Everybody has their own theory about the most important factor leading to the Democrats’ loss a week ago. People blame Biden, Harris, the Republicans (whose supporters are characterized as fascistic racists), the left-wing press, and the wokeness of Democrats, which pushed Harris and the party away from the center towards the “progressive” (far Left) side.
In the 40-minute video below, Sam Harris zeroes in on the last factor—the fulminating wokeness of Democrats. Make no mistake about it, Harris was a vehement opponent of Trump, but here he is—as I often do—noting the problems with “Democratic” views that make them lose elections. In this case, it’s wokeness, especially the brand centered on “trans” issues.
Sam’s overall take: the Left “did not pivot to the political center in a way that the voters found credible.” He adds that the planks of Harris’s platform were “rotten”, especially those supporting identity politics. As he says, “identity politics is over, nobody wants it.”
In particular—and for this Sam will be excoriated for transphobia, though he’s not transphobic—he says that “activism about transgender politics has deranged our politics as long as Trump has been in politics.” Harris emphsizes that he supports transgender rights (meaning “legal rights”), but thinks the electorate rejects the idea that males identifying as females should be competing in sports against biological females. Neither do I and neither does Sam, but he adds that “if [that] sounds like transphobia to you, then you are the problem.” He goes on to characterize gender activism as a “new religion” or a “cult”, but again emphasizes that it is the excesses of that movement that turns him off just as it repelled potential voters for Harris. (Sam says, as an aside, that “We should help those who are truly gender dysphoric.”)
Where readers might disagree is Sam’s emphasis on gender activism as THE factor that turned off centrists and moderates, and may have swung the election. As he says,
“A shocking percentage of Democrats imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just right wing bigotry, and a non-issue politically, whereas it is obvious that for millions of Americans it might as well have been the only issue in this election–not because they’re transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even the new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that htye have successfully bullied and captured. . . . Congratulations, Democrats: you have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks.”
Sam has apparently abandoned the calmness accompanying the meditation he practices, for the piece is larded with uncharacteristic profanity, including Sam’s peevish claim that if we Democrats continue this way, “You’re going to get President Candace Fucking Owens some day.” But I applaud the increasing use of profanity in such podcast, for that’s the way people actually talk.
Sam then appends the claim that cultural issues, not inflation or the border, may have been the crucial factor that swung the election towards Trump—although of course there may have been many factors, each of which, if mitigated, could have changed the course of a close election. These include the following:
a.) The degradation of major cities run by Democratic mayors, who don’t do anything about homelessness or pervasive theft in retail stores.
b.) The lack of policing or criticism of policing in many places. As he says, officials “won’t police the streets but they police the language.”
c.) The failure of Democrats to take Islamism, and terrorist organizations like Hamas, sufficiently seriously. “Democrats needs to figure out,” he says, “that civilization needs to be defended from barbarism.” While he notes that both Biden and Harris did support Israel, during the election they—and by this he means Kamala Harris—”talked out of both sides of their mouths.” Indeed she did, for I paid close attention.
In the end, Sam concludes that “Democratic moral confusion cost the Democrats millions of votes.” While you may say that equivocation and both-sides-of-the-mouth talking is the heart of politics, Sam is saying that the moral rectitude was not rocket science, but comprised centrist and populist views that wokeness prevented Democrats from espousing. And the GOP picked up on this moral weakness, making it the subject of many pro-Trump ads like the one below.
I recommend that you listen to Sam’s audio here. I’ve put two extra items below it.
Here’s one of the Trump ads that excoriated Democrats for wokeness, concentrating on Kamala’s support for government-funded gender surgery for incarcerated immigrants who entered the country illegally (yes, she did say that):
And here’s a kerfuffle at CNN showing how vehemently some liberals take gender activism. One guy goes ballistic when the speaker, Republican Shermichael Singleton, suggests that boys (who assume the female gender) shouldn’t be able to compete in in women’s athletics, saying “they’re not boys”. And then the room explodes, with the moderator demanding “respect” for that view and suggesting that the athletics ban is “transphobic”. Singleton keeps saying that this is what “regular people” think, and he’s right. It’s the insistence on that kind of misguided activism that, says Harris, is precisely why the Democrats lost. Well, weigh in below.
“I am NOT going to listen to transphobia at this table!”
CNN panelist loses their mind over “slur” used by Republican strategist during trans sports debate. pic.twitter.com/5PXnSJW4A0
— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) November 9, 2024
I think it is worth noting :
The word that “trans” is short for that best expresses the phenomenon is “transcendence” – one is promised the power to transcend the material world, to reify the mind’s Ideal vision and its completion in an undifferentiated whole, right here on Earth instead of some “afterlife”.
This makes clear the religious element of “gender” in mystical and occult thought, spanning back centuries.
See:
Gender in Mystical and Occult Thought – Behmenism and its Development in England
B. J. Gibbons
Cambridge U. Press
1996
IOW yeah – gnostic and Hermetic religious cult.
Another expressive “trans-” candidate is “transmutation”, where something becomes a very different kind of thing. “Transmutation” has a rhetorical advantage of sounding close to “trans-mutilation”, which is medically and politically relevant.
Precisely – Transmutation of elements – one of the original alchemical objectives – VITRIOL, Philosopher’s Stone :
Visita interiorem terrae rectificando invenies occultum lapidem (“Visit the interior of the earth and by rectifying you shall find the hidden stone”)*
… fast forward to Body Alchemy by Loren Cameron, 1996.
If that’s what someone’s personal private hobby is, I never nor do I now have any problem with it.
*reference:
Lawrence M. Principe
The Secrets of Alchemy
U. Chicago Press 😀
2013
And how can we forget transubstantiation? This was once a major point of doctrine for earlier wokerati.
In fact, I suggest that we honor Progressive thinkers such as St. Augustine by using “transubstantiation” from now on to refer to the conversion of one gender into another by the mystical power of self-ID.
It is just short for transformation. It’s not mystical.
Transformation of what – and how?
It seems it’s not short for anything:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/trans-
I would like to see Sam Harris’ remarks published as an essay, because, of course, a lot of what I read here makes sense. But I have trouble with sitting through long YouTube videos.
I do appreciate the written excerpts you have posted.
No question about it, identity politics has hampered the Democratic Party, and the most egregious is the trans overreach — or maybe the confusion about the lethal intents of too many Islamic political & cultural figures. But the trans issue really is visceral.
I suppose I could try to read the transcript but the YouTube transcript program often buggers things up a bit.
The question of decay of the cities is real, also complicated that there tacit and sometimes explicit policy to encourage disturbed and troubled (thus disturbing and troubling) people to relocate to the liberal city of (in my experience, Oregon (Eugene, Portland) and Wisconsin (Madison)) — my belief on the basis of reports from people I have know in social services or the legal community.
My mind is weary and my heart is sore. I’d like to see reality-based politics with a compassionate orientation, as reasonably as could be expected.
Anthropogenic climate forcing (global warming, bowderlized as “climate change”) is real.
I listen to Sam on his Making Sense podcast. I believe this particular episode is only 40 minutes long. Fold some socks, walk the dog and listen to Sam.
I too do not usually listen to long podcasts, but listened to the whole thing yesterday while doing a bit of multitasking as you suggest. Sadly Trumpsters are accustomed to 15 second sound bites, so 40 minutes is way beyond their comprehension.
Sam Harris didn’t aim his remarks at Trumpsters. He was talking to the losers who, being highly educated elite social leaders, should have no cognitive trouble assimilating them. Unless, of course, their own comprehension is limited to three-second sound bites like “From the River to the Sea!” and “Trans Rights are Human Rights!”
Yes, he was talking to the losers, but I know people who voted for Trump who would benefit from Sam’s remarks, and have even suggested to them that they have a listen.
Yes Leslie. Trump cultists don’t listen to Sam Harris. They hate him.
I shouldn’t say it but I will: Maybe intellectually he’s above their pay grade?
I’m a mean guy….
———————————–
And the hard left hate him for Islamophobia and I bet transphobia.
I get similar mail about my own articles. And I so don’t care. 🙂
D.A.
NYC
To quote JK Rolling lately: “What’s the point of having fuck you money if you never say Fuck You?” HAHAHHAa
I generally listen to Sam’s (and other 45-90 minutes) podcasts and you-tube videos in two bites. I cannot sit this long at one time, nor can I multi-task….even walking and chewing gum simultaneously taxes me as I get older and listening or watching while walking or driving is just plain dangerous.
I also have difficulty staying on task/not dozing off or having my mind wander with long written transcripts plus often find the transliterations to be incorrect.
Looking forward to 40 minutes of Sam after lunch today. From Jerry’s column and the comments so far, I think that I will agree. Not that trans was the only thing or the last straw, but I did feel all during the campaign a the yiddish word is “nooge” not to open my mouth against progressive prescription. I voted for Harris mainly because I thought Trump nuts and so revolting to my sense of civility that I could not support him. Harris wasn’t bernie or the squad and I thought could be moderated in office. But my wife is woke and I am hated at home for my trans views…which are almost totally the same as Jerry’s…and my disdain for Kendi and Coates and appreciation of McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, much of Manhatten Institute….BUT my disgust with Trump, disdain for much of what is in the mental mastubation known as Project 2025, and seeing Harris as malleable, led me to cast my vote for her.
Just finished listening. Oy, the last ten minutes were even darker than I could imagine…but important.
Is that why they watch three-hour long Joe Rogan podcasts?
You’re right. And they’ll spend all day at a Trump rally and watch Fox News morning, noon and night.
That’s a silly thing to say. Now you’re politicizing attention spans? Come on. I rarely take a particular person(ality) to task here, but what in the world are you basing that on?
‘Fold some socks’
This is the first time I have heard of such a thing.
But it set me off and this video
gives you 6 different methods, and finishes with ‘we encourage you to find the best sock folding method for you’
It was 6 minutes of pleasure and I am grateful you raised the topic
Your wish is granted, here it is as an essay!
[I also prefer the written form, and quoted from it on today’s Hili dialog.]
Thanks!
Other comments above may portray me as not being able to pay attention, etc. — I’m busy, is all, and I already have items I prefer to sit though, and am behind in my TWIV’s. Sam Harris can make, a lot of sense, but whenever I listen to him or watch him, he doesn’t impress me as being as articulate as some people here have depicted.
I agree: I can read at least twice as fast as most people speak. Harris seems particularly slow.
He admits that he is a slow speaker.
Most podcast applications let you speed up or slow down the podcast.
For podcasts like this, he usually releases the transcript (right on his home page) in a week or two.
I see he already has, on his substack page, which makes sense, now that he has a substack.
https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/391-the-reckoning
Text format is at: https://samharris.substack.com/p/the-reckoning
Overall well put by Sam Harris, as usual. However, he poorly chose the Olympics boxing controversy among the examples he highlighted regarding trans issues. We know that this case is more complex than that, starting by the fact that Imane Khelif is not trans.
True, but Khelif certainly had high levels of circulating testosterone, something that is not measured these days. But he could have simply cited the number of examples of women being displaced by biological men.
And XY chromosomes, so there’s that.
I think that’s true but I would like to see it confirmed. If there’s a lawsuit, he’ll have to get tested.
The Bicetre report on Imane Khelif leaked. He is a 46-XY male with 5-ARD.
What is the likelihood Khelif was deliberately advanced as a competitor for that specific reason?
Consider:
Advancing Trans* Movements Worldwide — LESSONS FROM A DIALOGUE BETWEEN FUNDERS & ACTIVISTS
WORKING ON GENDER
DIVERSITY
CONFERENCE REPORT — DECEMBER 3 & 4, 2013 — BERLIN, GERMANY
Global Action for Trans Diversity
Open Society Foundations
Available at:
(Url free link parts):
opensocietyfoundations dot org
publications
advancing-trans-movements-worldwide
Advanced by who, and in what sense? I think from Khelif’s perspective the case is clear: it was Khelif’s dream as a competitor to win Olympic gold – nothing wrong with that – and nobody bothered to prevent it.
From the IOC’s perspective, Khelif’s case was an opportunity to score ideological brownie points with the woke crowd (“look how accepting and tolerant and gender-conscious we are”) and extend a middle finger to the IBA at the same time, by just doing nothing. In case Khelif would have lost, they could have said, “what’s the fuss about, she got beat by a woman”. In case Khelif won, they would have a champion for diversity, a brave strong Muslim woman yada yada. No active “advancement” was necessary, just some weasel words and a passive refusal to enforce the IOCs own ideals of fairness and safety.
“Advanced by who”
Open Society Foundations.
“and in what sense”
Global Action for Trans Diversity.
Training for and going to the Olympics requires ample resources.
Yes, Khelif is not trans, but he is a man (with probability of 99.9%) whom the IOC allowed to box against females. Trans women are males who want to compete in female sports. So Khelif’s pariticipation in the female boxing competition of the Paris Olympics raised the question whether males should be allowed to compete against female athletes. Trans inclusion in women’s sports raises exactly the same question.
Make that 100.0%. The Bicetre report on Imane Khelif leaked. He is a 46-XY male with 5-ARD.
Situation Normal – Plenty of people steer away from podcasts. Don’t listen to them. Just as every yahoo in the world now has a Substack there’s at least that many podcasts available now. Some of us like them (have time/lack of obligations which afford us the luxury to gorge on them, etc.) They’re not for everyone. Shut out the criticizers. Our host never used to like them either. Whatever! Thankfully plenty of good hearted readers supplied you with transcript links. Just as people were letting their passions get the best of them after 10/7, the same short -temperedness is happening now after the election. Sour grapes. Bad Therapy, etc, etc.
Yes, and the MSM in the US went out of its way to obscure the issue, which you describe so succinctly. With the exception of one editorial in the WaPo, every single story I read focused on the fact that Kheif was “not trans,” strongly implying that there was nothing to see here. Allowing men to compete against women in high level combat sports, like Olympic boxing, isn’t just unfair, it’s extremely dangerous.
Well, the point is that Khelif is male, just like Lia Thomas and every other transwoman on the planet.
Women’s sport exists precisely because of male athletic advantage. If we didn’t have a separate and protected category for women, then there would be no women in elite sport.
Gender identity is completely irrelevant – gender-souls don’t play sports, bodies do – except insofar as some use it to muddy the waters to allow males into a category that forbids them. IOW it doesn’t matter whether a male in women’s sport considers himself trans or not, it matters that he’s male and it’s unjust for that reason.
And unsafe for women in contact sports like boxing, soccer, ice hockey, handball, etc.
I thought Khelif is an XY with 5-ARD.
These babies are born with internal testes and are often thought to be female. Caster Semenya is a confirmed case. The main point is that they have high levels of testosterone and male strength. They should not be competing with XX women.
But because they are often raised as female, they’re more sympathetic than someone like Lia Thomas, who is simply a regular XY male.
No but he is a man pretending he is a woman. He knows he is a man especially highlighted by his no need to wear a hijab and being carried around on the shoulders of his male coach. Not exactly typical of a devout Muslim woman from fundamental Muslim country.
He is symptomatic of the lack of respect of women’s safety privacy and dignity. Fairness matters.
When an election is fairly close (the margin was 1-2% in the rust belt swing states), it is a bit meaningless to ask for THE factor that made the decisive difference. Sam Harris may be right that transactivism made that much of a difference, but surely other factors also made that much of a difference. It is like the old paradox about the camel. If you throw a ton of straw at a camel, it kills the camel. But it is meaningless to ask WHICH straw broke the camel’s back.
Well, changing some factors may NOT have made a difference (for example, I don’t think the left-wing MSM could have changed the election results by changing its tone), so we have to think of the factors that would change the popular vote, and, in the end, the electoral-college vote by a sufficient amount.
I think MSM may have harmed Kamala by their obvious efforts to promote her. The electorate was not in the mood for that.
That’s a fair point, and as Harris usually does, he addresses it:
“Obviously, Trump’s win and Harris loss were determined by many factors […] immigration […] inflation and the cost of groceries […] the way Trump responded to that first assassination attempt […] or it was Harris’s weakness as a candidate.
The truth, of course, is that all of these things contributed—and if one or two of them had changed, we would have had a different result. But the Harris campaign and the Democratic Party—in the last hundred days before the election—weren’t in control of most of these variables. They could have messaged differently about all of them—I think it would have been possible to talk about inflation and immigration better than they did—but their real failure, in my view, was to not pivot to the political center in a way that most people found credible. “
I listened to this podcast yesterday and agree with Harris. For what it’s worth, I try to bring up culture issues with friends. From the problems with the 1619 project to the social contagion of trans teenage girls to men in womens sports, I get shut down almost every time. The only issue that gets any traction is the men in womens sports. But it’s only men who agree with me! So frustrating.
There has been a time or two where I can agree with Sam Harris, but I often don’t and at present I don’t agree with him here. If someone can change my mind I will consider it.
The Republican campaign about trans rights got a lot of play and attention, but I don’t see the actual evidence that Democratic trans activism was THE reason why the Democratic house came crashing down. I had looked a few times, and it seems, according to exit polls (you know, actual data), that THE main reason why people voted for the Orange One was their concern about the border and the economy. The economy and the border. One factor was the border. And the other factor was the economy.
It bears repeating, you see.
I have not watched the video, but did S. Harris use exit polls to discover that it was mostly about trans activism? Or was that just anecdotes?
Exit polls do have a record of being the most accurate kind of poll, for reasons that seem obvious. But I’m skeptical that they are any more accurate than other types of polling when it comes to questions like this, why you voted the way you did, rather than simply asking who you voted for. I’m skeptical of any type of study into this kind of question that relies on self reporting, particularly when the issue at hand is generally viewed to be indicative of the persons moral standing. I think people are much more likely to lie or omit saying they voted for Trump because of government support of Trans activism even if they really felt that way. Much more comfortable to stick with Illegal Immigration and The Economy.
Having said that, I don’t know what might be good quality evidence for questions of voter motivation like this. Perhaps there is none. Perhaps only very general studies that look at opinion polling around the times (before and after) of significant topical issue related events reported in the media. Perhaps combing through large data sets of social media to see what people were saying while “safely” within their own social groups.
Darrell, we have polls specifically about trans issue that tell us that on these issues the Dems are mostly out of touch with the majority of the population. So, obviously, most people are not feeling compelled to give pollster the answers sanctified by the leftist establishment.
I don’t think you understood my comment.
+1
I thought that before the election also, Mark.
What turned me was thinking that MANY Americans have children (I don’t), many have daughters and girls sports is popular and I think we can all agree a positive thing in our society. TRA’s have wrecked girls’ sports. (Recent article on volleyball by Jon Kay in Quilette. A doozie).
The trans lobby overplayed its hand in that one and has lead to its deserved ruin. It took the Dem Party down with it.
This all changed, started changing (see Helen Joyce, et al) when WPATH (NOT a medical association but a political pressure group) reframed “trans” as a civil rights issue (2007). Then Big Gay Money shifted to trans after gay marriage. AND… culturally the rise of the “stunning and brave” unicorn culture – I am Jazz, Bruce Jenner, etc made trans aspirational and heroic. Trans was the only label kids could find that was “oppressed” in this Victim Olympics age.
Abigail Shrier talks about this a bit but GENSPEC covers it fully. As does Sam.
Always enjoy your comments Mark.
best,
D.A.
NYC
I don’t know of evidence that “TRA’s have wrecked girls’ sports.” There is a LOT of media attention on the cases where it’s had an impact, here and there, but wrecked them? It may instead be that hearing about this stuff, over and over, gives the impression that it must be everywhere. Like razor blades in kids’ candy from Halloween. I know families with girls who play soccer or swim competitively, and its never come up. That is anecdotal, I know…
Well, wrecked not yet, and everywhere not yet. But for those who pay attention, the trend is unmistakable. And the trend is also unsurprising, given the sexual dimorphism of humans. If you then add in that girls and women enjoy winning sport competitions too, and are concerned for their safety (which is endangered in contact sports by the inclusion of males in female competition), I see no reason why we should not be concerned about this.
What’s happened to girls’ sport is that every girl on every team in the US has either learned or is learning that if a sufficiently determined boy wants to be on their team, he can. If it’s more than one boy – a whole group of boys — they can, too. He can use the locker room and showers. He can play as hard as he wants, win any award or trophy, knock girls out of positions they’ve been struggling for years to achieve.
And they better not object
Saying “no” means you’re a bigot. Complaining to the coach or administrators will get you a lecture at best, thrown off the team at worst. There’s no right of refusal, only the hope that you’ll probably be allowed to change elsewhere. The law — and Title IX — are against you. Enough people will celebrate the brave “trans girl” breaking gender boundaries that the adults in the community will hesitate to speak out.
But sure — it probably won’t happen to your team. Statistics are (still) on your side. Don’t worry.
+1
The Connecticut high school track women have won a skirmish in their suit against the state collegiate athletic system that allows mediocre male athletes to run against them. Megyn Kelly explains:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb8Pcar_JaU
I wouldn’t call it a “massive victory” but the Federal Circuit has struck down a lower-Court peremptory dismissal of their action and the judge has admitted that he made an incorrect interpretation of Title IX.
Mark we have two decent data sources:
1. Why America Chose Trump: Inflation, Immigration, and the Democratic Brand. Nov 8, 2024
https://blueprint2024.com/polling/why-trump-reasons-11-8/
a report about why voters cast their vote the way they did with a new poll conducted in the days after Election Day and weighted to the 2024 election results
2. Associated Press’ survey of the American electorate (conducted Oct. 28 – Nov. 5)
https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/votecast/
AP VoteCast is a survey of more than 120,000 interviews with registered voters in all 50 states, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for Fox News, PBS NewsHour, The Wall Street Journal, and The Associated Press. Interviews took place from Oct. 28 – Nov. 5, concluding as polls closed on Election Day.
The survey highlights the views of people who voted, as well as registered voters who chose not to vote, and includes voters who cast their ballot by mail, early, absentee, or in person.
That it was the economy in the midst of a strong economy with reduced inflation (or the border in the hypocrisy of Trump killing the border bill) suggests the other factor which probably did make the difference, namely the modern right wing toxic media environment. If these voters get only one side or a misrepresentation of one side, how do they make an informed decision?
This media environment effectively amplifies the trans issue and others – 20 years ago perhaps the Republicans couldn’t tar the Democrats this way but today they can.
Clarkia, it’s true that the inflationary episode is over (and that in the last 18 months wage growth outpaced inflation) – but real wages today (that is, the purchasing power of wages today) are still below what they were before inflation took of. In other words, many workers are somewhat poorer today than they were 4 years ago. Why should that not affect their vote choice?
As to immigration, the Dems ignored the electorate’s wishes for the first 2.5 years of the Biden presidency (voters hate uncontrolled immigration). If voters forgot that, the Republicans were happy to remind them of it. Of course, Republicans were not willing to help the Dems to address the issue before the election (and then, suddenly, Biden actually could act without the support of the Republicans). The Dems, in opposition, would have done the same thing, if a Republican administration had flounted the voters’ wishes.
The media environment explanation for Trump’s comeback is weak sauce. When you lose, it’s comforting to tell yourself that voters are dopes (and that Plato was right with his negative view of democracy) since it spares you self-examination (Was our political positioning wrong?). If you win, then the voters are sages and democracy is great.
Well said.
The ways in which people get their news and the political bias of right wing news organizations (in particular) has changed markedly with the advent of Fox News (and similar) and the internet and cellphones. These are measurable things and have been shown. So I would not dismiss the effect of these changes as weak sauce. If it were 20 or 40 years ago I do not think Trump would still be around (see, for example how Nixon was treated). It’s simply a different media environment and electoral outcomes are differing from the past as a result.
” In other words, many workers are somewhat poorer today than they were 4 years ago. Why should that not affect their vote choice?”
Because it was mainly due to the COVID pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, neither of which Biden chose or could have prevented? But that apparently goes beyond the thinking skills of voters around the world (populist parties in Germany are now successfully fishing for votes by suggesting that they can provide “peace” in the Ukraine through negotiations instead of military support).
Inflation (the rate of change) has reduced, but prices do not fall when inflation eases; they remain at the higher position. The argument that people are falsely complaining about the economy because inflation is better ignores that point.
Milton Friedman: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output”
Trump started up the money printer to increase the quantity of dollars to try to spur the economy during COVID, and then Biden continued it even after the economy started warming back up. Economists (at least the ones not beholden to MMT or the Democratic party) predicted what we have experienced. Inflation was really high during the Biden presidency driven by high spending levels and the legacy is high prices.
The right wing media and the Republican party have highlighted inflation and high prices, but this is normal politics. The Democrats would have done the same if the Republicans were in control and they were trying to win an election. It doesn’t mean that it’s not true or that people don’t actually feel it.
Mark we have two decent data sources:
1. Blueprint 2024: Why America Chose Trump: Inflation, Immigration, and the Democratic Brand. Nov 8, 2024
a report about why voters cast their vote the way they did with a new poll conducted in the days after Election Day and weighted to the 2024 election results
2. AP VoteCast: Associated Press’ survey of the American electorate (conducted Oct. 28 – Nov. 5)
AP VoteCast is a survey of more than 120,000 interviews with registered voters in all 50 states, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for Fox News, PBS NewsHour, The Wall Street Journal, and The Associated Press. Interviews took place from Oct. 28 – Nov. 5, concluding as polls closed on Election Day.
The survey highlights the views of people who voted, as well as registered voters who chose not to vote, and includes voters who cast their ballot by mail, early, absentee, or in person.
Both data sources can be consulted for free online. I would like to include the links, but 2 links in a comment means it will not be posted (goes straight into the junk folder; I tried it).
Thanks.
From the first link, the item listed #1 says: “The top reasons voters gave for not supporting Harris were that inflation was too high (+24), too many immigrants crossed the border (+23), and that Harris was too focused on cultural issues rather than helping the middle class (+17).”
So cultural issues would include LGBTQ baggage. Details further down seemed to show that this had considerably less weight than the the border and the economy.
The 2nd one backs up the economy and the border as the primary factors. At least that is my quick take on it.
I have other links, one from NPR, one from CBS News, and one from The Conversation that I found just now. They say the same things, basically.
So I suspect that Sam Harris has projected his own opinions onto other people.
Sam Harris warned people at the beginning of his essay that there is this tendency to interpret the world through once own preoccupations. Jerry also alludes to this at the start of this post we are all commenting on. One of the craziest take on the Dems’ losses I have seen was by Peter Beinart, in the New York Times, claiming that the Dems lost because of Gaza (Beinart favors a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict). Maybe they lost in Michigan because of Gaza (because of the sizeable Muslim population there), but the electoral college? No way. This seems very much deluded.
Please pay attention to the rules about dialogues and comment frequency specified in Da Roolz. Thank you
The cultural issues, though third in general, are the FIRST reason given by SWING voters (by the very same source) which are the most important contribution to winning elections (along with partisan voters avoiding abstention).
I suspect the problem may not be cultural issues per se, but that they are taken as an indication of a general attitude: disconnect from “real” problems, if you can negate reality on sex why shouldn’t I assume you lie in general, etc. https://archive.md/6Hqoh
According to New York Times (which sources the information to a democratic PAC) the single ad “Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you” was enough to shift 2.7% of votes. Apparently, Bill Clinton said they should respond, but they didn’t. https://archive.md/xbJPH
I’d also like to point out that the democratic party has become the party of the elite: https://x.com/patrickjfl/status/1854645395856482568
Strictly speaking, this means it is voted by high educated high income people, which shows how it’s perceived more than what it does; so it doesn’t immediately follow that the party actually pursue policies against the interests of low income people. But I don’t think the perception is mistaken, I certainly see the same approach in many pseudo-left-wing parties (I’m Italian and for sure our democratic party doesn’t pursue left wing policies even though it’s labelled left wing).
https://musaalgharbi.substack.com/p/a-graveyard-of-bad-election-narratives
All I can say is that virtually every Trump ad I saw on t.v. dealt with gender issues or other stuff about the “culture wars”. So certainly the Republicans thought that was important! That is not hard evidence, of course, but surely they wanted to use their advertising money judiciously.
Many reports about the Trump trans ads indicate that these moved the dial in ways that few ads ever do. The rejection of trans is visceral and at a deep instinctive level. People do not like perverts, and perverts that are grooming children, which is the trannie game plan, are particularly hated. Trannies are hated, and Dems will continue to lose by the pimping of trannie madness and delusion
By and large trans people are not “perverts” and I don’t think that was the public perception. I think it was more a combination of thinking the ideology is wrong, the people who believe it are wacky, it’s unfair to be forced to play along, and what about the kids.
Different people no doubt have different ideas about what is meant by “pervert,” but it does seem to me that a significant percentage of the population does indeed perceive trans people to be “icky.” Perhaps not a majority, I’ve no idea, but a sizeable percentage. And the kids side of it is like a turbo boost and validation for people inclined to view trans people as icky perverts because, as you have written very well about, it really is true that kids are being abused.
Here’s a take from The New Republic:
The answer is the right-wing media. Today, the right-wing media—Fox News (and the entire News Corp.), Newsmax, One America News Network, the Sinclair network of radio and TV stations and newspapers, iHeart Media (formerly Clear Channel), the Bott Radio Network (Christian radio), Elon Musk’s X, the huge podcasts like Joe Rogan’s, and much more—sets the news agenda in this country. And they fed their audiences a diet of slanted and distorted information that made it possible for Trump to win.
How often have we heard this: people are sheep, easily manipulated by advertiser and political operators? If this manipulation is so easy, then why did the support of the mainstream media and the leftist podcasters, bloggers, etc., not push voters to elect Harris? Why did the right-wing media’s machinations did not succeed in beating Biden in 2020?
In principal, it’s true that the media can misled people into voting against their interest. But, for this explanation, to be persuasive, you really have to spell out clearly the observable implications of this theory (beyond the retrodiction that Trump won) and then check whether they are supported by the facts.
I find it much more plausible that Trump won because of inflation, the Dems’ open border policy and the Dems’ stances on cultural issues like trans, language policing, censoriousness, etc. This accords with what people have been telling pollsters about the factors that influenced their vote choices.
+1! This also seems to be a very good case. People here are very upset with the “illiberal left” (I don’t like it either) but that all pales in comparison to the overwhelming onslaught of bullshit from the right media and clueless podcasters.
There are too many examples — we can sort with nonsense over SARSCoV-2 origin and anti vaccine quack remedy crapola. Other examples come ot mind, depending what you care about.
And we are hampered by Brandolini’s Law of Misinformation Asymmetry (aka Bullshit Asymmetry): The energy required to refute bullshit is 10-fold greater than that to generate bullshit. — and its First Corollary: Brandolini sets a lower limit only.
Do people who normally vote Democrat even tap into those things?
One small example of how it permeates the media, not just right-wing sources.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/02/598916366/sinclair-broadcast-group-forces-nearly-200-station-anchors-to-read-same-script
And if npr is too woke a reference, many other news outlets have covered it.
I was under the impression that most readers of weit had proclaimed The New Republic garbage. I see this often. A publication that few respect is then given great importance when it supports an opinion someone wishes to push. There seems to be plenty of hypocrisy all over the place. How many times have I read here how crummy The NYT is only to have us all pouring our hearts out, arguing for or against yet another of their articles? I can no longer take these discussions seriously. We have no agreed upon standards. This just wears me out. Peace. So long.
And this ignores the FACT that the enormous LEFT-WING media (including all network TV news broadcasts and PBS/NPR) broadcast relentless pro-liberal propaganda.
Yes, but does the MSM spew lies and venom?
I’ve seen many takes that Democrats lost because they were too woke, and an equal amount of counters that they lost because they were too right wing. They are both correct and missing one half of the picture.
Kamala had done and said a bunch of stuff in 2019 and prior that was woke and unpopular to the electorate at large, leading Republicans to run ads on those statements. Then, her presidential campaign messaging shifted to the Right with endorsements by Liz Cheney and pretending to be tough on the border, which did not fire up her base, nor did it persuade independents and centrists.
In addition to that, there was a bit of elitism on Kamala’s side when it came to engaging with the online sphere. Trump and Vance did a ton of podcasts and youtube personalities and that presence for Harris seemed much weaker. Which is going to make you seem more like a real person: shooting the shit on a podcast for 3 hours unedited, or having Cardi B and Beyonce briefly speak off a teleprompter for you?
I have voted Democrat all my life, having voted against Trump 2x. Not any more. I voted whole-heartedly for Trump, having been completely persuaded that my perception of Trump was corrupted by collusion between the mainstream media, Democrats, and the Deep State.
While it may sound like I have been red-pilled, I’d like to point out that I’m female and spend relatively little time on social media listening to random cranks and trolls.
When I saw with my own eyes how the Left manipulated my perception of Trump, how they censored everyday Americans on social media under the banner of “disinformation,” and how the CIA et al used psyops around Russian disinformation, interfered with the 2020 election, and more, I could no longer believe that the Left had the higher moral ground.
Notably, seeing a video of Obama pushing the “fine-people on both sides” hoax solidified my resolve; it removed a lot of my tribal guilt. Obama used to be near transcendent, above the fray, but knowing he was pushing outright lies to get Kamala in office sealed the deal. The leaders of Rationality and the Left steeping so low as to lie (when there are plenty of true things to criticize about Trump) and manipulating journalism eroded my trust so much that I no longer remember why I have outright dismissed those on the Right all my life. Seriously.
– The Left has lied on biology: no, sex isn’t a spectrum.
– The NYT, the Guardian and Harvard all dissimulate about Hamas, blaming Israel for “genocide”: no, intent in war matters; Israel isn’t out to wipe out anyone but terrorists (not civilians)
– The Left has lied about race; yes it does exist, even if we use euphemisms like population ancestry instead of crude markers like skin color to capture the influence of ancestral environment on present biology
– The Left has lied about kindness and compassion; wielding them for power, when true kindness and compassion wouldn’t be
– Biden/Kamala lied about the Border; they let in millions to spite Trump
I see so little honesty among Democrats that my conscience wouldn’t let me vote with my Left tribe.
Repair the fundamental credibility issue, or the Left is done.
Oh, and let me add Sam Harris to the list of those whose judgement I now question, even though I have listened to the vast majority of his podcast conversations and use his Waking Up app. Sam, who wrote a book against lying, still strikes me as justifying lies to prevent Trump from being in office. I think Sam and even Pinker have TDS. And I dare say there are few people on the planet who like these two more than me. I just think they are partially part of the problem, despite the major strides both make in combating the excesses of the Left — they are still tribally Left. And I feel like a traitor for parting ways cognitively. My conscience just won’t let me align with my tribe.
– The Left has lied on biology: no, sex isn’t a spectrum.
As I understand it, the claim is that gender is a spectrum, not sex.
– The NYT, the Guardian and Harvard all dissimulate about Hamas, blaming Israel for “genocide”: no, intent in war matters; Israel isn’t out to wipe out anyone but terrorists (not civilians)
I think a lot of Democrats agree with you.
– The Left has lied about race; yes it does exist, even if we use euphemisms like population ancestry instead of crude markers like skin color to capture the influence of ancestral environment on present biology
You may be confusing “race” as a scientific concept with “race” as a popular category.
– The Left has lied about kindness and compassion; wielding them for power, when true kindness and compassion wouldn’t be
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
– Biden/Kamala lied about the Border; they let in millions to spite Trump
The number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today is about 12 million, and that number has been fairly constant at least since Obama took office.
The claim is that gender is something real, distinct from sex role stereotypes, that exists on a spectrum that is not directly determined by sex, and should trump sex as the primary way we segregate human beings. This is the basis of the position that everyone is a woman who claims to feel like one and treating that claim with skepticism is the thoughtcrime of transphobia. It is also the basis of the view that it is rational to alter your sexed body to bring it into visual concordance with where you feel you are on the gender spectrum.
If the claim was only that gender is on a spectrum but sex is binary we would not see the attempts to erase sex and substitute it with gender everywhere that sex is currently (or used to be) referred to in custom and law.
Roz is correct. The central claim of trans activism reduces to the claim that sex is on a spectrum. Further, there are explicit references to sex in primary school resource kits that sex is indeed multifactorial which makes it spectral, as with all multifactorial traits (like height and intelligence.). They speak of “chromosomal” sex, physical sex, genital sex, “brain sex”, hormonal sex, etc. with the implication that sex is a matter of grabbing factors from this and that and seeing where your sex comes out on the spectrum. And this, metaphysically, becomes gender. This is all nonsense of course.
David, many on the left do claim that sex is a spectrum, including people who hold authoritative positions as scientific and medical experts.
As was reported here some time ago:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/03/26/steve-novella-gets-sex-wrong-gets-corrected-twice/
Steve Novella, a person who I respect on many other issues, and who is the founder and executive editor at Science Based Medicine, says this: “The notion that sex is not strictly binary is not even scientifically controversial”.
I would not dispute that a few misguided types confuse a “spectrum” with something more like “types”, but that is their mistake. Novella’s position is that “sex” exists in several types in addition to the simple male/female types, but a spectrum is a smoother continuum.
See my comment to Daryl. There is a difference between a “spectrum” and categories or types, and when anyone claims that sex is a spectrum they are confusing a continuum with types or configurations. On the other hand, gender is a set of psychological traits, behavioral dispositions, and cultural patterns that people embrace on a clear continuum, and thus is reasonably called a “spectrum”.
For decades now we have found it easier to modify bodies to try to bring them into closer association with experienced gender, since it has been virtually impossible to change minds/gender to achieve that goal. This was not especially controversial for many years, and as far as I know has only become problematic recently, and largely disturbing for people who like neat, clear-cut categories with distinct boundaries.
Perhaps part of the conceptual difficulty here might be that we have not been able to change anyone’s gender, and we have not been able to change anyone’s sex. Instead, we change a few anatomical and hormonal features of individuals in hopes that they feel sufficiently in sync with their bodies.
And there is a great range of beliefs about all of this on both sides of the political aisle.
It’s much like getting a tattoo or a piercing or a nose job to make your body appearance conform to what you think it should look like, then. The gender overlay is just to medicalize it in hopes that insurance will pay for it….and that having declared your new you, even without actually having yet made any medical or surgical changes, you are now a member of the opposite sex as far as society is supposed to see you.
Spectrum vs categories is splitting hairs. The normal distribution is just an infinite expansion of multiple binary categorical outcomes, and the real electromagnetic spectrum is quantized. I’ve read Novella’s views on non-binary sex. I understand his efforts to bring the brain into it — he’s a neurologist — but I think he’s incoherent, especially when he tries to fold gender expression and sex of sexual attraction into the categorization of sex. A homosexual man is a different sex from a straight man? He sets up a straw man with chromosomes and then demolishes it by noting the common abnormalities of karyotype. He gives a nod to gametes, accepting there are only two types, but then waves them away as not that important in the grand scheme of things. Well, I suppose if you discount the primacy of gametes, then yes everything will come unglued because gametes are how we define sex. Things that have straightforward definitions that work will become confusing if you try to define those things in terms of other properties that don’t work as well.
There is a relevant difference between saying that the genders constitute a continuous sequence (= spectrum), such that for any two genders g and g* (no matter how close they are to each other) there are other genders between them, and saying that they constitute a noncontinuous, discrete sequence, such that for any two neighbouring genders g_n and g_n+1 there are no other genders between them. A discrete range of n genders is not a gender spectrum.
You cannot use surgery to correct a psychotic delusion. Gender is a fallacious notion. It is not fixed, which you seem very confused about.
But Oliver, that is the claim the spectrum people make. If you are non-binary you can be at any arbitrary position on the gender spectrum such there can always be someone with a gender intermediate in maleness between g and g*. Your sex of sexual attraction can similarly be anywhere on the spectrum between exclusively toward males and exclusively toward females…leaving aside what is meant by male and female! You can indicate, on surveys, your perceived gender and your degree of bisexuality with continuous Likert scales. Those who want to feed these non-gametic determinants into the definition of sex necessarily argue that sex is spectral.
Actually the left (cultural, not economic) believes that sex (not gender) is a spectrum. Type ‘sex is a spectrum’ into Google to get some idea of how pervasive this nonsense is in some circles. Note that Laura Helmuth / Sciam. has even published articles claiming that ‘sex is a spectrum’.
No, there are many claims that SEX is a spectrum. I could give you any number of quotes (I showed some in my CSICon talk).
+1
+ 10
A paraphrase of Colin Wright comes to mind (make of that what you will) :
[begin paraphrase]
Voting is not issuing a valentine. It is a political chess move.
[end paraphrase]
I found that to be a striking piece of wisdom.
The “lies” of the “left” may be real to varying degrees, and that’s important, as you note but they don’t amount to a hill of beans compared to the breath-taking nonsense applied by the now right-wing against the major body of science-based medicine and the reality of our physical environment. (whatever happened to bipartisan medicine and science?) It seems to me that it sort of depends on…what one cares about, one’s knowledge base and general attitude toward the real world beyond limited questions of some social policy.
Must one leave a “tribe” and immediately join the opposing tribe without taking a careful look around to seek or build a reality-based movement? Voting for trump as an angry reaction to perceived betrayal of your values, well, I’m not sure that’s good policy either. Trump administration policies & attitudes will almost certainly to lead to an overall increase in human misery simply on the basis of degradation of the health system (certain increase infectious disease via anti-vaccine nonsense & quack remedies) and abrogation of environmental protection. It all depends what what you care about and what you know.
Both parties have taken extremist positions on different issues. So it comes down to how you personally combine your issue positions into an overall judgment.
If you look at the list of woke policy positions which has strongly affected the Dems’ political positioning, it’s just terrible. And it needs lies and gaslighting to cover up this terribleness. The Dems’ concern for democracy these days is rather selective. Democracy means that you give voters want they want. But on cultural issues and immigration the Dems were unwilling to do this. Can there be something more undemocratic then the Biden administration’s rewrite of Title IX? Trump did not want to leave office after he was defeated by Biden, and the Dems want to ride roughgshod over voters’ wishes on quite a number of issues. Pick your poison.
In this review of Musa al-Gharbi’s “We Have Never Been Woke” (which I haven’t read yet because it’s two months that I am waiting delivery :P) https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/the-fourth-awokening-and-its-discontents/ there is this fragment that I believe could be relevant in explaining why one could prefer the right-wing opposite tribe when betrayed by their left wing tribe.
Confessions of privilege seldom result in the actual surrender of privilege. Consider all of the universities that have put up a sign saying: “This campus is built on stolen Native American land.” Has a single one of them ever proposed actually giving the “stolen land” back? On this point, al-Gharbi tells a great story of two robbers, neither of whom plan to give their stolen loot back to their victims, but one of whom keeps bemoaning how terrible it is that his victims have lost all of their possessions and crying out that someone should help them. Surely both thieves are immoral, but the second one is massively annoying on top of it.
And sadly, this just in from Dawkins, who also has TDS: https://x.com/RichardDawkins/status/1856427574693691823.
Elon responded to Dawkins’ tweet; I agree with Elon.
This reminds me of a RT Pinker posted from his wife years back where Rebecca mocks Trump’s hands, emasculating him.
That sort of character smearing is part of the reason people like me left the Left; it just seems like such a betrayal of civility, partisan, and maybe a sign the center Left has been duped by the machine (whatever that is), something I couldn’t have imagined myself penning two years ago.
So now you support Trump because of his (or the Right-wing’s) civility, non-partisanship and lack of character smearing? Where have you been for the last 8 years?
I support Trump for
– the Abraham Accords
– using plain language
– keeping us out of major wars previously
– his resilience, especially when shot
– his willingness to dismantle DEI
– his opposition to censorship
– his aim to drain the swamp
– his embrace of common sense
– his mobilization and engagement of smart sectors on the Right and Center
– his goal to make legal immigration easier and illegal immigration difficult
– his support of Israel
I voted against the Left in part for the very condescension you showed me in your reply.
Sorry, if an incredulous question sounds like condescension to you. Just like you think Dawkins has TDS because he accurately describes your new found hero, I’m incredulous. And Condescension is Trump’s tool of choice, and you don’t see him wielding it? Again, have you been paying attention to the rhetoric?
You’re support list is thin sauce. “his aim to drain the swamp” almost had me thinking you were a bot. At least it made me laugh. buh,bye
I’m with you, Roz. It shocks me to say this about myself, but you had the guts to write it here and I need to have the guts to say I’m with you.
I sent Sam’s talk to all my friends, I think I posted it in the comments here yesterday.
Excellent, as always.
The hard left HATE him b/c of the idiocy of “Islamophobia”, the right think he has Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I’ll sign on to both Islamophobia and TDS myself. Sam says what I write in my column, only better.
D.A.
NYC
OK, I’ll bite. What column do you write?
He writes at some outlet called “The Moderate Voice”. If you scroll back far enough he often links to his articles. No doubt he will link to more in the future.
Thank you.
I think of all the issues, this one most clearly put the Dems out of the mainstream. This is from an op-ed in Spiked.
There have been new, noteworthy groups that have organized around this issue, such as “Gays Against Groomers” and “Moms4Liberty.” Twitter accounts like Libs of TikTok are continually highlighting news about trans.
https://reduxx.info/germany-sex-education-group-recommends-daycares-create-sexual-games-and-nude-exploration-rooms/
I think it goes a little deeper.
Granted, this effort failed, but that it was attempted is disturbing.
Many examples from biology demonstrate the purpose of society is to raise the young. Why any seen as youth predators (deserved or not) would generate a massive response seems self evident to me.
Adults can do as they want, but the minute a parent’s child is involved, proceed at your own peril.
From Timothy Snyder’s New Yorker piece from a couple of days ago:
“The people who watched Trump’s television ads during sporting events had not been harmed by a transgender person, or by an immigrant, or by a woman of color. The magic lies in the daring it takes to declare a weaker group to be part of an overwhelming conspiracy.”
Poor argument. The presence of millions of illegals will impact the quality of life for everyone: housing shortages, not enough healthcare providers.
This is happening in Canada due to an excess of legal immigrants. Trudeau is EXTREMELY unpopular just now.
I don’t think most people object to adult transgenders in general. They object to men in women’s sports.
Agreed. It’s a dumb argument.
Most people have not affected by many other things that are illegal.
As far as the premise of the “weaker group”, Snyder has it wrong – it is the strongest group, the government, that is allowing the illegal immigration, males in female prisons, medical “transitioning” of children, and hiring based on skin color above other qualifications in the name of equity. Trump’s ads were against the government system that allows it, not against the individuals taking advantage of the system.
To take his argument to an extreme, most people have never been hit by a drunk driver, but we still make drunk driving illegal.
Agree!
The movement has a false premise at its core – namely that people can overcome their “prejudice” and accept the premise that gender identity trumps sex. But selection will ensure that this will never be the case – (heterosexual) males are never going to (broadly) regard transwomen as potential long-term partners, nor will women typically regard transmen as potential partners.
When you base a position that is in denial of (easily) observable facts (i.e. that transwomen are male/men), it rightly makes people wonder about your other positions. I knew we were in trouble when I saw Rachel Levine proclaimed as the “first female four-star admiral in the Commissioned Corps”
Rep Seth Moulton is drawing flack from this wing of the dems by even bringing up the sports issue just a few days ago – it’s already documented in his Wikipedia page – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Moulton
When has the side doing the censoring *ever* been the good guys?
If you want to piss me off, tell me that I am not *allowed* to read an article about the possibility of a lab leak. This alone is reason to vote against the Dems.
To answer your question: Never!
Though in the moment, they’ve often been able to convince large numbers.
The drive to take away rights is an aspect of both the far-right fascists and the far-left marxist/communists. These groups are two sides of the same coin of tyranny and totalitarianism.
The state has been able to brainwash a large portion of the population into believing that censoring opposing viewpoints must be done to preserve democracy. Look at how many on this site didn’t want Dr. Coyne to publish disagreements he had with Democratic positions because they didn’t want to endanger Harris’s chances in the election. Had those people been running this site, they would happily have ensured that all of the stories as well as comments expressing concern or disappointment with the Biden/Harris administration’s actions were shut down and only favorable views published.
I want to be able to have open access to why the lab leak idea is possible, as well as viewpoints refuting it.
I just quickly read the Sam Harris essay thanks to Coel above. It exceeded expectations!
And it’s eloquent, increases my positivity toward Harris. Maybe I will take the time to listen to it for intonation after I catch up on other items.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It’s not going to help anyone sleep any better but, as is occasionally said: someone’s got to say it…
Oh, and people are certainly “allowed” to read the “lab leak” nonsense — witness that miserable Alina Chan opinion piece in NYT — but people should know the plethora of literature in the leading scientific journals that lay out in enormous detail the overwhelming likelihood of zoonotic spillover in the Wuhan market — those are all public access and the issue is also discussed in great detail in several TWIV episodes. Oh, I know, science is hard and by the way, check out the references within, as well. don’t forget the methods sections, just to be complete.
It was interesting to me to see Sam’s take. After the election my gut reaction (about as unscientific as it gets) was that identity politics was the killer blow. In some parts of the country immigration may have been a bigger issue, and among some economic classes inflation/the economy may have been especially powerful, but everywhere among everyone except the woke, identity politics and the excesses of trans activists made the Dems look like they had completely lost touch with reality.
I’ve long wondered how it is that this almost vanishingly small minority of people have marshaled enough influence to attempt to reorder our society on such a fundamental level, down to a demand that everyone change the everyday words we use for each other. This has alienated everyone except proponents of trans ideology, and their Democratic fellow travelers have entirely missed the political ramifications.
As Sam notes, calling trans women “women”, and brooking no distinction under any circumstances, is the “precept of a new religion”. I think this is a pretty accurate description. (I have previously criticized the FFRF, an anti-religion organization, for abandoning their principles to promote this very religion.) The woke playbook of demonizing and trying to shut down anyone who contravenes their orthodoxy has alienated major swathes of the American public.
In the end, the Dems made a number of mistakes, and for me the foremost of those is that they’ve embraced illiberal values, which is a betrayal for those of us who consider ourselves classical liberals. I voted for Harris anyway, as I don’t believe in burning down the house in order to try to fix a leaky roof and a rotten staircase. But the house is on fire now, and we’ll have to see what comes of it.
Is there a single issue that pushed the Dems over the edge? Probably not. Which mistake did the most damage? I don’t know. But my gut tells me that Sam is right.
I heard a story of an exit poll interview that went like this (Paraphrased):
Reporter: “Who’d you vote for?”
Voter: “Trump.”
Reporter: “Is there anything Trump could have done that would have dissuaded you from voting for him?”
Voter: “Yes. He could have gone to my daughter’s grade school and told her she might be a boy.”
Anecdotal but supports Sam’s point.
There is a simple reason why people are having difficulty in identifying with any certainty why Democrats lost: because Democrats have gone off the fucking rails in so many ways that any number of reasons—or combination of reasons—could suffice.
My chief concerns in voting for president usually center around the president’s primary constitutional responsibilities: foreign affairs, military matters, and managing the executive branch to ensure laws are faithfully executed. I’ll simply add some personal pet peeves about the Democrats: 1) the increasing abandonment of the First Amendment in their fight against “hate” and “misinformation;” 2) the indoctrination and abuse of children stemming from trans activism; 3) the growing power of the largely unaccountable bureaucracy in Washington DC and the degree to which unpopular leftist policies are thrust on us by rule and regulation; 4) the groupthink, arrogance, intolerance, and insufferable smugness of the Democratic leadership and many of its highly-educated voters.
The first two ensured that not a single Democrat running for state or national office had a chance of getting my vote this year—Harris or no Harris. The last reason is why the Democrats might wander in the wilderness for a few more years. The party of the working class has become the party of entitled assholes.
The Trump commercials quoting Kamala’s support for free transgender surgery were among the most effective ever run, according to NYP:
https://nypost.com/2024/11/10/opinion/trumps-stunning-comeback-victory-has-cured-america-from-the-woke-mind-virus/
I’ve become a two-issue voter (genderism, mass immigration). I know and have great affection for a bunch of “trans” people including some who have debilitating dysphoria. I’m not opposed to them (just the opposite). What I’m voting against is the political coercion that requires citizens and voters to deny biological reality and to affirm that TWAW. So although I’m not American and didn’t vote in your election, I can easily imagine that such coercion might have persuaded ~10 million Biden 2020 voters to stay home instead of voting for Harris in 2024.
People who think it unlikely that transgender issues were so significant in our election should note that they were significant enough in Scotland to cause Nicola Sturgeon to lose her position as First Minister. The commitment to putting male rapists who declared themselves to be women in women’s prison was very significant in her loss. On trans issues in Scotland, see The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht.
I am reading (again) the interview with George Lakoff from 2017. https://www.salon.com/2017/01/15/dont-think-of-a-rampaging-elephant-linguist-george-lakoff-explains-how-the-democrats-helped-elect-trump/ This refers to the PREVIOUS failure, when Trump was elected the first time.
Basically, Lakoff has a theory that when thinking about government, in their minds people unconsciously use a metaphor of a head of a family. You need to read the whole thing, and perhaps watch some lecture of Lakoff’s on Youtube, to fully appreciate this idea.
Basically, conservative mental picture of government brings up a “strong father” metaphor. OTOH the liberal mental picture is “nurturant parent”. Lakoff says that in order to handle abstractions in our minds, we always use metaphors, so this is nothing out of the ordinary.
The issue as I see it is that the coercive, anti-liberal manner and actions of the New Left are incompatible with the Nurturant Parent model. For an average Democratic Party voter, the metaphor at work became “my parent went nuts!”
Effectively what happened on the organizational level, I think, is that the Democratic Party began to acknowledge the neuroscientific explanation about why their campaign failed the last time: too little emphasis on values, too much on arguments about enlightened self-interest of voters. So they decided to pivot, and start expressing values in their campaign. But instead of FINDING OUT what are the values of their potential supporters, they decided to take up wholesale the value system of the New Left, assuming they are the same thing. Accordingly, the very important issue of framing the debate was taken to mean imposition of a frame, not activation of a pre-existing frame in the minds of the viewers/listeners. No wonder the public disengaged.
“The issue as I see it is that the coercive, anti-liberal manner and actions of the New Left are incompatible with the Nurturant Parent model. For an average Democratic Party voter, the metaphor at work became ‘my parent went nuts!’”
And . . .
“Accordingly, the very important issue of framing the debate was taken to mean imposition of a frame, not activation of a pre-existing frame in the minds of the viewers/listeners. No wonder the public disengaged.”
As a believer in Lakoff’s take on politics, I think you make an excellent points.
+1
Sam Harris’s critique has a kernel of truth, but not much more. Kamala Harris’s campaign notably lacked “wokeness.” She didn’t lean into being the first woman of color or play on other classic woke themes; if anything, Republicans pushed those stereotypes, casting her as for they/them while Trump was for “you.”
Rather, the stereotype of the “woke” liberal—condescending, dogmatic, histrionic, hostile, and indifferent to economic suffering—lingers in the air of left/liberal bubbles like a wet fart in an elevator. No matter that Harris tried to get away from it, it’s still the air you must inhale in left and liberal circles, especially online.
On the contrary, the Harris campaign started grounded, with folksy touches alongside Tim Walz and a few viral moments, only to veer to the Do-Good People of Hollywood and show biz. The campaign could have connected with working families, but instead swung center-right, and presented not only endorsements from celebrities, pop stars, but even the Cheney. The Cheneys! Oprah’s approval doesn’t feed families struggling with rising grocery bills, nor does it reduce inflation at the Walmart checkout.
You could say that in the wake of a strong economic recovery, the Democrats would lean on substance. But rather than taking up the economic anxieties of Americans, they opted to play at feel-good politics on one side, and apocalyptic warnings of the End of Democracy on the other. They did this for the third time, by my counting. Harris was caught between a message of change and also same-as-Biden, who did great, didn’t he?!
As the saying goes, if you stand in the middle of the road, you get hit from both directions. Kamala Harris was positioned on a busy crossroad. I actually think she over-performed individually, but as a national figure, she lacked the exposure a competitive primary would have given her. Meanwhile, Trump—despite his hyperbole and lying—seized on real economic fears and hammered them home. And then there’s more to say on the massive Right Wing propaganda machine.
I’d say Americans are fed up with the ravages of neo-liberalism, and virtue signalling distractions. If Democrats want to win again, and I mean for real, not on “lesser evil” fears, it’s high time they forget about glitz, Wall St and “woke” language games, and instead heed the advice of those like James Carville and Bernie Sanders, who champion a populist, class-based approach. But here Americans have cut off everyone’s tongue. You can’t say “woke” in polite society, and so Americans don’t have concise words to distinguish this from the “real” left. I suggest to start there first and stop with the nonsense that wokeness was the same as left wing.
He did touch on some real things. The polls he surveyed (which are probably in his show notes) showed the best predictor if someone was going for Trump in all groups, was culture.
Many other polls showed voters who went red were often partially to completely ignorant of policies, and a couple by Ipsos polls showed that when the names were hidden, almost everyone went for Harris policies lol. Soon as they knew who wrote them, they went Trump. It was identity, ignorance, a lot of spin of facts, and general outright inability to tell when Trump was lying, which frankly picked at the real annoyances a lot of voters had for the Dems, turning it in to enough of a fire to burn her chances down.
And frankly Sam laid out quite well how the dems burned her chances down enough. She needed a resounding, perfect campaign and was far from it. Trump just needed to play the culture game, lie through his teeth, and keep folks angry. They still stuck with him even as he and his trashed them too.
Sams excoriation of Trump voters was entirely apropos as voters had the duty to do better than this anyways given their binary choices. Aside from states rights, and judges below SCOTUS trying to bog him down, Trump is 3 house seats from an actual, real autocracy. Sams finishing words about actually, REALLY being on the road to fascism right now is not hyperbole.
This is both on the heads of everyone who voted for him, whether they understood or not not (just as many did, as did not), and also on those who didnt show up.
If Trump isnt able to resist doing half of what he said he is going to do, with the total immunity he has around core powers, your democracy dies at that point.
And I predict he, or whoever takes over, isnt giving the seat back. Republicans know the secret to winning now. They had your election hostage here too with plans for lots of fake electors, corrupt election officials ready to bog down votes for weeks or more, violent actors just ready to go if she won by a slim margin, and more. It was either Trump won, or your democratic process gets shattered the day she got called for.
How are you going to break out of that, or as a man with complete immunity around his core powers, if he keeps the senate and wins the house, stop him if he decides to have a convenient emergency and postpone the election?
SCOTUS may not care for any of his lower compadres. But they made him clearly a king.
Hard times are coming folks. The American electorate made sure of it.
Not saying this is the most accurate take on why the election went the way it did, but Jonathan Pie’s postmortem is my favorite:
That is good!
‘Sam’s overall take: the Left “did not pivot to the political center in a way that the voters found credible.”’ Exactly, Kamala’s implicit message was, “Nothing will change”. It almost looks like she didn’t want to win.
What destroyed the Democrats. Economy. Polls showed the economy was the major concern of most Americans. Despite the fact that the GOP and conservative economic programs have long failed America, MAGA won on the illusion that the GOP was superior and more trusted on the economy. Never mind 16 Nobel Prize economists warning Trump will wreck the economy. Or that Trump gave us record $7.8 trillion in new debts. Or the OBM telling us Trump will give us 3 times the deficits Harris would have. As usual, everybody missed this elephant in the room.
… and economic recovery from the pandemic is among the best in the world.
+1
26 years ago, Richard Rorty wrote prophetically (in a book chapter titled A Cultural Left) that…
“[S]omething will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen , and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can ‘t Happen Here may then be played out. For once such a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.
One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words “ni**er” and “kike” will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.
But such a renewal of sadism will not alter the effects of selfishness. For after my imagined strongman takes charge, he will quickly make his peace with the international superrich, just as Hitler made his with the German industrialists. He will invoke the glorious memory of the Gulf War to provoke military adventures which will generate short-term prosperity. He will be a disaster for the country and the world. People will wonder why there was so little resistance to his evitable rise. Where, they will ask, was the American Left? Why was it only rightists like Buchanan who spoke to the workers about the consequences of globalization ? Why could not the Left channel the mounting rage of the newly dispossessed?”
(Rorty, Richard. Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth Century America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. pp. 90-1)
The best part of that podcast is at the end when Sam promises to limit his discussions on politics. I’m glad to here this…unless he is planning on running for office, obsessing about politics just becomes tiresome and makes him querulous and impotent.
The overall way non-sensical ideas have worked their way into the mainstream so that objecting to them as become taboo is an illustration of the slippery slope at work. That’s why I think it’s important to take strong stands against any encroachment on rationality. (An example relevant to this website is when Sean Carroll endorsed the idea that sex is a spectrum–there shouldn’t be any excusing of a statement like that based on respecting Sean’s other work, etc.)
Some questions and observations about trans identity, perhaps some of the readers here will know the answers. First, it seems like most of the political attention is toward trans-women, especially those who want to participate in women’s sports or engage in women’s spaces (eg locker rooms). But from my understanding of the data and my observations on campus, there is a larger number of girls/women transitioning to boys/men than boys/men to women. Yet, do we see an equivalent number of these trans-men trying to participate in mens sports (where they would be at a biological disadvantage) as we see the other way? If not, is there a point at which we can question whether what sports team one wants to compete with is not all about gender identity? Secondly, apparently trans-women want to be referred to as women. Fine. Do trans-men want to be referred to as men (not trans-men)? If so, and especially if they are white, they will be losing the identity of ‘other’ or ‘minority/protected class’ and be identifying themselves as white/male oppressors. As a writer, I have seen many grants/publishing opportunities specifically for “BIPOC” (or now, POGM, which is “people of the global majority” if you aren’t into the latest academic/artistic elite lingo) and LGBTQIA2S+ and women/trans but if you are now identifying as a man, would you now not be eligible for these opportunities?
Trans does seem to be a mostly white-girl phenomenon these days so your question is germane.
First, there is a move in the Canadian human/civil rights bureaucracy to eliminate women as a protected category in human rights codes. A talking paper on this came across my desk recently. This has an ulterior motive which you can probably guess, and which I’ll get to in a sec. For the moment, it would mean that a woman who successfully passes as a man would not lose anything in the DEI sweepstakes…and of course she is not going to compete in men’s sport. (If she is taking testosterone she can’t compete in women’s sport, either.)
Second, all people who “come out” as trans and adopt the dress and social behaviour of the sex they aren’t, even only socially with no drugs or surgery, gain an additional marker of oppression: trans itself. Because they are still rare they are precious, a scarcity which abundantly compensates the woman for losing whatever vestigial 1970s-era advantages she might have clung to as a woman.
The upshot is that soon the only women with specific civil-rights protections will be “women” who are really men. Women who seek to game the DEI racket will have to present as (trans)men. Both sexes will have to present their trans identity overtly in order to tick the box because it’s neither sex nor gender that governs but instead one’s membership in the oppressed trans minority. If you are only trans in your mind, you at least have to tell HR so you get pigeon-holed correctly.
This is important in places like Canada where it is not only legal but strongly encouraged to discriminate on the basis of protected categories as long as the “oppressed” category benefits. Getting yourself acknowledged to be a member of a protected category is the basis of one’s career now. I saw this in a testy exchange at dinner between my nephew and his (female) romantic partner, both newly minted humanities PhDs looking for scarce jobs.
Alternatively being a trans man could be like having three passports. Demand to be regarded as a man with he/him pronouns when it suits. Whenever the need arises, say sotto voce, “But don’t forget I’m really a woman, with all the entitlements that go with that. I expect to be believed when I make a sexual harassment accusation and don’t get the idea that you’re going to draft me.” And when you want the entitlements that come being specifically trans, whip out that passport.
What’s sad is that men who say they are women can just say so. Abracadabra and they are. Women almost always have to undergo medical or surgical mutilation of their bodies in order for the illusion to take. This may relate more to the personal histories of the women than to societal expectations.
P.S. I love “POGM”!
POGM? Why don’t they just be direct and say EBWP: “everybody but white people”. Seems like that’s the racial division they are after.