I’m listening to this. I’m multitasking and not taking notes or anything, so I’ll just post the reply and maybe edit it.
16 minutes in
Ok, this is all great and fine, but the thesis is exactly the same as most of the people you disparage. You imagine that no one you categorize as a junior league marxist or Bernie bro has any rigorous understanding mostly because you’re snobby and shallow. But, great, disaffected White people who are stoked by racial resentment are sharing the party with country club Republicans. Tell us something that not every single person on the forum knows.
The Christchurch mosque mass shooter got sentenced to life without parole. It is the first time that sentence has ever been handed down in New Zealand.
Edit: More accurately, no minimum parole period was set. I think he still gets parole hearings, which presumably will consist of “LOL no”.
You really got me pegged there. My problem with marxism or bernism* is that I’m shallow, not that I’ve looked into them with a fairly nuanced and informed understanding and found them wanting. My basic orientation is skeptical, so I tend to be a turd in the punchbowl when believers gather. I’m the guy at the utopian cult recruitment party saying “this is all going to end badly” and pissing off the rubes. I’m fine with being that guy.
*Bernism isn’t really a thing, it’s more of an affect. I align fairly solidly with Bernie on policy, I just think it’s a “goal oriented” ideology with limited specifics. I like specifics, which is why I’ve always favored Warren.
23:44 in and a much better summary would have been: Hey Bernie Bros, here are a couple of political scientists who have done some research supporting everything you guys have been saying!
It was inartful me to use “Bernie Bros” pejoratively because that seems to trigger people, particularly when (as indicated) I generally support Bernie’s positions, to the extent I understand them. Hell, I even like most Bernie supporters, though too many seem to construct reality as some grand conspiracy.
Another mid-listen comment as it’s wrapping up and this isn’t a criticism of the people being interview, or you really, but they seem a lot more pessimistic about having a future of a multi-racial Democracy than you do. Pretty alarming actually to hear them say they don’t know of any examples of large scale successful multi-racial democracies ever and whether we get that or not is very much up for grabs.
I think it’s up for grabs to an extent and it will be somewhat dependent on whether people are successfully “indoctrinated” to support multiracial democracy. I am uncharacteristically optimistic, because I really think the world view of 45 y/o and under people is significantly different from that pushed by the right since 1960 and before (and still held by conservatives in power).
Then again, it doesn’t take a lot to create hate. Just look at the Hutus and Tutsi in Rawanda–any excuse can be found to demonize the “other.” There doesn’t actually have to be a racial “difference.” OTOH, look at the much broader current acceptance of homosexuality. Compare that with, say, Russia, where homosexuality is still used by Putin as a wedge issue (“they’re coming to take your kids”) like a 1990s US demagogue. Defeating such views is literally about adopting an ideology of inclusion, and the public schools are generally on board.
If broad prosperity (at least along the lines of the 70s) in the US can be encouraged and enhanced, I think racial issues can be overcome. If average wages continue to decline, I think the number of resentful whites will continue to grow and there will be more racial strife, but I don’t think it will be the rule because elites will police the culture and will generally be able to cancel right-wingers, including the version of Tucker/Hannity that’s popular 10 years from now, because we will live in a different world where they will face more pressure, less audience, and get less traction.
