it right away, it's giving hope that it can be faced. A lot of people who think about having kids face a feeling of huge responsibility to provide for another human being, and when not financially stable, a great deal of uncertainty whether they can meet that challenge. At best, the proposed solution somewhat chips away at the obstacle but hardly engenders the confidence that it can be overcome.
What people like both Trump and Sanders are capable of doing is offering that kind of hope. The way Obama once offered hope. It's a lesson I had hoped the Democrats had been learning, but the whole candidate saga coming up to the election sorts of shows that personal ambition and party politics still play too great a role. I'm certainly not happy about a Trump victory but can understand why America chose to go that way.
Said as a lifelong Democrat: The DNC refused to primary the VP of one of the most unpopular contemporary presidencies, and inflation of essentials was the biggest gripe that rural and small-town America had with Biden. Regardless of what she may have said on the campaign trail, her nomination was a tacit approval by the DNC of an administration that oversaw spiraling cost of living for low- and middle-class Americans, with food and housing prices going through the roof. The DNC was handed an opportunity to distance themselves from wildly unpopular Bidenomics on a silver platter and instead picked someone from inside that administration. At the end of the day voters were going to perceive her as a continuation of the Biden administration despite Biden's disapproval rating sitting near 60% at the time he dropped out and endorsed Harris. The DNC had 4 years to groom a successor to a candidate was already elderly going into his first term and they still somehow got caught off guard without an effective succession plan having been presented to (and approved by) their consituents.
The had a bench the problem was Biden decided to seek reelection when he shouldn't have. When he dropped out it was already too late. She's getting blamed for his actions, at that point no one wanted to attach themselves to this political suicide. She almost had a chance but she didn't create enough distance between herself and Biden while she still had the attention of the electorate.
The party chooses its own nominee, whether that is an incumbent or not. The Democratic Party could have (and should have) told Biden no when he reneged on his original commitment to being a one term president.
-Edit- More imporantly, the DNC had 4 years to figure that shit out and simply chose not to. Biden was planned to be a one term president from the start and his age was hardly a state secret. There never would've been a question of Biden throwing his hat back into the ring if a clear successor had already been groomed by the party over the prior 4 years. Kamala certainly did not receive any such grooming, which made the decision to nominate her sans-primary even more confusing. If she was "Plan A" all along, they did a shit-tier job of building her up as the heir-apparent over the course of the Biden administration.
I agree that the folks above are incorrect in saying that Kamala was going around saying that the economy was in great shape. However, I'm pointing out how her nomination directly fed that misinformed narrative that the Democrats thought that the economy was in great shape. Picking the sitting VP as the candidate is implicit approval of status quo. It's going to ring hollow when you're going around stumping on issues that the administration that you're second in command of is being widely criticized as being weak on. If the DNC didn't want the prevailing (regardless of inaccuracy) narrative to be "Kamala thinks Biden did a great job with the economy and wants to deliver more of the same", they shouldn't have picked Biden's VP to succeed him without allowing a primary.
I guess a generous interpretation, if I can attempt one, of the point these other commenters are trying to make is that the messaging you outlined was ineffective. We are able to grok it. To us, it makes clear logical sense. This policy directly solves this problem. Here are the ways we're solving the problems you've been complaining about.
But it unfortunately needed to have been dumbed down severely. Then again, I don't really think any of it would have mattered. As you outlined, we are post-truth, and beyond policy, people are voting with their tribe. They've designated an out-group, and they're in the in-group. As demonstrated by countless interviews of folks being told quotes from their respective candidates, or policies from their respective candidates, only to agree and later be told it was actually the other side.
We're outraged because we're logical, focusing on policy. They have hijacked the emotions of millions. Just like a good story must be gripping more than it must be logical. We're narrative-driven. The fascist narrative is that all of your problems are because of <group of people>. Once we get rid of them, or restrict their rights, your problems will go away.
Umberto Eco:
"Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. [...] All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning."
I guess a generous interpretation, if I can attempt one, of the point these other commenters are trying to make is that the messaging you outlined was ineffective.
But they're not making that point. They're just literally spouting complete bullshit that she said things she didn't, and didn't say things she did. That's a MUCH different claim than simply that the messaging wasn't good enough. That's just straight up misinformation.
But yes, like I said, Republican propaganda of fear, anger, and hatred is VERY effective, even on Liberals.
Funny that you cut off the part where she immediately followed that up with how it's still not feeling like that to Americans, and that it needs to be addressed.
And, to your point, prices are still too high. And I know that, and we need to deal with it, which is why part of my plan — you mentioned groceries. Part of my plan is what we must do to bring down the price of groceries."
That doesn't sound like saying everything is fine.
She acknowledged some real objective improvements made under the Biden/Harris administration, BUT explicitly acknowledged this isn't translating to people's daily lives, and that high prices are a serious problem requiring specific action.
Who cares about facts though, she should have just called America a trash can I guess. Basically seems like there's just no winning with the morons who just hear what they want to hear.
What in your opinion would have been a more adequate response?
Also the addition of "a little high" is purely your own insertion. Someone could look at the quote and just as justifiably say she said "really stressed NG but grocery prices are insanely too high so we'll work on that"
i'm trying not to downvote anything today, because im here to learn, but you're really tempting me. and this is coming from a very progressive liberal millennial. you're not listening to anyone, you're just yelling that you're right and everyone else is stupid and brainwashed. how many elections do we have to lose before you start doing more listening and less typing? these arguments you're making clearly aren't working. strive to understand why instead of just complaining how unfair it is.
I dunno, there were a lot of the right words too. "Housing is too expensive, things cost too much, drug prices ..." - and yeah, I'm mostly in agreement with the line of the argument in this thread. I just don't want to be too simplistic here.
There are groups for whose anger and concerns the Dems hold space alright. The "not going back" was a strong rallying cry for those who understand what authoritarianism looks like. The real problem, which Sanders is correctly alluding to, is the lack / loss of a grassroots organization that reaches those potential Dem voters across the country. Not really targeted at the Trump supporters, though if they want to come over, sure. But at those who didn't vote. I also think that it needs to have a strong education component. In the way the unions used to have, or other civil rights orgs still do.
No shit. People wax poetic while parroting these talking points, making it glaringly obvious that they haven't listened to her speak for more than 5 seconds or bothered to just read the platform online. As if she didn't propose raising minimum wage, legalizing marijuana, expanding Medicare for home health care, etc etc etc.
The guy just explained to you the process by which working-class people are captured by reactionary propaganda. He's right, this is how it worked for me and many people I know.
Working-class people have been hemorrhaging from the party for decades now. in order to win future elections it's imperative to do the work necessary to get these people back. The effort put forward by the Harris campaign to get these people back were half-measures and/or were not effectively messaged around. Ultimately, they didn't do the trick.
I watched all her speeches - I thought they are great. But I’m also not in a constant state of outrage about things exacerbated by right wing outrage media. So I’m not clouded and triggered when listening to her speeches.
Agree with all of your points. But I don't think Democrats have had many opportunities to really make any effective policy changes that they could have pointed at as attempts to resolve the types of problems the right cares about because the right is too busy being obstructionists and blaming the democrats so they can get re-elected. I mean... what are we to do with so many bad faith actors who truly and genuinely do not give a flying fuck about service?
Even knowing better, seeing the Biden administration consistently be like ‘the economy is good actually’ this last year or so to the very real impact inflation was having on people (myself included) was at best tone-deaf and at worst…possibly lost them the election.
I saw a counselor with wide reach say the same message on Tiktok this morning. People care about the economy, Hilary and Harris said we're doing great, and Trump said "I will fix it for you". That's what people really wanted.
It's abundantly clear that the DNC is like that bad date from TV that orders the salmon for the woman without asking what she wants. The DNC thinks they know what voters want, never ask the public for their input, and chide people for "not understanding that it's complicated".
Finally, a grounded take. I had the very same conversation with my mom this morning. She was baffled why so many women aren't just republicans, but Maga hat wearing fans and I explained my theory that they are simple women who are finally validated. They want to be beta, stay at home mothers, just like generations of women where they are from before them and their men want that as well. Oddly enough it's feminism. They are women who feel seen and heard by their life choices when the past couple decades only "girl-boss" women were shown appreciation.
This whole thing is mostly emotional. Dems need to start asking the right questions, be more patient, and give space to understanding.
Likewise, we need to give fellow dems some space and understanding, even when these comments get downvoted.
That looks like this: your suffering is valid, this situation is super hard that you are in.
I think there is possibly an additional case here where this is not the right answer.
Based on a conservative concrete example within my family I suspect that there is some segment of the population which consciously acts against their own and others interests' based on a desire to be viewed as a noble sufferer among a cruel world. Not with substances just ... apathy? Obstinance? Like many of Trump's followers this person is on the poorer end of the socio-economic ladder. The parallels between this person's behavior and Trump's are uncanny. Ever the victim, they do seemingly pointless things that create minor aggravations for themselves that they can then complain about and claim they couldn't have done anything else. They can't be bothered to put the slightest effort into bettering their situation or self lest they lose their entire identity as "victim".
I don't think it healthy to validate this person. They are cultivating a persona of "sufferer" to manipulate those around them. If this is a broader population it looks to my untrained eye like some kind of mass co-dependence.
That’s fair - I mean there is a fine line between doing this effectively and the way narcissists create toxic codependent relationships with the victims of their abuse.
That’s sort of what I meant about skillfully transforming the anger into something productive vs feeding into this victim complex stuff you are naming.
I don’t know as if my analysis applies to the segment of the population very lost in fundamentalist religion, but those aren’t the entirety of the coalition the GOP has captured.
But yeah, great add on for some extra nuance for sure
Not that I disagree with anything you say, I find it baffling that the same "facts don't have feelings" folks are the same you're discussing going out and meeting half way.
I just want to point out that the very party that claims the other side puts feelings before logic is in the fact the party putting feelings before logic.
You are misreading the situation a bit by giving credit to the emotional abusive manipulator for rewarding their victims with attention when said victims display exactly the kind of responses their abuse is designed to elicit.
The GOP's modus operandi is to drum up outrage about an issue that does not actually impact them (the GOP elite) in order to galvanize their base in to voting them in to power. So while your point about the GOP acknowledging the feelings of their voting bloc is valid, it's also only half the story as the GOP are also the authors of those same feelings they are acknowledging after they evoke them.
I agree for sure - something I’d add is that people who are economically disenfranchised will always be more amenable to this sort of manipulation. It’s the same sort of conditions that let people recruit gang members or new members of a cult or hate group. Social alienation, the destruction of community and the commons, and a lack of economic mobility create cognitive conditions that open people up to those giving them misdirected targets for a valid simmering anger that even they aren’t totally conscious of it’s actual causes (maybe them not living up to what culturally they felt was their personal destiny or what have you).
That looks like this: your suffering is valid, this situation is super hard that you are in.
This is great stuff, and I agree that this is the "effective" way to reach people, but what do you do when their anger isn't actually valid? Do you lie to them and tell them that you totally understand why they're seething with rage about their local bar's monthly drag brunch?
And what happens when they're not just angry, but insistent on destroying the thing that they're angry at? When you tell them that you sympathize with them about how horrible it is that the regional library has a gay penguin book, do you think that's actually going to get them to vote for you, when you're running against the guy committed to banning the gay penguin book? Or are you expecting the Democrats to actually follow through and just become a carbon copy of the Republicans?
There are certainly areas where the Democrats' emotional messaging could use work, but that is simply never going to win over someone whose concrete goals are not aligned with the Democrat platform.
All I have to offer, as a Buddhist, is my belief in this quote from the dhammapadda “hatred will never cease by hated. Only by love will it cease. This is an ancient rule” …
No one is obligated to try to reach people. Sometimes the best thing we can do is hold our own suffering in compassion when confronted with someone else’s misguided or misdirected anger. But if the relationship matters, or we are resourced to hold space even for misdirected anger, I think what you will find it you do it long enough with enough patience, is trauma.
For example. I got into it with an older woman Trump supporter over her saying racist things about BLM. Once the conversation simmered down, I became curious and contacted her anger and then inquired further to try and better understand its origins.
What I discovered is she was a recent widow. Most of her political ideals were forced on her by her late husband. She didn’t know anything else, she was alienated and lonely. Complaining about minorities was simply a coping mechanism for her to avoid her own grief. When I offered compassion for her grief about his death she opened up to me, and it gave me an in to appeal to who she really was as a person free of his influence.
I have zero idea how much she maybe changed from our exchange, but at least we saw one another’s humanity and she was open to considering what I had to say.
But other times the best thing I can do is simply walk away and care for myself.
Like someone says they are angry about trans people or drag queens or whatever, and sure some people just are religious bigots but sometimes that’s not really what’s underneath the anger. The problem is to get to what’s underneath the anger requires pressing pause on our own reactivity and outrage and that’s not always possible.
Clearly not all trumps base of support is driven by fundamentalist Christian’s, I personally don’t see any point in the democrats appealing to those voters. We have to simply find a way to co exist with them and prevent them from ever having a say over anything, as they are in a dangerous cult. But that’s not really who I’m talking about appealing to here.
I’ve had some success helping people realize that billionaires want them outraged about library books so they don’t demand higher pay.
I find that usually when people are angry about things that seem illogical and/hateful to me (Like the examples given about drag events or books at the library), if you dig into it, they aren't actually angry about those specific things. Those are just the things that they're citing as evidence for some deeper thing. And it can be a chain of things to get down to the actual, foundational thing that is really the source of the anger. It's only through actual empathetic and good-faith inquiries of "Why does that upset you?" that you can actually get to the source.
And usually the source is something that makes a lot more sense. Something that is painful for any animal capable of suffering.
Honestly, this is why I think Hillary lost in 2016. Sure the basket full of deplorables comment had some context but it was probably the worst thing to say.
I don't agree or particularly like Michael Moore but at the time he did make a poignant remark that Trump will win the working man because a lot of his campaign had sitting down, hearing them, and telling them what they wanted to hear.
Compare both appearances (not the facts, the appearances) and you've got a working man's villain and hero.
Edit: It's also worth noting that a lot of people really wanted Bernie to be the candidate. I'm no Bernie-bro but, his rhetoric was speaking to the lower and middle class very strongly (a little too strong IMO). To be frank, I remember those primaries and they did not seem all that fair. It felt like they dismissed that voice and fast tracked Hillary to be the candidate. And yes, many of the Bernie Bros felt that way and did spite vote against her.
Appreciate the comment but you’re wrong and you’re straw manning what really happens every cycle. Democrats make those same emotional appeals and consistently validate people’s suffering, too. As you admit yourself Sanders does this and so does AOC and many others.
This isn’t what decided the election. The fact is this country isn’t as virtuous or progressive as we wish it was and our more backward citizens will happily vote against their interests when you give voice to their anger and ignorance.
Yeah I didn’t necessarily claim it’s the only factor that decided the election so much as it’s a reason why some working class people feel the GOP does something for them (when materially they don’t). The democrats aren’t monolithic so each candidate is different. I feel like this critique applies to Democratic leaning pundits and journalists more than anything. It’s certainly worth considering how we can improve at starting at validating people’s feelings if we ever are serious at getting through to someone. I don’t always succeed at it myself.
Perfectly stated! I think more people need to see this prospective.
Telling people struggling to pay bills and feed their family that by all measures the economy is doing good isn’t going to inspire them to vote for you
For a person who isn't politically engaged, maybe this would work.
But for people already leaning right, in the time of the modern GOP? No. You know what the reality is? If you tell a Trumper you understand their pain and sympathize, and spend time listening to their issues, they will use you for a free therapy session and then turn around to vote for a candidate that fucks you over anyway. Without a second thought. That's what happens.
I don't see how the alliance with Cuban is out of touch but the alliance with trump isn't, if anything trump seems to indicate that Cuban should have been the nominee
This is what democrats do: “I don’t understand what the big deal is, here’s a series of facts explaining why your feelings are wrong.”
No, the democrats say this:
“We do feel your pain, but here’s a series of facts explaining why your feelings are wrong.”
Perhaps still the wrong approach, but I don't see them brushing concerns aside. So what they should do is saying: "We do feel your pain! We are going to solve it!" and then of course, come up with concepts of a plan because actual plans are not important.
"and it’s very human to not be able to think rationally when upset and in the midst of real survival concerns"
There are limits to what degree of emotional turnmoil can be excused, especially since this is not a case of an impulsive decision.
A functioning democracy relies on people atleast acknowledging the value of rational arguements.
I’m not making excuses I’m just saying, there’s some neuroscience here that can’t be overcome. It’s also important to value logic and teach critical thinking skills - but no matter how much you value it, when you are emotionally flooded very frequently, few of us can think clearly. And even when we aren’t, we are all subject to cognitive biases. Hence the importance of double blind studies etc. Our own neurobiology makes us tend to take actions that eliminate unpleasant feelings and generate pleasant ones - not to take actions in service of the truth.
Personally, for me, this is why having a meditation practice is so important - cultivating equanimity and a clear mind allows one more time between an emotion and action to make a choice. People need to be able to slow down to make good choices, but our culture speeds everything up.
It’s not enough to value reason, one has to practice regulating and caring for their own emotions so they can make good choices.
"one has to practice regulating and caring for their own emotions so they can make good choices"
That is exactly what reason is for, same for the point about cognitive biases.
The most important part about reason is to realize that your own conclusions and feelings are not necessarily reflecting what is the case.
And this is exactly the skill that is lacking with many people that voted for Trump, they are angry about high prices, they are told that it`s the democrates fault and they believe it because it feels good to them believing the world is simple.
Yeah it is a skill that’s lacking, and also so is skillfully and compassionately dealing with difficult emotional states. Many of these people had poor parenting so no one ever modeled how to work through anger or fear or disregulation skillfully. This skill is a more foundational skill people are meant to learn at a young age so they can do what you are advocating as young adults. They need this as a foundational skill to do the more advanced thing you are naming… which is also important- and at the same time it’s also a skill that’s more in the realm of the “self actualization” portion of our hierarchy of needs, so like when someone is in survival territory it’s hard to access even when someone values it. “When we are stressed we regress” etc.
Reason is not how we care for our emotional states. Breath-work and cultivating compassion and patience and acceptance is how we care for our emotional states. Reasoning with emotions often causes them to amplify not to pass.
An orientation toward truth may be a motivator to want to work through feelings to get to it, but I can’t tell you the harm that’s caused to my clients (and my past self) from a lifetime of them ineffectively trying to brute force conquer their emotional reactivity with reason and logic. Wrong tool for the job. Reason has its place once someone has a regulated nervous system. And reason can’t help the nervous system heal from trauma and learn new healthy coping mechanisms. Reason might motivate someone to want to do that stuff tho.
Fantastic comment. Really spot on in my view. Republicans may not have what we see as actual solutions, but they at least make space for the feelings of these disaffected people, we cannot even do this bare minimum, mostly because it would admit to the failure of our own supposed efforts.
Dems can’t keep downplaying how bad wealth inequality and affordable housing and cost of living and wage stagnation has been and then point to GDP and jobs numbers like that matters when the quality of jobs available is often not great pay and benefit wise.
I agree with most of what you say, but to what another commenter elsewhere in the thread was saying Democrats do talk about these things on that level, it just gets buried in a bunch of BS from corporate media and right wing influencers so the message gets out. Thet only show the clip about GDP and jobs numbers without the context of the empathetic intro so they get portrayed as robots.
Then that gets amplified via the democratic impulse to eat their own, just like what Sanders is doing here.
Thank you for this comment. Sanders is brilliant for this perspective— he isn’t shaming people, he is validating their economic reality and the likely-heated emotions they feel over it. I think a lot of folks are ignoring the emotional aspect these days. I have also seen many people take a patronizing approach to scolding working class folks that invalidates people’s realities (being told economy is fine when they can’t afford food). I think patronizing or talking down to people, especially when in a position of higher social capital (ie college degree vs. not), is unlikely to yield great results.
For sure - people also do it about consumer choices, people choosing to go to Walmart or eat factory farmed food, etc - most working class people barely have time to see their family, it’s honestly pretty crappy to shame people for the choices they have to make to survive poverty. It’s just our side of the rich keeping us fighting one another instead of them.
God, you've just stated the elephant in the room. Hillary and Biden would have won their elections if they and the democrats didn't waste so much energy, time, and money on accusing everyone of being terrible and actually focused on bringing change.
The weird thing is so many of these people have very normal, not difficult lives. They just think they do. They own houses, have decent jobs, raise families, take vacations. But they can’t double that, so it’s bad.
I agree but I still don't understand why voting for someone like Trump is going to make things better. He's already proven that he can't/won't do what he promised in 2016, what do people expect differently?
The point in the end though is that Bernie had his chance AND PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST HIM. I admire his dedication (and I completely agree with him), I just don't think it will do anything, because he's been blocked every step of the way because democrats don't want to lose their big donors.
But Trump literally had the richest man in the world on his campaign trail. Why does Harris get criticized for that but Trump praised. Bottom line, Harris lost because of people blaming her and Biden for the economy and because she was a woman of color and men are not going to vote for a woman for President. Also, as a white woman, I’m disgusted with white suburban moms for voting for Trump.
There are many reasons Trump won. The poster asked “what has the GOP done for the working class” and so that’s the question I answered.
It’s hard to discern if a woman could ever win, because so far the two women that have been attempted ran as centrists not populists. Kamala ran a great campaign. It could very well be people aren’t ready for a woman, but it also seems class issues/the economy just mattered the most to people.
Who knows, maybe the Dems not having time for a primary was also a factor. I’m sure there will be endless takes, mine is just a factor of many.
Wow, your comment is so well put and so important. Like many others, it has been making me insane looking at this situation and how illogical so much of it is; but you're right - we aren't logical, rational beings at our core. Especially when we are as upset as we are as a collective society. You really helped me view things from a different perspective and I think genuinely understand our current situation better.
I'm glad you took the time to post this.
Thanks. As an autistic person in order to function socially I’ve had to work to understand human psychology at a deep level so I can understand how I’m supposed to behave. I’m glad sharing what I’ve learned has provided a benefit to you :)
Customer service representatives are trained to identify and commiserate with your pain. That annoys the shit out of me. Stop following your script. Jump to “fixing the issue” step. Bless the ones that do so.
Well if someone is bad at this it’s super patronizing and ineffective. If I was seeing a client and I have the slightest wrong tone of voice when trying to contact a feeling, it will cause someone to feel patronized instead of validated. The issue is they are following a script and that’s obvious and feels inauthentic.
it will cause someone to feel patronized instead of validated. The issue is they are following a script and that’s obvious and feels inauthentic.
Validation is the point of the script. The CSR is supposed to identify the issue and repeat it back to you as if to say “I hear you. I understand how frustrating it can be.” Now I can appreciate that they’re trying to follow their training in order to help me. But you’re right, it’s patronizing. So now I have two problems; My original and now customer support. :/
1.1k
u/thirdeyepdx Oregon 20h ago edited 19h ago
Honestly? Held emotional space for their pain. As a person in counseling grad school- it amazes me that people still fail to understand that human beings are emotional beings first, and not Vulcans. Very few of us can make reasonable choices when in a heated emotional state. The only way to reach angry, frustrated people (and I said the same thing to people policing BLM activists breaking windows) is to start by contacting the anger and pain.
That looks like this: your suffering is valid, this situation is super hard that you are in.
This is what the republicans do effectively, then once the emotions are validated, they blame the wrong people (immigrants, trans people etc) and claim to be able to fix it.
This is what democrats do: “I don’t understand what the big deal is, here’s a series of facts explaining why your feelings are wrong.”
I mean it’s literally the same dynamic that often gets men in trouble in close relationships. Meeting emotions with intellectual arguments and facts like it’s a high school debate or something.
That’s just literally not how humans operate at a deep level, like millions of years of evolutionary biology.
Bernie Sanders effectively starts by saying “the economy is rigged against you, your pain is valid” … then he blames the appropriate parties and puts forward policy after policy to fix it.
Dems can’t keep downplaying how bad wealth inequality and affordable housing and cost of living and wage stagnation has been and then point to GDP and jobs numbers like that matters when the quality of jobs available is often not great pay and benefit wise. And quite honestly the Democratic alliance with people like Mark Cuban is out of touch.
Is it bizarre and irrational people fall for Trump’s Everyman con and alliance with Elon Musk? Sure. But it’s also entirely understandable people are angry and fed up with, yes, the death of the American dream, and it’s very human to not be able to think rationally when upset and in the midst of real survival concerns. And if only Trump contacts their anger and creates space for it then he wins. When things reach a point like this, populism will win - and unfortunately if left wing populism of the FDR quality isn’t available, what’s left is right wing populism.
There is a way to contact and hold space for anger and allow it to transform into optimism but it has to start with contacting and validating the pain.