ArtVandelay
9mo ago
I get that but the idea that the Democratic Party, an organization so weak and disorganized that it's allowing a uniquely unpopular incumbent who is widely seen as a doddering old fool even by many of his would-be supporters to run against a uniquely weak candidate (Trump) who could be easily defeated if the Democrats got it together and tapped almost anyone else to run against him... the idea that this organization is able to not only look this far down the game tree, but also set this long and complex chain of events into motion so that if all goes well, in 20 years they will finally win all of the elections ... that idea, seems unrealistic.
ArtVandelay
9mo ago
As far as demographics are concerned, time is on their side - well over half of Under-15s are non-white and that number is still rising. Reducing inflow doesn't matter so much, as long as Republicans aren't able to execute a huge expulsion and re-emigration operation, Democrats/Progressives will enjoy permanent electoral/demographic dominance. In terms of voting, the key thing is race - whites tend to vote Republican, non-whites hugely favour Democrats. This is a perfectly rational strategic decision, Dems favour the expansion of social welfare, redistribution, multiculturalism and affirmative action, which usually favour non-whites over whites. Either the Republicans will move to join them, or they'll become irrelevant.
Is the idea here that the migrant flows at the border are a result of a deliberate strategy to stack the electoral deck in favor of the Democrats? Illegal immigrants can't vote. Hell, legal residents can't vote. I know lack of voter ID laws would make some amount of illegal voting possible, but the implication here that this is a big coordinated effort to gain and maintain federal power via illegal immigrants' votes strikes me as a bit far-fetched.
Probably what's more likely is the usual sclerosis of the federal administrative apparatus (favoring the status quo, whatever it may be), combined with the very strong negative political polarization we have (that leads to legislative deadlock - don't want to give the other guys a win on an important issue), plus a bit of an influence from the true believers, the multiculturalism and open borders people who probably do see the firm securing of the border as a moral failure. Is this not enough to explain what is happening?
I think the idea is that the framing of these issues is done in an oppressor vs oppressed (ie Marxist) narrative style, wherein the dominant mainstream culture is "oppressing" the "lifestyles" and "identities" of those who diverge from it.
So if we take the example of the woman who feels pressure from her family to marry (and presumably have children), of course this happens all of the time and has happened since time immemorial but the question is how you frame it. The cultural Marxist would say that this an unjust application of social pressure that is meant to limit the woman's autonomy. It's a raw exercise of power by those who have it against those who do not have it. A more traditional cultural analysis might say that this is beneficial social pressure which applies the embodied wisdom of the older generation and nudges the younger generation to make choices that maybe they wouldn't choose on their own, but which they would greatly benefit from if they just take the leap (not to mention that they would perpetuate the physical existence of the species and ideally the cultural stability of the civilization).
More options
Context Copy link