Almost every major error and meltdown in Dem/left politics, from post-left fash apologism to popularist left-punching cringe, comes from fatally flawed attempts to solve what I call the Upper Left Quadrant problem.
Here is the chart, and the fundamental problem: /1
This chart explains *so much* about modern American politics. What it says, simply, is that almost all the actual persuadable voters in the electorate aren't "moderates."
Needless to say, this is not great. It's a huge impediment for making progress.
But it's also highly inconvenient for the major ideological factions in American politics. /3
Let's start with "No Labels" style centrists. These are corporate folks who push the idea that most persuadable voters are socially liberal but economically conservative. Romney types.
This is FLATLY FALSE. As you can see, there is almost NO ONE in that bottom right quadrant./4
The suburban Romney Dem does exist, of course--but their numbers are actually quite limited and they are far less economically conservative and more socially liberal than usually given credit for.
They're not really persuadable and likelier to vote for AOC than DeSantis. /5
Now let's take the socialist left. It is tempting to look at this chart and say "hey, there's opportunity for left populism here! Let's persuade some of these folks!"
I myself made that error in 2016, thinking that left populism could win many of them over. That was...wrong. /6
It was VERY wrong. The Trump presidency proved it. He went full Paul Ryan on economics, & lost none of his supporters over it. Trump-curious Upper Quadrant types didn't shift left.
Instead, Greenwald-Tulsi types went head over heels to the far-right in hatred of liberals. /7
Then there are the Yglesias/Chait/Shor popularists. They look at the Upper Left Quadrant and think "hey if we just toned down the social liberalism then these folks would vote for a milquetoast liberal party."
Yeah....no. That doesn't work, either. /8
An upper-quadrant voter who likes social security but hates LGBTQ people isn't going to vote Dem over GOP because you sidearmed trans people a little bit. A racist who wants government spending for whites only isn't going to vote Dem if you bash DEI initiatives. /9
Whether econ or social leftism overreaches sometimes is debatable on its own merits as public policy when it comes to, say, housing policy or standardized testing.
But it's worthless as an *electoral* strategy for reaching the Upper Left Quadrant voter. /10
And, of course, the GOP is eating itself alive over this problem. It turns out no one actually believes in David Brooks / Burkeian conservatism. Economic conservatism was always a front for hurting the marginalized.
No one wants what Paul Ryan is selling, and it shows./11
The only real way to solve the Upper Left Quadrant Problem is by gradually sorting it out of the electorate, and being economically left-populist in the mold of younger voters.
Younger voters are overwhelmingly bottom left quadrant (econ & soc left). /12
Let the fash sort with the fash into the upper right. Let liberals and the left sort with each other.
Leftists: stop trying to placate the fash with anti-globalism. Centrists: stop trying to be "anti-woke" or appeal to non-existent bottom-right quadrant voters. /13
The country is going to get a lot *more* polarized before things get better, and things will only get better when the AOC/Bernie/Warren-aligned under-45s who vote Dem +20 points are a bigger and bigger share of the electorate. We're not getting any more conservative with age. /14
Ultimately, there are a lot more of us than there are of them.
There is no magic bullet to fixing the Fash problem. It will be with us for a while.
All you can do is understand it--and then reform the anti-majoritarian structures of American democracy that empower it. /end
For those asking, here is the source of the chart. I haven't seen a 2020 version, unfortunately.
Biden is running again because his team is (wrongly) convinced he's the only candidate who could have beaten Trump, and the only one who can do it again.
And because there aren't a lot of great alternatives. A short thread. /1
Way too many Bernielanders proved they hate liberals more than fascists. It's hard to trust anyone who, for instance, is against helping Ukraine.
They're also replete with "left" NIMBYs who won't accept any solutions short of "ending capitalism" whatever that means. /2
Harris' approvals are abysmal, she never got traction in the primary, & her biggest supporters are a mirror version of the worst Berners: they hate progressives more than they do Romney GOPs, they like the economic status quo and have bizarre hero worship for the gerontocracy./3
Republicans want their boys to be as cruel and abusive as possible, and they want their girls to be transferred as possessions from fathers to husbands, preferably as young as possible, with no threats to their sexual "purity" or exposure to feminist ideas. /2
They assume everyone else is as predatory as they are. They sin all week, repent on Sunday for absolution to sin all over again the next week. They see this as the only backstop to their own predation.
Thus they assume anyone without that backstop must literally be pedophiles.3
The idea in some faux-left spaces that home prices are high because landlords are colluding to artificially raise prices is mind-numbingly stupid. Landlords can charge what they do because for every decent living space there are 50 people who want it. /1
Apartment rents are high for the same reason mortgage prices are high: NIMBYs who spent decades preventing anyone from building new housing in desirable urban areas. Too few spaces for the need. /2
If a government took every property from every landlord, it could theoretically lower the price--but it would still have to decide which of those 50 people who want that apartment will get it.
Supply and demand exist regardless of your economic system. /3
If you would not be able to afford your current home at its current price at your top annual income, you aren't a diligent investor. You're a squatter.
It may not be directly your fault, but you benefit unjustly and it's your obligation to help fix it for future generations.
Taking advantage of cheap abundant housing, and then using regulations to prevent any more housing from being built in order to increase the value of what you bought, is cornering the market.
Perversely, it's cornering the market against your own kids and grandkids. /2
It's also a form of institutionalized racism and oppression, of course: preserving your built environment and social segregation.
But importantly it's a form of long-term generational oppression. Housing a basic human right. It should be abundant enough to afford. /3
If white conservatives are gonna have racist conversations about ethnicity and Western Civilization, it's worth noting that none of the slavers' diaspora that ended up colonizing the American South did a goddamn thing to build, create or defend Western Civilization.
None of you or great-great-great-grandpas going back invented philosophy or codified law. None of your "heritage" were involved in the Renaissance or have paintings hanging in the Louvre. You put up fake Roman colonnades you appropriated on your shitty slavers' plantations.
It *long* ago stopped being polite for white people to talk about other white people in this way. But if slavers' descendant white people are going to wear fascism on their sleeve out in the open and talk about RETVRN to "Western Civ", maybe it's time we...talked about that.
We still don't know whether COVID was a natural occurrence or from a lab leak.
But let's be clear: almost no one involved in promoting lab leak theory was concerned with international lab security.
It was designed to encourage xenophobia, racism & conspiracy theories. /1
No matter what happened, we should have conversations about global lab security. China has been uncooperative in helping determine what happened.
But that conversation is impossible to have with people using it to push xenophobia, racism and anti-science conspiracies./2
COVID probably originated in the wild. But even if it did leak from a lab, it doesn't change anything about the measures needed in response to it. And it doesn't change the necessity of studying viruses in labs.
Conspiracy theorists make good policy discussions harder. /3