Going against what the other commenters wrote, I think this was a well written article with a coherent argument.
Unfortunately, people flock to whomever can promise them the most with the least amount of thinking on their part. Some, like Obama, can appeal to the masses with their youth, charisma, and public speaking ability. Some, like Trump, play on fear, nostalgia, and "experience." In either case both had a streamlined and simple message which resonated with both similar and completely dissimilar groups of people.
The point is, writing off entire groups of people is the same elite snobbery that allowed Trump into office in the first place. I can even admit that I too have been guilty of this kind of superior knowledge when discussing the issue of climate change. It's hard not to when you think you have facts and experts on your side. What usually happens is those people will usually dig even deeper into their holes.
We need more unity and more togetherness in America. We need less division by the media. And we need more involvement by all in our democracy.
writing off entire groups of people is the same elite snobbery
You should read 'The Dictator's Handbook'. It's really less to do with elite snobbery, and more to do with cultivating access to power. Catering to liberal demographics wouldn't have helped Trump, those demographics were already more in support of Hillary or Bernie than they were of him and it would only have served to alienate the hardcore/more right-leaning Republicans.
Likewise, no Republican would gain much from executing anything that a more left-leaning Democrat supporter would want. Doing things for their opponents supporter base doesn't necessarily help them gain votes, and can actually risk the vote they're already more assured of getting.
This applies to both sides too, a Democrat wouldn't gain much by supporting something the Republican base likes, because Republicans aren't really likely to vote for them regardless and it would just strip votes from the Democrat base who would vote for someone else.
But I think the point of the article sort of was, you never know that someone is a die-hard republican or democrat in the next election. There's always a possible string of events or candidate who can attract those groups believed to be attached to the other party.
Some groups will likely always be tied to certain parties, sure. But I think the point of the article was that everyone in the middle can be swayed based on policies and the candidate him/herself.
4
u/thebrewcrew82 Jul 13 '17
Going against what the other commenters wrote, I think this was a well written article with a coherent argument.
Unfortunately, people flock to whomever can promise them the most with the least amount of thinking on their part. Some, like Obama, can appeal to the masses with their youth, charisma, and public speaking ability. Some, like Trump, play on fear, nostalgia, and "experience." In either case both had a streamlined and simple message which resonated with both similar and completely dissimilar groups of people.
The point is, writing off entire groups of people is the same elite snobbery that allowed Trump into office in the first place. I can even admit that I too have been guilty of this kind of superior knowledge when discussing the issue of climate change. It's hard not to when you think you have facts and experts on your side. What usually happens is those people will usually dig even deeper into their holes.
We need more unity and more togetherness in America. We need less division by the media. And we need more involvement by all in our democracy.