Read on Twitter
Since we're now in another period of center-left hand-wringing about What The Election Results Mean (absent complete data on what actually happened, of course), let me note a few things I believed on the basis of research even before the election. (1/n)
Americans are operationally liberal, but symbolically / philosophically conservative, per Ellis & Stimson and Free & Cantril before them (2/n). https://www.amazon.com/Ideology-America-Christopher-Ellis/dp/1107687411
To some extent, this means that the symbolism of the left -- as valued by elites and activists -- is not what Democrats should lead with or put up front. In a sense, that symbolism is esotericism that many people do not relate to. (3/n)
BUT this does NOT mean that tired 1990s Democratic centrism is necessarily the answer. The 'operationally liberal' bit means that plenty of left-leaning policy is quite popular (or at least not unpopular). Find out what that is, and run on it. (4/n)
A corollary/caveat is that this does not mean that every 'unpopular' but morally-important Dem position should be abandoned. It just means you don't advertise, just the way the Republicans do not advertise the tax cuts for the rich they ram through anyway. (5/n)
A related point: the effective Democratic Party coalition is heterogeneous in terms of group identity and interests and it is never going to be tied together with ideology the way the GOP coalition is. The GOP is not a model here. (6/n) https://www.amazon.com/Asymmetric-Politics-Ideological-Republicans-Democrats/dp/0190626607
Lastly: given the diversity of the Dem coalition & the extent to which the nation's small-d democratic crisis is rooted in an inadequate reckoning with a long history of institutionalized racism, the Dems cannot avoid race the way professionally 'anti-woke' folks suggest. (7/n)
But it would probably be to their benefit to find less esoteric & linguistically-demarcated ways of talking about institutionalized racism. (8/n)
Highly-educated Americans have a specialized way of talking about identity that is like just about any other type of 'ideological' language: it is primarily accessible and psychologically significant to those who are high in political engagement. (9/n)
But most people simply do not have the time (or the need) to learn a specialized, abstract language for discussing major social problems that impinge in concrete ways on their everyday lives. (10/n)
Trying to frame public discussion of racism in terms of the specialized language of the academy may implicitly activate other dimensions of identity (e.g., level of educational attainment) that block reception of the content -- and not just among non-college whites. (11/n)
My point here is subtle, and it does not flow from any of the current popular critiques of 'wokeness' from IDW types, expressive centrists, and what not. Much of that stuff is just an excuse to avoid talking about the reality of racial stratification in American life. (12/n)
Rather, my point basically comes out of Converse (1964) and an appreciation of just how few Americans relate to or think in terms of specialized ideological language used by relatively small communities of politically-engaged citizens. (13/n)
Understanding this central *communicative* context for doing mass politics, rather than universally defaulting to some milquetoast consultant-driven response in the face of multiple crises, is the work that needs to be done. (14/14)
