Yascha Mounk and James Carville discuss what makes for good political messaging and how politicians can talk bluntly without pandering to the lowest instincts of the electorate.
First, I am very biased: I simply adore James Carville. Second I am a Republican, so I think his wife is pretty darn wonderful too. Now, I am one of the faculty lounge people and have been for around 40 years. I am in fact a professor of philosophy at a small Catholic, very liberal, university, and I ran for political office as a Republican. My school has been very tolerant of me, and yes I have had my fair share of near job loss meetings with HR. I for example believe CRT is itself a kind of conspiracy theory. Ricoeur would call it a Hermeneutics of Suspicion. Nevertheless, Democrats certainly can, and should, win in working class Southern states, despite what Mr. Carville said at VOX. The strategy is simple: Start making fun of us. Yes Democratic leaders, including Biden!, should poke the academics in the eye every single chance you get. Make a joke of our jargon and us. Skewer us to your own delight. The reason is obvious: Academics themselves are far too locked in their own "silos" to really understand CRT anyway. Do you think Statistics professors or NeoPlatonists or zeno-pharmacologists spend their time studying Critical Race Theory, or for that matter really understand or care to understand the Freudian, Phenomenological, Marxist roots of Critical Theory. Most academics when forced to look at a journal like Semiotics find it pure intentional gibberish, and much of it is: Jargon mashed together by young academics looking for tenure. So... bash us at will; it will allow us to break ranks too. It will help Academia, really it will. You would be amazed at how many academics would break away from the weird jargon if they could and still keep our jobs. You politicians can help us. Oh let me say that more clearly: "HELP!!!! PLEASE HELP!!!" And either way most faculty loungers will still vote Democratic. It is religious dogma: Thou shalt vote Democratic party, or there will be gnashing of teeth!!
Carville has a lot of insight into politics and how to win votes, but this idea that Trump's success was driven by white resentment against racial minorities just doesn't fit with the evidence. Trump lost a lot of white votes and picked up votes with everyone else. How many epicycles do we have to hang on these racial resentment questions before we're all able to fully digest that reality?
I found this confusing. Carville harped on the fact that to win conservative voters over one has to stop insulting them and condescending to them, but when talking about specific messages he – and you – portrayed those voters as motivated by greed, insularity and fear. There was no hint that any conservative position could actually be well-intentioned and/or well-thought-out.
First, I am very biased: I simply adore James Carville. Second I am a Republican, so I think his wife is pretty darn wonderful too. Now, I am one of the faculty lounge people and have been for around 40 years. I am in fact a professor of philosophy at a small Catholic, very liberal, university, and I ran for political office as a Republican. My school has been very tolerant of me, and yes I have had my fair share of near job loss meetings with HR. I for example believe CRT is itself a kind of conspiracy theory. Ricoeur would call it a Hermeneutics of Suspicion. Nevertheless, Democrats certainly can, and should, win in working class Southern states, despite what Mr. Carville said at VOX. The strategy is simple: Start making fun of us. Yes Democratic leaders, including Biden!, should poke the academics in the eye every single chance you get. Make a joke of our jargon and us. Skewer us to your own delight. The reason is obvious: Academics themselves are far too locked in their own "silos" to really understand CRT anyway. Do you think Statistics professors or NeoPlatonists or zeno-pharmacologists spend their time studying Critical Race Theory, or for that matter really understand or care to understand the Freudian, Phenomenological, Marxist roots of Critical Theory. Most academics when forced to look at a journal like Semiotics find it pure intentional gibberish, and much of it is: Jargon mashed together by young academics looking for tenure. So... bash us at will; it will allow us to break ranks too. It will help Academia, really it will. You would be amazed at how many academics would break away from the weird jargon if they could and still keep our jobs. You politicians can help us. Oh let me say that more clearly: "HELP!!!! PLEASE HELP!!!" And either way most faculty loungers will still vote Democratic. It is religious dogma: Thou shalt vote Democratic party, or there will be gnashing of teeth!!
Carville has a lot of insight into politics and how to win votes, but this idea that Trump's success was driven by white resentment against racial minorities just doesn't fit with the evidence. Trump lost a lot of white votes and picked up votes with everyone else. How many epicycles do we have to hang on these racial resentment questions before we're all able to fully digest that reality?
I found this confusing. Carville harped on the fact that to win conservative voters over one has to stop insulting them and condescending to them, but when talking about specific messages he – and you – portrayed those voters as motivated by greed, insularity and fear. There was no hint that any conservative position could actually be well-intentioned and/or well-thought-out.