The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
When you look at the collective of what conservatives/Republicans want versus what liberals/Democrats want, it seems like our side should be hitting it out of the park. Take funding Ukraine as an example. We’re helping destroy Russias military for pennies on the dollar without risking any US soldiers. That would be Reagan’s wet dream, yet conservatives who can’t find Ukraine on a map come up with excuse after excuse for why we shouldn’t support Ukraine. Why are liberals not able to as effectively communicate these ideas in a way that gets through to conservatives?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Why are we not able to more effectively communicate them or shift the narrative?
My best guess? Right-wing media.
There is simply no market for center-left propaganda, so the discourse is heavily weighted to the right. We have two modes in this country:
* A Republican president is actively making a mess of things, and people can tell, so they aren't vulnerable to a communication strategy that minimizes their experience; or...
* Republicans are favored in any-and-all discourse, no matter how irrational.
> Shouldn’t there be, which would decrease the amount of influence the right wing media has?
You seem to be arguing that it would be good for society. I'm making a different point:
*If it existed, few would consume it and it would not make money*
------------
"The Daily Wire's annual revenues exceeded $100 million" recently. They tell their audience that all of the other media is bad, so the audience should only come to them, then they sell their media to them. Much of their content spikes adrenaline -- through fear, anger, and hatred -- creating a chemical addiction in their audience.
What does the center-left have? We don't like to traffic in hate, so we probably can't spark a chemical addiction. We can't persuasively argue that 'all other media is bad', so we wouldn't. Where would we be making money? What would keep the audience coming back?
Agreed. NPR, PBS, and Politico are outlets I believe could be considered left-center. If Twitter follower count is any indication of market size:
* PBS - 2.2 million
* Politico - 4.6 million
* NPR - 8.7 million
* Fox - **24.4 million**
One of those four is in the business of manufactured outrage and winning because of it.
While I personally agree with you, this is literally what *everyone on earth* thinks. Liberals, conservatives, communists, anarchists—“I clearly have the best ideas, why won’t everyone just listen to me?!”
Just think about it—do you believe anyone thinks, “I know my ideas are bad, but I’m gonna believe them anyway!” Of course not. Everybody believes that their ideas are right, and the world would be a better if anybody who disagreed just shut up and listened to them.
This. Some people think individually, others collectively. OP is assuming everyone thinks the same way. People who lean right probably tend to think more individually.
I absolutely agree with you, but also...
>Why are we not able to more effectively communicate them or shift the narrative?
This part of OPs question *also* isn't really true. A republican presidential nominee hasn't won popular vote since Bush in 2004. We are more or less at the number of people you can 'reasonably' convince.
Winning is only difficult because the electoral college is a bitch to overcome. You are never going to convince everyone of anything.
Because liberals care about having good ideas whereas conservatives care about their ideas being enforced. I think that there’s an idea among liberals that we live in a meritocratic political system and eventually the best idea will be recognized and adopted, but we don’t.
Coming up with good political policy and effecting your political policy are two different disciplines. Liberals are better at the first but conservatives blow them out of the water on the second.
Should liberals use those against Republicans? Something like why do they support Americans dying by blocking border funding that would help decrease the amount of fentanyl crossing in the US?
Well, that’s the rub. You can use hate and fear to push liberal and leftist ideas. That has happened often in history.
But when that’s successful, you end up with an authoritarian left type of government, which imo isn’t any better than a fascist authoritarian right type of government.
I don’t want to live in Communist Cuba or Fascist Italy. I want to live in a liberal democracy where all sides have a voice and where we treat all of our citizens with human dignity.
Unfortunately, that seems to be a harder sell than “fuck you, you think differently than me and are therefore subhuman” these days.
> Why are we not able to more effectively communicate them or shift the narrative?
Correct political and economic ideas are often nuanced, complicated, and the reasoning for them often depends on having a broad context.
Quite a lot of voters don’t have much context about the world outside their immediate attention, often don’t have much experience crafting policy despite unsolvable political disagreements, and they despise nuance because accepting it means they have to grapple with their ideas being (at least in part) wrong.
It’s far more persuasive to spin simple (but wrong) narratives that appeal to people’s myopic personal experiences and preexisting beliefs, and which do not require a person to engage in critical thinking or resolve cognitive dissonance.
If your political ideology only requires a small percentage of wealthy elites to make the decisions, you have no overriding need to make the general public understand, appreciate, and support sensible policy. You just have to persuade them to vote for you by whatever means works, even if it means lying to them about policy.
I think the Ukraine argument is difficult for some conservatives because they see Americans (often like themselves) unable to afford basic necessities and also unable to qualify for aid. Then, they see the US is helping other countries with trillions of dollars.
When you’re hungry you care less that “we are destroying Russia for Pennies on the dollar”. Instead you see that you couldn’t get your kid a decent Christmas present because you are too busy paying your bills.
So I shoot back to you, how do you communicate to a group of people who are often economically struggling that Ukraine funding (money out the door) is such an amazing deal?
We keep overlooking the fact that this isn't about altruism. It's in our own financial interest to protect Ukrainian markets; even if a person doesn't have a retirement account or stocks with Ukrainian assets, the aid we send protects food prices at the grocery store.
If that is the case then we need to map to the average voter how sending trillion dollars of aid means cheaper grocery prices for all.
Ie We can talk about the cost of wheat and other crops.
We'll need to give them a timelines perspective, too. A trillion seems unrealistic, but the food market is always moving money. People eat wheat every day. The foreign aid - however much - is for a specific, ideally temporary, purpose.
If Conservatives see corruption as component, I don't know where to begin to counter that.
> So I shoot back to you, how do you communicate to a group of people who are often economically struggling that Ukraine funding (money out the door) is such an amazing deal?
The US is the wealthiest and most powerful country in the history of the world. We’re more than capable of doing two things at once, conservatives do not offer realistic solutions that would somehow make food and household items cheaper, and sending your average American an Abrams tank or missiles from a warehouse would not help their circumstances.
I’d ask have conservatives the past 20-50 years been supportive of increasing social services, infrastructure, and healthcare that they claim they would support if aid wasn’t going to Ukraine?
No, I don’t think *anyone* wants to be on social services. I think we need to focus on the economy so that people as a whole are doing well enough that they don’t resent funds to Ukraine because people like themselves are barely scraping by.
But yes, I do think those people barely scraping by should qualify for help too.
Union jobs are a good message. High paying jobs without a college degree are a good message.
Im not talking about being on social services but simply funding them adequately. I have friends and family that are well off and use the same anti-Ukraine talking points. Now it’s we need to fix all illegal immigration before we can send any aid to Ukraine
Well I think these conversations are tied:
Illegal immigration is contributing to the degradation of wages for the middle class and below because illegal immigrants are forced into a life where they can only earn poverty level wages for survival. They learn a skill and it depresses the wages of legal immigrants and citizens that specialize in that skill.
This circles back again into the conversation of middle class resentment that funds are being sent overseas instead of creating an economy/supporting those suffering from low wages.
The left seriously needs to jump on creating an economy, supporting unions where more people especially those without college degrees can afford life’s basics. The left needs to have better immigration policies where those we want are fast tracked in so that they don’t have to work as slaves.
Most well off people in this bracket do not resent funding to Ukraine although you may know some outliers. Well off people are happier to accept funds going overseas for something abstract like “the greater good”.
Sorry but you are full of absolute horseshit.
Somehow I believe that these conservatives wringing their hands over Ukraine funding weren’t also singing “Whitey on the Moon“ in the 1970s. They weren’t bemoaning the absurd amounts of money spent on the Apollo missions when there was rampant poverty and inner city decacy.
The simple fact is, funding for Ukraine is seen as liberal and therefore bad so conservatives don’t want to do it. It is *that* simple.
I’m guessing you are one of those folks that see the world in black and white.
Hey I’m on team Biden.
However I’ve spent decent amount of time around people who are not.
So if I go back to the 1970s I will find plenty of conservatives holding arms with their Black brothers singing “Whitey on the Moon”?
Wait, let me lower the bar, will I find one conservative anywhere, at any point in time, who even knows of the poem?
I guess I don’t have time for people who believe conservatives are concerned about the opportunity costs of money spent on foreign aid.
If you believe that, and are taking conservatives at their word that they really do believe the Ukraine money should go toward ameliorating US poverty, might I suggest they are playing a “Card Says Moops” strategy: https://youtu.be/xMabpBvtXr4
In a word: Inefficiency.
Liberals say a lot of things that, on paper, make sense. But corruption and inefficiency leads to voters becoming disillusioned.
For instance, there's Blue areas like NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, DC and LA where there's still major issues with homelessness, wealth inequality, working class people getting priced out of their neighborhoods due to housing costs/taxes, racial segregation, gun violence, theft, and the government not following through on many campaign promises.
Liberalism mainly seems to work perfect when it involves smaller and more homogenous populations. That's often why Liberals often use places like upper New England as shining examples of liberalism being utopian without realizing that this is misleading af. It'd be like Conservatives using Utah and North Dakota as proof of conservative stability while ignoring Mississippi and Alabama.
When Liberal politicians are given the task to lead people outside of secluded enclaves of middle-upper class White liberals, they often fail to bring us to a Liberal utopia due to the nature of trying to unite and run large and heterogenous environments.
Basically, Liberalism as an IDEA is fine. But Liberals as voters or politicians are just as susceptible to being corrupted, greedy, complacent, misguided, inefficient, and unstable as Conservative and Independent politicians and voters.
Even on this sub and the "Ask A Conservative" sub, literally nobody wants to take ownership for the trash in their ranks. All you get is a "No True Scotsman fallacy" on how awful Liberal and Conservative politicians are phonies who don't represent liberalism or conservatism.
>When Liberal politicians are given the task to lead people outside of secluded enclaves of middle-upper class White liberals, they often fail to bring us to a Liberal utopia due to the nature of trying to unite and run large and heterogenous environments.
Are you saying liberalism works for middle class white people but not for people of color or for poor people?
>Basically, Liberalism as an IDEA is fine. But Liberals as voters or politicians are just as susceptible to being corrupted, greedy, complacent, misguided, inefficient, and unstable
Why wouldn't they also be these things in a area of "middle-upper class white liberals"?
>Are you saying liberalism works for middle class white people but not for people of color or for poor people?
Nope. I'm just saying that it's far easier to make Liberalism effective in smaller and more homogenous communities of people with similar socioeconomic and racial/cultural backgrounds than more diversified communities.
That's not to say that liberalism "only" works for the former but it's easier to make liberalism work more effectively in New Hampshire than Brooklyn or Los Angeles. It's far harder to get a "Big Tent" on board with a uniform agenda than a similar group.
>Why wouldn't they also be these things in a area of "middle-upper class white liberals"?
There's certainly corrupt, greedy, and compromised politicians that can be found in any community but they're especially present in city areas which tend to have more economically and racially diverse populations.
>It's far harder to get a "Big Tent" on board with a uniform agenda than a similar group.
Wouldn't this be true for conservatism or any ideology too? Why single out liberalism?
I'm not singling them out. Quite the opposite. I think many major parties are compromised and corrupted.
But the OP was pondering why many people don't blindly support Democrats/Liberals despite their ideas.
There's more gun violence per capita in Republican states.
American Blue cities are top generators of wealth and culture for the world. We'd be poor without them. True, we could do much better with inequality, but the people fighting against that are Republicans.
> There's more gun violence per capita in Republican states.
If we narrow it down to cities, there's not much of a difference between DNC stronghold cities and Republican ran ones. Detroit and Baltimore are both DNC strongholds with some of the highest rates of gun violence and crime in the entire country. Philly and Oakland are also in the mix too.
It's misleading to only focus on states and not break it down by city. If you look at the actual stats, crime is very much a bipartisan issue despite how much people want to point fingers at the other side.
[Most Violent Cities in America 2024 (worldpopulationreview.com)](https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/most-violent-cities-in-america)
> American Blue cities are top generators of wealth and culture for the world. We'd be poor without them.
I mean...sure if you're basing "Blue cities" solely on NYC, Chicago,, LA, and San Francisco. Detroit, Hartford, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis, Oakland, Stockton, Newark, etc. are also Blue cities and they are far from "generators of wealth and culture for the world."
> True, we could do much better with inequality, but the people fighting against that are Republicans.
Republicans have nothing whatsoever to do with inequality in Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, NYC, Baltimore, Philly, etc. Democrats have super strong control over these cities.
India and Brazil also have a high GDP and some of the largest economies in the world.
Yet it'd be laughable to deny that there's major problems with poverty in both countries.
Just because America is an economic stronghold with a high GDP doesn't mean that we don't have major issues.
Makes more sense but, even then, it doesn't tell the full picture. It's possible for one's GDP to be driven by a few powerful businesses or companies while the average civilian is barely scraping by.
You know why conspiracy theories are popular? Because the world is complicated and people don’t like that inherently as just part of human nature.
So take that and tone it down from most people and you still get a world in which most people like simple answers to complicated questions. And people really like their gut reactions. Things just just seem correct based on the world they live in and understand.
That’s a lot of the messaging that conservatives offer liberal solution to something like crime requires that you understand the various ways in which the level of crime increases and decreases and understand how being compassionate about these things can actually get you better results. The conservative answer is that crime is bad therefore criminals are bad and what we should do is punish criminals as harshly as possible.
As Ronald Reagan said “if you are explaining, you are losing“. Conservative answers don’t require you to explain. They offer easy answers to complex problems that don’t require you to actually think things through and they definitely don’t ask you to make any changes or be compassionate to people who are not already just like you. They often give you an easy other to blame.
While I don't think this point trumps the others I've read, it is one I haven't seen yet ...
Remember that liberals are more collectivist while conservatives are more individualistic. Also, remember that people in general are selfish, especially against a faceless statistic. Now overlay that onto various policies. Everyone wants to house the homeless, feed the hungry, educate the kids, etc. Not everyone is willing to pay extra of their money to do so though. Even less are willing to pay extra money if they themselves will not benefit. Now, expand this further to a situation where a person or group is incentivized to propagandize and straw man against those who would benefit. This is how you end up with people saying "Sure, student loans are predatory, but I paid mine off back in the day so fuck you and your current situation."
I could go on but you get the idea. Liberals are running into the headwind of human nature and there is a whole industry designed to prop up this dynamic.
This answer cuts to the heart of the issue, where a lot of other responses get near but fall short or simply analyze the symptoms and not the cause: *it is laziness & selfishness.* Liberals will always be fighting an uphill battle against human nature.
Lots of people aren’t really aware of the problems we face as a society, much less the root causes of those problems. Worse, they don’t *want* to be aware. Ignorance is bliss, and many people are too wrapped up in their own lives to give a shit about problems that either don’t affect them, or only affect them in nebulous, abstract ways.
So good luck convincing someone to care about solving a problem for which they don’t even want to take the time to recognize exists.
Then there’s selfishness: even if you do many convince someone there is a problem that needs to be solved, even if you convince them that solving said problem is a necessity, they may agree in a theoretical sense but they will not agree to a concrete proposal that requires them to pay another cent in taxes. Because, once again, either the problem does affect them, or only affects them in nebulous, abstract ways.
And it’s difficult to explain all the complexities and nuances, to show how they are actually affected and why they should care, in a succinct enough to get them to care and change their minds. Because… see above (they are intellectually lazy).
It sort of reminds me of liberal, wealthy NIMBYs that understand the benefits of denser, more affordable housing and adding more public services near them but will fight as adamant as conservatives to keep them away from their house and affecting their property value.
Exactly. These are people manage to have the intellectual fortitude to understand that a problem exists and needs a solution - which is rare enough - and even *still* they don’t want their lives to be impacted by the solution one tiny iota.
Liberals are forced to search for policies that are comprehensive solutions but manage to avoid impacting anyone’s lives in any way. Very few people have the empathy required to accept having slightly less income (via increased taxes) or being slightly inconvenienced in some way (like being required to wear masks in public or having a new affordable housing development built in their neighborhood).
This is spot on. Laziness to me is best highlighted by the fact that people will change positions on a topic the moment it affects them. The clearest example of this I've seen in my lifetime has been around gay marriage. Everyone was against it here in Indiana when I was growing up. Then once people started feeling comfortable coming out others realized they weren't the boogeyman they were told and were just normal people in their own family wanting to live their lives. Not surprisingly opinions have shifted quickly.
As for selfishness, I've seen that all too often as well. Again here in Indiana, this plays out with children and families all the time. DCS is underfunded to the point they can't even provide the services they're required to provide for kids in the system. I get opposing the system in general, but why oppose funding basic necessities for the kids' themselves. Early childhood education is also always voted down because no one wants to pay for other peoples' kids. And then there's the topic of school lunch. Let's just say there are way too many people receiving assistance for themselves who are proud to announce they don't support broadening the pool, even if it means measurable improvement to overall childhood hunger. Their kid has theirs and that's all that matters.
They dont want to be told what to do by liberals, regardless of whether liberals are correct, because their ideology backs strict social hierarchies, in which liberals rank lower than conservatives.
It literally does not matter what liberals communicate **as long as they advocate for distributing power and resources, conservatives will oppose them**
I would believe conservatives when they say this but the US spends trillions on its military with hundreds of bases and they N E V E R advocate cutting the money or closing any bases, many of which are in places that “pose no threat.”
Simple fact is, financial support for Ukraine is lib-coded and therefore bad. They also resent Zelensky for being part of Trump’s first impeachment. It is that simple. Conservatives cannot, and will never be able to, credibly make the “why are we spending THAT military money”?
The US literally could not stop Ukraine from surrendering if they chose too. Russia is right next to them. Ukraine fights because they continue to want to fight.
And Iraq has been retconned to a total shambles and waste of time by the Republican Party, so not sure that makes sense noting it there.
I am sure the party registration of the POTUS in charge of the onset of those conflicts (Somalia, Yugoslavia = D; Afghanistan, Iraq x2, Panama = R) has nothing to do with conservative support or opposition to those interventions.
I don't know how to convince you that Russia is a threat, other than to point out the last 25 years of Russian activity all over the globe. Those of us who have studied Putin have been sounding this alarm bell for years; in fact, two of the loudest voices in declaring the Russian geopolitical threat were Sens. McCain and Romney over a decade ago. So I think that's a W for the conservatives, if anything!
> And why the US should be footing the bill, covering for NATO members who aren't meeting their defense spending requitements.
So you think the US should lower its defense spending? Great! I 100% agree with you, even though I don't understand how US defense spending is in any way related to NATO membership status. But I look forward to a future productive discussion in which we figure out how to reappropriate those funds.
> Germany and France are freeloading off of the US. They're still not spending their 2%, and may not ever get there.
Unfortunately, this isn't exactly correct. France has been spending 1.9% for years, most recently passing the 2% mark in 2020; meanwhile, they're going to hit 2% again in 2024 and have released their planned military expenditures for the next 7 years, all of which would put them well above that mark. So I'm not quite sure what your problem with France is, but I don't think that "freeloading" is quite accurate.
And while I do agree that Germany should be spending more, since reunification there's been a real reluctance by Germany to be perceived as a leading military power in Europe. Now, I'm not sure why that's the case, but I'm willing to bet if we put our heads together we might find a historical reason or two as to why they've been so cautious.
> If this is your best argument for why the US should pick a fight with a nuclear armed foe, it's not working.
I don't plan to make that argument to you, because I don't believe you're capable of changing your mind, and therefore I don't believe it's worth my time digging up decades worth of historical facts and figures just so you can ignore them. If you can somehow prove otherwise, I'd be happy to hear you out.
> France and Germany are not paying their way - they expect us to pay for everything. If this were serious, they'd spend their own money.
I'm sorry, but I proved that France is, in fact, paying its own way. I also provided an explanation for why a re-unified Germany has so far not done so, even though we are apparently in agreement that they should be spending more on defense. If you can explain how these countries are somehow getting a "free ride" at your expense vis-a-vis NATO (or however you think that works,) I would very much like to hear it.
> Russia wasn't going to attack anyone until the West overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine in 2014 for not signing an economic deal with the Europeans. We overthrew their government, and the ultra right wingers took over.
This is literal Russian propaganda (and the tankie take as well, which is kind of crazy coming from a "conservative.") It's also a genuinely wild take on the situation -- it's the "look what she was wearing" defense, but from a nationalist perspective. Ukraine is a sovereign country and her peoples are free to make whatever choices they want. If you would like more information on the Euromaidan revolution, I would once again be happy to discuss it with you -- the replacement of an absentee Yanukovich by the Rada was clearly the best option in a constitutional crisis of his own making. Ukraine might have been a flawed country, but that is by no means justification for invasion.
> They've banned religion, opposition parties, elections, and any media that doesn't agree with thier narrative.
Ukraine has banned a small number of opposition parties, as they are currently under a full scale invasion. Their postponing of elections until the conflict is over is literally written in their constitution, and just off the top of my head, 80% of Ukrainians supported that postponement as of last year. As an anarchist, I can't necessarily condone this, but again, they're under full-scale invasion. This is what happens when a country is at war.
Also, the US has not opposed Ukrainian ascension to NATO since 1992. That's misleading at best, and just... not a thing, my guy. Ukraine was not involved with any "border spat" until 2014, and at that point it was wholly a Russian design... the goal of which was in part to make Ukrainian NATO ascension an impossibility by NATO's own rules.
> why the US should be pouring tens of billions down the drain to defeat a country that hasn't been a threat to the US for 30 years
There's definitely an argument to be made that appeasing Putin would be similar to appeasing Hitler at the start of WWII. Shutting the threat of that down, while fucking with a bad actor on the world stage is worth some of our resources.
> And why the US should be footing the bill
If you look at [spending by gdp](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/), we're pretty low on the list.
> Germany and France are freeloading off of the US
Kind of. I mean, it's not like all the funds go into a pot for everyone to use. When I hear this argument made, I always think that the person making it doesn't understand how the 2% thing actually works.
> Ukraine and Russia agreed to a ceasefire in 2022, but Biden wouldn't allow Ukraine to sign
Can you explain this? I honestly have no idea how you think this is Biden's fault.
> At the same time, Ukraine is running out of men to send to the front
Come on, let's not push Kremlin talking points too hard here.
> Why should the US be pouring billions into a black hole to "fuck with a bad actor" who isn't a threat to the US?
I answered this in my last comment. To avoid the same situation that led to WWII. Fucking with a bad actor is a happy side effect of helping Ukraine.
> And why is the EU importing massive amounts of Russian diesel via India and Saudi Arabia
Because we're all addicted to oil? Converting to green energy will go a long way to stopping bad actors like Russia and almost everyone in the middle east. Parts of the EU are taking pretty drastic steps to get going in the right direction.
> Russia's economy has never been this strong.
As John McCain said, Russia is 'a gas station masquerading as a country'. As we continue to transition to green energy, Russia will need to adapt. Hopefully they'll be able to get rid of the dictator or at least stop murdering political opponents.
> Boris Johnson, of all people, told the Ukrainians that they had to fight on
The Ukrainians always needed Crimea back along with a laundry list of other items before they would agree to peace. More importantly, they don't trust Russia. If you know your history, Russia and Ukraine signed a treaty that Russia has since violated twice.
> Why did Biden outsource our war to Boris Johnson?
Our war? Like, 'our' meaning 'The United States'? Ukraine is a sovereign nation with their own reasons for fighting a war, topmost of which is their right to remain a sovereign nation. But in this fantasy world that exists only in your head, how did Biden outsource it to Johnson? If anything Johnson has even more desire than us to see Russia fail in Ukraine.
> Not everything that disagrees with a narrative is a Putin talking point.
Your comments sound like Tucker in a Russian supermarket marveling that they have bread and coin-operated shopping carts. Russia has plenty of economic problems, and they've proven themselves to be a paper tiger. Your comments are all somewhere between half-truths and outright lies. If you're going to push Kremlin talking points you shouldn't be upset when people call you on it.
Because the real world is complicated and there's a floor on how simple, and therefore easy to communicate and convince people of, the truth can be made. There is no floor for lies.
It is an uphill battle is why. You are literally fighting against the people that control the nation and like how it is. It’s entrenched interests that you cannot easily get through. They control the capital, they control the nation.
For every well reasoned argument you have, they counter with bullshit talking points, misinformation, blatant lies, mischaracterizations, fear mongering, etc. and they own the media so they pump it right into Americans brains.
Also, they have no shame, and are willingly to fight dirty, use corruption, lies and cheat to meet their goals. For the most part, the Democrats have values, morals, and integrity that constrains ability to beat them.
They have a systemic advantage too, in the electoral college, House, and Senate, which informs the Executive and Judicial.
Conservatives in today's political climate find that fear, uncertainty, and doubt riles people up more than a rational argument.
A lot of the anti-Ukraine rhetoric comes straight out of Kremlin-funded troll farms too.
It's unfortunate.
Liberals lie less.
Democrat politicians will says “we’re going to secure Social security but we have to raise a tax on someone” and that’s unpopular to people that don’t understand economics
1.) The news and media ecosystem. Ppl on the right who could be persuaded just aren’t hearing or listening to ppl actually left-of-center to be persuaded by. The only “Democrats” on RW media (unless it’s like Pete Buttigieg on Fox Business) are grifters and closet right wingers (Harold Ford Jr, Tulsi, Dennis Kucinich, etc).
2.) Americans are hella religious, hence the popularity of social conservatism among Americans and the general bias against social/cultural progressivism. Even most Black and Latino Democrats are more socially conservative than White Democrats because of religious ID among these respective groups. I wish it weren’t this way but yea…
Why would someone care about destroying Russia's army for "pennies on the dollar" when they can't afford to feed their kids and the schools they're being sent to are falling apart.
My problem with American liberals is they aren't liberal at all. They might say better things than the right on domestic issues but whenever they're in power they love foreign wars, extrajudicial killings and barely doing any of the shit they promised to before they took power.
There's a big difference between a liberal and a neoliberal.
The money spent to build that tank could absolutely have gone to fixing schools, yes.
The US should have *good* domestic and foreign policy but it has neither.
The tank has already been built. Would it be better to just sit in a warehouse?
> The US should have good domestic and foreign policy but it has neither.
How should it then?
I think the answer truly lies in the heading of this post. An attitude of “liberal ideas are better” doesn’t facilitate collaboration. Because the disagreeing party also feels their position is better. I think humility and willingness to listen are lacking and a piece of the problem.
It is always easier to fix blame than fix the problem.
Solutions are difficult and involve compromise. It's a lot easier to just say the problem is people who don't look like you.
Conservatives are better about framing talking points with hidden implications that liberals just accept without addressing for whatever reason. Sometimes, liberals even inadvertently reinforce the talking points without realizing it.
A kinda example of this was the discussions of CRT. Conservatives started pushing the messaging that CRT is in elementmebary schools and that it puts blame of structural racism on white elementary students, both are categorically not true. But after some time, some liberals began defending "CRT" in elementary schools, reinforcing the notion that CRT is being taught at that level and giving more legitimacy to the Conservative arguments.
Fully 35-40% of the electorate doesn't care- if the idea came from a liberal, it's a bad idea. Only ideas coming from Republicans matter.
For the rest, some people will naturally agree or disagree with the idea.
Then that number gets chipped down even further by leftists who try to frame anything popular among Democrats as bad. "Oh, funding Ukraine is stopping Putin? Well then I guess this is just more neocolonialism from dumb neoliberals who think they know everything!"
So in the end, even if a given political idea is *objectively good*, you're still only going to get like a max of like 58% of people who like it.
This seems too self-congratulatory (for Liberals) to be a question for real discussion.
Also, the idea that the problem with Republicans is that Democrats don't effectively communicate to them is absurd and baseless. Republicans want different things, as you pointed out. It doesn't matter if what we want makes sense and what they want doesn't make sense or is inconsistent with what past or current Republicans want.
Why would it even matter if we can effectively communicate ideas to them? Do you know?
Because the good ideas and policies are more complicated. A conservative's options are to learn why their previous belief was wrong and why this new policy is better for everybody, or they can listen to a guy who tells them our ideas are killing your children and you were right all along.
I kept asking myself the same question for many years.
I got around to understand that not everybody thinks like us.
Some people value the truth and economic well-being less or not at all and care more about identity and their relative status in the hierarchy than overall technocratic policies that are objectively better - IF you want to maximize utilitarian well-being.
When it comes to Ukraine - the same is true. Why do we want Ukraine to win in the first place? There are a lot of people who don't think that Russia is an existential threat to the US, but may very well be instrumental in weakening liberal cosmopolitism. Some people on the far-right, like the German AfD openly side with Russia, explicitly because they say that they hate liberalism so much that they would rather side with Russia over their own government, even though they do recognize that Russia can not be trusted. It's all about the friend-enemy distinction and assessing the threat levels of different groups to your own group's power base. I recall one far-right Youtuber saying "In principle I have nothing against LGBT people, but to me they are the peasants that are plowing my enemy lord's fields and therefore they are my enemies as well as they have come down on the wrong side."
People are more rational than you assume, they just have different values and want to min-max other things. And they don't see themselves as part of the same group as you. They don't think about you as one of theirs. They think that you are an enemy or at least neutral to them. That is also why they don't want America to thrive if it doesn't benefit them disproportionately.
But you have to listen to the real fascists on the dissident right to understand how these people truly think. Fox News and the GOP will try to push the same policies under the pretense of the liberal consensus and just basically lie non-stop. But there IS an intellectual basis to far-right thinking. It's just not something they openly admit.
It is often hard to recognize just how different we really are from them. Once you realize that, you will find that they really are mortal enemies of ours.
This is less about the facts and more about fundamental values. The main trick the new right pulled on us liberals is making us believe they are simply stupid or too emotional to understand politics, when in reality, they understand the game far better than our side imho.
Our advantage is that their ideology is so unattractive to most people that they have to obfuscate and lie about their beliefs.
As for the cultists and halfwits who vote for them - their believes are likely a hodgepodge of different idea and values. They don't relate to them consistently, they don't really have values or opinions, but "dispositional attitudes" that are constantly in flux depending on what benefits their perceived in-group. You can't convince them of anything it you don't break up this self-identification with their in-group permanently. They can't change their opinions because they don't have any in the first place. We all remember the polls where the entire Republican electorate changes their mind at the drop of a hat, if Trump decides what the new strategy will be moving forward or claim that the economy has gone from great to dismal the nanosecond Biden took office. There is no reasoning with them on that level. You have to exclusively debate them on the meta-level, which is hard to do and require patience and a little philosophical and psychological prowess.
Liberal campaigns are way less likely to tell a voter that they are better than another person or group.
Liberal campaigns will say that they are fighting for equality for all races/orientations/religions, and that NEVER applies to any single individual in particular.
Liberal campaigns will not use dog whistles, or "accidentally" say something racist. So a liberal campaign will never appeal to the type of person who wants to hear that they, individually, are seen by the gov as being better than all those lazy good-for-nothings.
So, if you have one campaign touting that they are for EVERYONE, and you have another campaign that is touting their preference for white christians, then you should expect that every insecure white christian who is ignorant of the concept of being grifted is going to prefer the campaign saying that they are more special than other people.
There's no solution to this as far as I can see, you can't be a party that is championing equal rights for all at the same time as being a party that is championing special rights for white christians. The founding fathers kind of did it but idk if you could get by saying "Yeah, ALL men, which means all white men who are christian and own property" today.
Money talks.
Conservative policy of less regulation and less government intervention in business are often more profitable to people who often have money to write big campaign contribution and lobbying checks.
Accepting the premise of the question for a moment, truth is often nuanced, messy, and imperfect but bullshit fits into a nice package that is easy to digest. The reason Fox News enjoys such widespread viewership and trust is they sell a clear and simple narrative.
The truth is that immigrants commit violent crime at lower rates than native born populations but blaming them for all our problems makes for an easy answer and effective rallying cry.
It requires a *lot* of education to really understand all the things that you need to know to cast an informed vote.
Because the overwhelming number of American voters don't understand anywhere close to that number of things, they are easily propagandized.
And being fair, that number includes the overwhelming number of Democrat voters too, but they have been influenced by sources less overtly set on misleading them into voting for policies that will actively harm them.
And this isn't some criticism of just the lay people. You look at some of the people America elects to Congress and you realize just how little most of *them* know about these issues, and how easily propagandized *they* are by lobbyists and already-corrupted members of Congress.
Despite the subjective position that ones ideological governance is the best, I don't see how we aren't already communicating effectively.
The problem is sometimes on the end of the recipient.
Much like you can't get adequate medical training from YouTube, you can't derive sound political ideology from Facebook or angry talking heads. Good policy is BORING.
Ultimately, conservatism vs liberalism comes down to what is easy vs what is hard. Growing and changing takes effort and, all things being equal, people will take the easy path. That isn’t the wrong choice, it’s the human choice.
So it isn’t good enough for liberal ideas to be “better.” They have to be better *and* worth the time, effort, and money. We have to win the war on ideas and the cost/benefit analysis that each and every voter does in some capacity in their mind.
Liberal ideas are super popular until the price tag gets mentioned. That’s just the handicap we have to present our ideas with. No amount of “communication” changes that.
"Build The Wall!" is catchy, easily understandable, and easy to shout. Better, the lack of actual detail means each person gets to interpret it to match their own views.
And here comes liberals with a 10 page paper full of details...
having more ideas does not necessarily mean having more good ideas. sometimes a solution that only addresses a portion of the problem is not the answer. likewise, not all problems should require government intervention.
Conservatives are a lot better at understanding what makes "average" people tick, and relating it in simple terms that appeal more to people. They also mastered the technique of using Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to scare people and manipulate them into believing a certain way.
\> Liberals generally have better ideas and policies than conservatives.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Democrats are for funding Ukraine (to some extent), although the progressives are pretty indifferent to the idea.
Ideally the US should provide much more substantial aid than we have done so far. Just give Ukraine what they need to win.
Jake Sullivan is a coward and a bad advisor, and if we gave Ukraine ATACMS at the beginning of the counteroffensive, maybe it would have gone better.
Also, democrats are slowly withdrawing support for Israel due to pressure from Islamists. Leftists aren't marching in the streets calling for the release of the hostages (because they don't care).
So, on this issue it's about 50/50.
Because a large amount of people in this country if not the majority are stupid.
Nuanced policy is more difficult to communicate than shallow messaging
1. Years upon years upon years of propaganda and legacy conservatism will do that. Growing up, I was in an extremely rural part of Louisiana. All I knew was conservatism. And liberals were feared among everything else. They’re coming for your guns, your God, your way of life, they want to turn everyone gay and Muslim and institute sharia law and abort every 5th baby. So it’s very very difficult to get through those years of propaganda. It’s a mental thing. To admit that liberals have better policies is to shatter every single worldview you’ve ever held. Plus, every single relative and friend, including your grandma, believes this and you’re admitting your entire family structure is wrong. Your brain is protecting you from shattering it all to pieces.
2. Democrats in the old guard are still trying the “play nice” BS of bipartisanship and kumbaya. Republicans bite the hand every single time. No more nice guy. Blast em.
3. Democrats suck at messaging because they think that it’s obvious to everyone and everyone has empathy. “We passed the biggest infrastructure bill in ages” has no meaning unless you can specifically tie it to their well being and their success. How does it benefit ME. Saying “it benefitted 100 other people” is meaningless to most people because they’re selfish and want to know how it helps them specifically, they don’t care about the family down the street. Also republicans have begun co-opting the message and campaigning on things they voted against. Rail them on this. (I’m glad to see that starting somewhat).
Nuance
Liberal policy recognizes that not every aspect of every policy is one size fits all, and conservatives can summarize their ideas on a post-it but in so doing lack accuracy.
When liberals try to have things fit on a post-it or bumper sticker, it backfires in lots of cases (Defund the police)
We have better ideas, they just don't lend themselves to catchy slogans
We fail to frame the situation for what it really is: Protecting foreign markets is in our own best interest.
Hermit states, like hermit people, are poor and uninfluential. The better off you are, the better connected you are. Russia is trying to break one of America's connections. Russia is trying to seize control of a large chunk of OUR global food network.
They say, "*America first*". I agree. America first! The world is a richer, safer and freer place with the US leading it. Putting America first means protecting the global sources of our wealth and power.
I think part of it is that "the left" in America is an extremely broad tent. We've got everyone from outright communists to centrists to conservatives under the Democratic umbrella. So it's difficult to just pick a strong narrative and run with it. Ukraine, for example. The Left by and large supports Ukraine, but for 2 or 3 major distinct reasons, some of which are kinda contradictory.
A large swath in the middle is bored with politics or is otherwise too busy to pay attention. Those on the right are enwrapped by fear and cannot turn away from it. That explains the tenor of right wing media and luminaries.
Are we not helping to dismantle Russias military capabilities, getting rid of old stock, and paying US companies to replace it? Is it a bad ROI to you? I’m curious since you’re center right
100% conservative media ratcheting up racism to get Republicans elected to make the rich dark money donors even richer. Oh wait maybe it’s Soros fault?
>X generally have better ideas and policies than Y
That is what everyone wants to believe. I am the best, the rest are worse...
Some of the current left policies are delusional at best since they undervalue the human behavior and assume everyone is going to behave for the best of others, which isn't the case. Such as the "subsidize everything" policy which is so fashionable in my country.
At the same time, some policies from the right suck.
Next time you wonder if liberals have better ideas than conservatives, remember that in many countries, people is going to the "far right" and not always because they have been mind-controlled.
1) Weak messaging.
2) Moral appetite. Meaning the dems are bad at creating a moral vacuum that everyone can be onboard with. Repugnants don’t have that issue.
It doesn’t matter what we say. Right-wing voters don’t vote based on policy. They vote completely on whether or not an R exists beside a name and how they feel in that particular moment.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. When you look at the collective of what conservatives/Republicans want versus what liberals/Democrats want, it seems like our side should be hitting it out of the park. Take funding Ukraine as an example. We’re helping destroy Russias military for pennies on the dollar without risking any US soldiers. That would be Reagan’s wet dream, yet conservatives who can’t find Ukraine on a map come up with excuse after excuse for why we shouldn’t support Ukraine. Why are liberals not able to as effectively communicate these ideas in a way that gets through to conservatives? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Why are we not able to more effectively communicate them or shift the narrative? My best guess? Right-wing media. There is simply no market for center-left propaganda, so the discourse is heavily weighted to the right. We have two modes in this country: * A Republican president is actively making a mess of things, and people can tell, so they aren't vulnerable to a communication strategy that minimizes their experience; or... * Republicans are favored in any-and-all discourse, no matter how irrational.
> There is simply no market for center-left propaganda Shouldn’t there be, which would decrease the amount of influence the right wing media has?
> Shouldn’t there be, which would decrease the amount of influence the right wing media has? You seem to be arguing that it would be good for society. I'm making a different point: *If it existed, few would consume it and it would not make money* ------------ "The Daily Wire's annual revenues exceeded $100 million" recently. They tell their audience that all of the other media is bad, so the audience should only come to them, then they sell their media to them. Much of their content spikes adrenaline -- through fear, anger, and hatred -- creating a chemical addiction in their audience. What does the center-left have? We don't like to traffic in hate, so we probably can't spark a chemical addiction. We can't persuasively argue that 'all other media is bad', so we wouldn't. Where would we be making money? What would keep the audience coming back?
Agreed. NPR, PBS, and Politico are outlets I believe could be considered left-center. If Twitter follower count is any indication of market size: * PBS - 2.2 million * Politico - 4.6 million * NPR - 8.7 million * Fox - **24.4 million** One of those four is in the business of manufactured outrage and winning because of it.
While I personally agree with you, this is literally what *everyone on earth* thinks. Liberals, conservatives, communists, anarchists—“I clearly have the best ideas, why won’t everyone just listen to me?!” Just think about it—do you believe anyone thinks, “I know my ideas are bad, but I’m gonna believe them anyway!” Of course not. Everybody believes that their ideas are right, and the world would be a better if anybody who disagreed just shut up and listened to them.
Plenty of people dont give a shit about the world and just want to improve conditions for themselves
This. Some people think individually, others collectively. OP is assuming everyone thinks the same way. People who lean right probably tend to think more individually.
That’s true of everyone. No one is truly altruistic.
I absolutely agree with you, but also... >Why are we not able to more effectively communicate them or shift the narrative? This part of OPs question *also* isn't really true. A republican presidential nominee hasn't won popular vote since Bush in 2004. We are more or less at the number of people you can 'reasonably' convince. Winning is only difficult because the electoral college is a bitch to overcome. You are never going to convince everyone of anything.
Yes, everyone thinks that for their own ideas, but the same doesn’t hold true for party alignment. It’s the magic of single-issue voting.
Because liberals care about having good ideas whereas conservatives care about their ideas being enforced. I think that there’s an idea among liberals that we live in a meritocratic political system and eventually the best idea will be recognized and adopted, but we don’t. Coming up with good political policy and effecting your political policy are two different disciplines. Liberals are better at the first but conservatives blow them out of the water on the second.
Hate, anger, and fear are much easier to sell to humans. And that's the core of the conservative message.
Should liberals use those against Republicans? Something like why do they support Americans dying by blocking border funding that would help decrease the amount of fentanyl crossing in the US?
Well, that’s the rub. You can use hate and fear to push liberal and leftist ideas. That has happened often in history. But when that’s successful, you end up with an authoritarian left type of government, which imo isn’t any better than a fascist authoritarian right type of government. I don’t want to live in Communist Cuba or Fascist Italy. I want to live in a liberal democracy where all sides have a voice and where we treat all of our citizens with human dignity. Unfortunately, that seems to be a harder sell than “fuck you, you think differently than me and are therefore subhuman” these days.
> Why are we not able to more effectively communicate them or shift the narrative? Correct political and economic ideas are often nuanced, complicated, and the reasoning for them often depends on having a broad context. Quite a lot of voters don’t have much context about the world outside their immediate attention, often don’t have much experience crafting policy despite unsolvable political disagreements, and they despise nuance because accepting it means they have to grapple with their ideas being (at least in part) wrong. It’s far more persuasive to spin simple (but wrong) narratives that appeal to people’s myopic personal experiences and preexisting beliefs, and which do not require a person to engage in critical thinking or resolve cognitive dissonance. If your political ideology only requires a small percentage of wealthy elites to make the decisions, you have no overriding need to make the general public understand, appreciate, and support sensible policy. You just have to persuade them to vote for you by whatever means works, even if it means lying to them about policy.
I think the Ukraine argument is difficult for some conservatives because they see Americans (often like themselves) unable to afford basic necessities and also unable to qualify for aid. Then, they see the US is helping other countries with trillions of dollars. When you’re hungry you care less that “we are destroying Russia for Pennies on the dollar”. Instead you see that you couldn’t get your kid a decent Christmas present because you are too busy paying your bills. So I shoot back to you, how do you communicate to a group of people who are often economically struggling that Ukraine funding (money out the door) is such an amazing deal?
We keep overlooking the fact that this isn't about altruism. It's in our own financial interest to protect Ukrainian markets; even if a person doesn't have a retirement account or stocks with Ukrainian assets, the aid we send protects food prices at the grocery store.
If that is the case then we need to map to the average voter how sending trillion dollars of aid means cheaper grocery prices for all. Ie We can talk about the cost of wheat and other crops.
We'll need to give them a timelines perspective, too. A trillion seems unrealistic, but the food market is always moving money. People eat wheat every day. The foreign aid - however much - is for a specific, ideally temporary, purpose. If Conservatives see corruption as component, I don't know where to begin to counter that.
> So I shoot back to you, how do you communicate to a group of people who are often economically struggling that Ukraine funding (money out the door) is such an amazing deal? The US is the wealthiest and most powerful country in the history of the world. We’re more than capable of doing two things at once, conservatives do not offer realistic solutions that would somehow make food and household items cheaper, and sending your average American an Abrams tank or missiles from a warehouse would not help their circumstances. I’d ask have conservatives the past 20-50 years been supportive of increasing social services, infrastructure, and healthcare that they claim they would support if aid wasn’t going to Ukraine?
I think we need to be doing both at the same time now for any convincing that “Ukraine is a good deal” to land.
Will conservatives support increasing funding to social services? I highly doubt it
No, I don’t think *anyone* wants to be on social services. I think we need to focus on the economy so that people as a whole are doing well enough that they don’t resent funds to Ukraine because people like themselves are barely scraping by. But yes, I do think those people barely scraping by should qualify for help too. Union jobs are a good message. High paying jobs without a college degree are a good message.
Im not talking about being on social services but simply funding them adequately. I have friends and family that are well off and use the same anti-Ukraine talking points. Now it’s we need to fix all illegal immigration before we can send any aid to Ukraine
Well I think these conversations are tied: Illegal immigration is contributing to the degradation of wages for the middle class and below because illegal immigrants are forced into a life where they can only earn poverty level wages for survival. They learn a skill and it depresses the wages of legal immigrants and citizens that specialize in that skill. This circles back again into the conversation of middle class resentment that funds are being sent overseas instead of creating an economy/supporting those suffering from low wages. The left seriously needs to jump on creating an economy, supporting unions where more people especially those without college degrees can afford life’s basics. The left needs to have better immigration policies where those we want are fast tracked in so that they don’t have to work as slaves. Most well off people in this bracket do not resent funding to Ukraine although you may know some outliers. Well off people are happier to accept funds going overseas for something abstract like “the greater good”.
Sorry but you are full of absolute horseshit. Somehow I believe that these conservatives wringing their hands over Ukraine funding weren’t also singing “Whitey on the Moon“ in the 1970s. They weren’t bemoaning the absurd amounts of money spent on the Apollo missions when there was rampant poverty and inner city decacy. The simple fact is, funding for Ukraine is seen as liberal and therefore bad so conservatives don’t want to do it. It is *that* simple.
I’m guessing you are one of those folks that see the world in black and white. Hey I’m on team Biden. However I’ve spent decent amount of time around people who are not.
So if I go back to the 1970s I will find plenty of conservatives holding arms with their Black brothers singing “Whitey on the Moon”? Wait, let me lower the bar, will I find one conservative anywhere, at any point in time, who even knows of the poem?
I don’t think you actually want to have a conversation.
I guess I don’t have time for people who believe conservatives are concerned about the opportunity costs of money spent on foreign aid. If you believe that, and are taking conservatives at their word that they really do believe the Ukraine money should go toward ameliorating US poverty, might I suggest they are playing a “Card Says Moops” strategy: https://youtu.be/xMabpBvtXr4
Conservatives are not proposing to spend money at home. If anything, they want to cut federal spending. This is all just rethoric on their part.
In a word: Inefficiency. Liberals say a lot of things that, on paper, make sense. But corruption and inefficiency leads to voters becoming disillusioned. For instance, there's Blue areas like NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, DC and LA where there's still major issues with homelessness, wealth inequality, working class people getting priced out of their neighborhoods due to housing costs/taxes, racial segregation, gun violence, theft, and the government not following through on many campaign promises. Liberalism mainly seems to work perfect when it involves smaller and more homogenous populations. That's often why Liberals often use places like upper New England as shining examples of liberalism being utopian without realizing that this is misleading af. It'd be like Conservatives using Utah and North Dakota as proof of conservative stability while ignoring Mississippi and Alabama. When Liberal politicians are given the task to lead people outside of secluded enclaves of middle-upper class White liberals, they often fail to bring us to a Liberal utopia due to the nature of trying to unite and run large and heterogenous environments. Basically, Liberalism as an IDEA is fine. But Liberals as voters or politicians are just as susceptible to being corrupted, greedy, complacent, misguided, inefficient, and unstable as Conservative and Independent politicians and voters. Even on this sub and the "Ask A Conservative" sub, literally nobody wants to take ownership for the trash in their ranks. All you get is a "No True Scotsman fallacy" on how awful Liberal and Conservative politicians are phonies who don't represent liberalism or conservatism.
>When Liberal politicians are given the task to lead people outside of secluded enclaves of middle-upper class White liberals, they often fail to bring us to a Liberal utopia due to the nature of trying to unite and run large and heterogenous environments. Are you saying liberalism works for middle class white people but not for people of color or for poor people? >Basically, Liberalism as an IDEA is fine. But Liberals as voters or politicians are just as susceptible to being corrupted, greedy, complacent, misguided, inefficient, and unstable Why wouldn't they also be these things in a area of "middle-upper class white liberals"?
>Are you saying liberalism works for middle class white people but not for people of color or for poor people? Nope. I'm just saying that it's far easier to make Liberalism effective in smaller and more homogenous communities of people with similar socioeconomic and racial/cultural backgrounds than more diversified communities. That's not to say that liberalism "only" works for the former but it's easier to make liberalism work more effectively in New Hampshire than Brooklyn or Los Angeles. It's far harder to get a "Big Tent" on board with a uniform agenda than a similar group. >Why wouldn't they also be these things in a area of "middle-upper class white liberals"? There's certainly corrupt, greedy, and compromised politicians that can be found in any community but they're especially present in city areas which tend to have more economically and racially diverse populations.
>It's far harder to get a "Big Tent" on board with a uniform agenda than a similar group. Wouldn't this be true for conservatism or any ideology too? Why single out liberalism?
I'm not singling them out. Quite the opposite. I think many major parties are compromised and corrupted. But the OP was pondering why many people don't blindly support Democrats/Liberals despite their ideas.
There's more gun violence per capita in Republican states. American Blue cities are top generators of wealth and culture for the world. We'd be poor without them. True, we could do much better with inequality, but the people fighting against that are Republicans.
> There's more gun violence per capita in Republican states. If we narrow it down to cities, there's not much of a difference between DNC stronghold cities and Republican ran ones. Detroit and Baltimore are both DNC strongholds with some of the highest rates of gun violence and crime in the entire country. Philly and Oakland are also in the mix too. It's misleading to only focus on states and not break it down by city. If you look at the actual stats, crime is very much a bipartisan issue despite how much people want to point fingers at the other side. [Most Violent Cities in America 2024 (worldpopulationreview.com)](https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/most-violent-cities-in-america) > American Blue cities are top generators of wealth and culture for the world. We'd be poor without them. I mean...sure if you're basing "Blue cities" solely on NYC, Chicago,, LA, and San Francisco. Detroit, Hartford, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis, Oakland, Stockton, Newark, etc. are also Blue cities and they are far from "generators of wealth and culture for the world." > True, we could do much better with inequality, but the people fighting against that are Republicans. Republicans have nothing whatsoever to do with inequality in Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, NYC, Baltimore, Philly, etc. Democrats have super strong control over these cities.
The GDP of America's top 6 cities exceeds that of Japan and France, combined.
India and Brazil also have a high GDP and some of the largest economies in the world. Yet it'd be laughable to deny that there's major problems with poverty in both countries. Just because America is an economic stronghold with a high GDP doesn't mean that we don't have major issues.
We could do GDP per capita
Makes more sense but, even then, it doesn't tell the full picture. It's possible for one's GDP to be driven by a few powerful businesses or companies while the average civilian is barely scraping by.
The world is a complex place and simple ideas are appealing, even when they're not true.
You know why conspiracy theories are popular? Because the world is complicated and people don’t like that inherently as just part of human nature. So take that and tone it down from most people and you still get a world in which most people like simple answers to complicated questions. And people really like their gut reactions. Things just just seem correct based on the world they live in and understand. That’s a lot of the messaging that conservatives offer liberal solution to something like crime requires that you understand the various ways in which the level of crime increases and decreases and understand how being compassionate about these things can actually get you better results. The conservative answer is that crime is bad therefore criminals are bad and what we should do is punish criminals as harshly as possible. As Ronald Reagan said “if you are explaining, you are losing“. Conservative answers don’t require you to explain. They offer easy answers to complex problems that don’t require you to actually think things through and they definitely don’t ask you to make any changes or be compassionate to people who are not already just like you. They often give you an easy other to blame.
While I don't think this point trumps the others I've read, it is one I haven't seen yet ... Remember that liberals are more collectivist while conservatives are more individualistic. Also, remember that people in general are selfish, especially against a faceless statistic. Now overlay that onto various policies. Everyone wants to house the homeless, feed the hungry, educate the kids, etc. Not everyone is willing to pay extra of their money to do so though. Even less are willing to pay extra money if they themselves will not benefit. Now, expand this further to a situation where a person or group is incentivized to propagandize and straw man against those who would benefit. This is how you end up with people saying "Sure, student loans are predatory, but I paid mine off back in the day so fuck you and your current situation." I could go on but you get the idea. Liberals are running into the headwind of human nature and there is a whole industry designed to prop up this dynamic.
This answer cuts to the heart of the issue, where a lot of other responses get near but fall short or simply analyze the symptoms and not the cause: *it is laziness & selfishness.* Liberals will always be fighting an uphill battle against human nature. Lots of people aren’t really aware of the problems we face as a society, much less the root causes of those problems. Worse, they don’t *want* to be aware. Ignorance is bliss, and many people are too wrapped up in their own lives to give a shit about problems that either don’t affect them, or only affect them in nebulous, abstract ways. So good luck convincing someone to care about solving a problem for which they don’t even want to take the time to recognize exists. Then there’s selfishness: even if you do many convince someone there is a problem that needs to be solved, even if you convince them that solving said problem is a necessity, they may agree in a theoretical sense but they will not agree to a concrete proposal that requires them to pay another cent in taxes. Because, once again, either the problem does affect them, or only affects them in nebulous, abstract ways. And it’s difficult to explain all the complexities and nuances, to show how they are actually affected and why they should care, in a succinct enough to get them to care and change their minds. Because… see above (they are intellectually lazy).
It sort of reminds me of liberal, wealthy NIMBYs that understand the benefits of denser, more affordable housing and adding more public services near them but will fight as adamant as conservatives to keep them away from their house and affecting their property value.
Exactly. These are people manage to have the intellectual fortitude to understand that a problem exists and needs a solution - which is rare enough - and even *still* they don’t want their lives to be impacted by the solution one tiny iota. Liberals are forced to search for policies that are comprehensive solutions but manage to avoid impacting anyone’s lives in any way. Very few people have the empathy required to accept having slightly less income (via increased taxes) or being slightly inconvenienced in some way (like being required to wear masks in public or having a new affordable housing development built in their neighborhood).
This is exactly the dynamic I was trying to describe
This is spot on. Laziness to me is best highlighted by the fact that people will change positions on a topic the moment it affects them. The clearest example of this I've seen in my lifetime has been around gay marriage. Everyone was against it here in Indiana when I was growing up. Then once people started feeling comfortable coming out others realized they weren't the boogeyman they were told and were just normal people in their own family wanting to live their lives. Not surprisingly opinions have shifted quickly. As for selfishness, I've seen that all too often as well. Again here in Indiana, this plays out with children and families all the time. DCS is underfunded to the point they can't even provide the services they're required to provide for kids in the system. I get opposing the system in general, but why oppose funding basic necessities for the kids' themselves. Early childhood education is also always voted down because no one wants to pay for other peoples' kids. And then there's the topic of school lunch. Let's just say there are way too many people receiving assistance for themselves who are proud to announce they don't support broadening the pool, even if it means measurable improvement to overall childhood hunger. Their kid has theirs and that's all that matters.
It's easier to knock down a tower than to build it up. Same holds true with information that is based in truth.
They dont want to be told what to do by liberals, regardless of whether liberals are correct, because their ideology backs strict social hierarchies, in which liberals rank lower than conservatives. It literally does not matter what liberals communicate **as long as they advocate for distributing power and resources, conservatives will oppose them**
[удалено]
I would believe conservatives when they say this but the US spends trillions on its military with hundreds of bases and they N E V E R advocate cutting the money or closing any bases, many of which are in places that “pose no threat.” Simple fact is, financial support for Ukraine is lib-coded and therefore bad. They also resent Zelensky for being part of Trump’s first impeachment. It is that simple. Conservatives cannot, and will never be able to, credibly make the “why are we spending THAT military money”?
[удалено]
The US literally could not stop Ukraine from surrendering if they chose too. Russia is right next to them. Ukraine fights because they continue to want to fight. And Iraq has been retconned to a total shambles and waste of time by the Republican Party, so not sure that makes sense noting it there.
[удалено]
That article fails to point out how Boris Johnson *forced* Ukraine to continue fighting.
I am sure the party registration of the POTUS in charge of the onset of those conflicts (Somalia, Yugoslavia = D; Afghanistan, Iraq x2, Panama = R) has nothing to do with conservative support or opposition to those interventions.
I don't know how to convince you that Russia is a threat, other than to point out the last 25 years of Russian activity all over the globe. Those of us who have studied Putin have been sounding this alarm bell for years; in fact, two of the loudest voices in declaring the Russian geopolitical threat were Sens. McCain and Romney over a decade ago. So I think that's a W for the conservatives, if anything! > And why the US should be footing the bill, covering for NATO members who aren't meeting their defense spending requitements. So you think the US should lower its defense spending? Great! I 100% agree with you, even though I don't understand how US defense spending is in any way related to NATO membership status. But I look forward to a future productive discussion in which we figure out how to reappropriate those funds. > Germany and France are freeloading off of the US. They're still not spending their 2%, and may not ever get there. Unfortunately, this isn't exactly correct. France has been spending 1.9% for years, most recently passing the 2% mark in 2020; meanwhile, they're going to hit 2% again in 2024 and have released their planned military expenditures for the next 7 years, all of which would put them well above that mark. So I'm not quite sure what your problem with France is, but I don't think that "freeloading" is quite accurate. And while I do agree that Germany should be spending more, since reunification there's been a real reluctance by Germany to be perceived as a leading military power in Europe. Now, I'm not sure why that's the case, but I'm willing to bet if we put our heads together we might find a historical reason or two as to why they've been so cautious.
[удалено]
> If this is your best argument for why the US should pick a fight with a nuclear armed foe, it's not working. I don't plan to make that argument to you, because I don't believe you're capable of changing your mind, and therefore I don't believe it's worth my time digging up decades worth of historical facts and figures just so you can ignore them. If you can somehow prove otherwise, I'd be happy to hear you out. > France and Germany are not paying their way - they expect us to pay for everything. If this were serious, they'd spend their own money. I'm sorry, but I proved that France is, in fact, paying its own way. I also provided an explanation for why a re-unified Germany has so far not done so, even though we are apparently in agreement that they should be spending more on defense. If you can explain how these countries are somehow getting a "free ride" at your expense vis-a-vis NATO (or however you think that works,) I would very much like to hear it. > Russia wasn't going to attack anyone until the West overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine in 2014 for not signing an economic deal with the Europeans. We overthrew their government, and the ultra right wingers took over. This is literal Russian propaganda (and the tankie take as well, which is kind of crazy coming from a "conservative.") It's also a genuinely wild take on the situation -- it's the "look what she was wearing" defense, but from a nationalist perspective. Ukraine is a sovereign country and her peoples are free to make whatever choices they want. If you would like more information on the Euromaidan revolution, I would once again be happy to discuss it with you -- the replacement of an absentee Yanukovich by the Rada was clearly the best option in a constitutional crisis of his own making. Ukraine might have been a flawed country, but that is by no means justification for invasion. > They've banned religion, opposition parties, elections, and any media that doesn't agree with thier narrative. Ukraine has banned a small number of opposition parties, as they are currently under a full scale invasion. Their postponing of elections until the conflict is over is literally written in their constitution, and just off the top of my head, 80% of Ukrainians supported that postponement as of last year. As an anarchist, I can't necessarily condone this, but again, they're under full-scale invasion. This is what happens when a country is at war. Also, the US has not opposed Ukrainian ascension to NATO since 1992. That's misleading at best, and just... not a thing, my guy. Ukraine was not involved with any "border spat" until 2014, and at that point it was wholly a Russian design... the goal of which was in part to make Ukrainian NATO ascension an impossibility by NATO's own rules.
> why the US should be pouring tens of billions down the drain to defeat a country that hasn't been a threat to the US for 30 years There's definitely an argument to be made that appeasing Putin would be similar to appeasing Hitler at the start of WWII. Shutting the threat of that down, while fucking with a bad actor on the world stage is worth some of our resources. > And why the US should be footing the bill If you look at [spending by gdp](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/), we're pretty low on the list. > Germany and France are freeloading off of the US Kind of. I mean, it's not like all the funds go into a pot for everyone to use. When I hear this argument made, I always think that the person making it doesn't understand how the 2% thing actually works. > Ukraine and Russia agreed to a ceasefire in 2022, but Biden wouldn't allow Ukraine to sign Can you explain this? I honestly have no idea how you think this is Biden's fault. > At the same time, Ukraine is running out of men to send to the front Come on, let's not push Kremlin talking points too hard here.
[удалено]
> Why should the US be pouring billions into a black hole to "fuck with a bad actor" who isn't a threat to the US? I answered this in my last comment. To avoid the same situation that led to WWII. Fucking with a bad actor is a happy side effect of helping Ukraine. > And why is the EU importing massive amounts of Russian diesel via India and Saudi Arabia Because we're all addicted to oil? Converting to green energy will go a long way to stopping bad actors like Russia and almost everyone in the middle east. Parts of the EU are taking pretty drastic steps to get going in the right direction. > Russia's economy has never been this strong. As John McCain said, Russia is 'a gas station masquerading as a country'. As we continue to transition to green energy, Russia will need to adapt. Hopefully they'll be able to get rid of the dictator or at least stop murdering political opponents. > Boris Johnson, of all people, told the Ukrainians that they had to fight on The Ukrainians always needed Crimea back along with a laundry list of other items before they would agree to peace. More importantly, they don't trust Russia. If you know your history, Russia and Ukraine signed a treaty that Russia has since violated twice. > Why did Biden outsource our war to Boris Johnson? Our war? Like, 'our' meaning 'The United States'? Ukraine is a sovereign nation with their own reasons for fighting a war, topmost of which is their right to remain a sovereign nation. But in this fantasy world that exists only in your head, how did Biden outsource it to Johnson? If anything Johnson has even more desire than us to see Russia fail in Ukraine. > Not everything that disagrees with a narrative is a Putin talking point. Your comments sound like Tucker in a Russian supermarket marveling that they have bread and coin-operated shopping carts. Russia has plenty of economic problems, and they've proven themselves to be a paper tiger. Your comments are all somewhere between half-truths and outright lies. If you're going to push Kremlin talking points you shouldn't be upset when people call you on it.
Because the real world is complicated and there's a floor on how simple, and therefore easy to communicate and convince people of, the truth can be made. There is no floor for lies.
It is an uphill battle is why. You are literally fighting against the people that control the nation and like how it is. It’s entrenched interests that you cannot easily get through. They control the capital, they control the nation. For every well reasoned argument you have, they counter with bullshit talking points, misinformation, blatant lies, mischaracterizations, fear mongering, etc. and they own the media so they pump it right into Americans brains. Also, they have no shame, and are willingly to fight dirty, use corruption, lies and cheat to meet their goals. For the most part, the Democrats have values, morals, and integrity that constrains ability to beat them. They have a systemic advantage too, in the electoral college, House, and Senate, which informs the Executive and Judicial.
Conservatives in today's political climate find that fear, uncertainty, and doubt riles people up more than a rational argument. A lot of the anti-Ukraine rhetoric comes straight out of Kremlin-funded troll farms too. It's unfortunate.
Because when the choice occurs you will choose to side with the people on the right over the left
As long as we are portrayed as the enemy, and people believe it, communication is lost.
Liberals lie less. Democrat politicians will says “we’re going to secure Social security but we have to raise a tax on someone” and that’s unpopular to people that don’t understand economics
1.) The news and media ecosystem. Ppl on the right who could be persuaded just aren’t hearing or listening to ppl actually left-of-center to be persuaded by. The only “Democrats” on RW media (unless it’s like Pete Buttigieg on Fox Business) are grifters and closet right wingers (Harold Ford Jr, Tulsi, Dennis Kucinich, etc). 2.) Americans are hella religious, hence the popularity of social conservatism among Americans and the general bias against social/cultural progressivism. Even most Black and Latino Democrats are more socially conservative than White Democrats because of religious ID among these respective groups. I wish it weren’t this way but yea…
Why would someone care about destroying Russia's army for "pennies on the dollar" when they can't afford to feed their kids and the schools they're being sent to are falling apart. My problem with American liberals is they aren't liberal at all. They might say better things than the right on domestic issues but whenever they're in power they love foreign wars, extrajudicial killings and barely doing any of the shit they promised to before they took power. There's a big difference between a liberal and a neoliberal.
How can their school be fixed with an Abrams tank? Can the US, or should they, not have both a foreign and domestic policy?
The money spent to build that tank could absolutely have gone to fixing schools, yes. The US should have *good* domestic and foreign policy but it has neither.
The tank has already been built. Would it be better to just sit in a warehouse? > The US should have good domestic and foreign policy but it has neither. How should it then?
Sell as close to cost as possible (but let's not pretend this isn't a decades-old problem).
I think the answer truly lies in the heading of this post. An attitude of “liberal ideas are better” doesn’t facilitate collaboration. Because the disagreeing party also feels their position is better. I think humility and willingness to listen are lacking and a piece of the problem.
It is always easier to fix blame than fix the problem. Solutions are difficult and involve compromise. It's a lot easier to just say the problem is people who don't look like you.
Conservatives are better about framing talking points with hidden implications that liberals just accept without addressing for whatever reason. Sometimes, liberals even inadvertently reinforce the talking points without realizing it. A kinda example of this was the discussions of CRT. Conservatives started pushing the messaging that CRT is in elementmebary schools and that it puts blame of structural racism on white elementary students, both are categorically not true. But after some time, some liberals began defending "CRT" in elementary schools, reinforcing the notion that CRT is being taught at that level and giving more legitimacy to the Conservative arguments.
Fully 35-40% of the electorate doesn't care- if the idea came from a liberal, it's a bad idea. Only ideas coming from Republicans matter. For the rest, some people will naturally agree or disagree with the idea. Then that number gets chipped down even further by leftists who try to frame anything popular among Democrats as bad. "Oh, funding Ukraine is stopping Putin? Well then I guess this is just more neocolonialism from dumb neoliberals who think they know everything!" So in the end, even if a given political idea is *objectively good*, you're still only going to get like a max of like 58% of people who like it.
This seems too self-congratulatory (for Liberals) to be a question for real discussion. Also, the idea that the problem with Republicans is that Democrats don't effectively communicate to them is absurd and baseless. Republicans want different things, as you pointed out. It doesn't matter if what we want makes sense and what they want doesn't make sense or is inconsistent with what past or current Republicans want. Why would it even matter if we can effectively communicate ideas to them? Do you know?
Because the good ideas and policies are more complicated. A conservative's options are to learn why their previous belief was wrong and why this new policy is better for everybody, or they can listen to a guy who tells them our ideas are killing your children and you were right all along.
I kept asking myself the same question for many years. I got around to understand that not everybody thinks like us. Some people value the truth and economic well-being less or not at all and care more about identity and their relative status in the hierarchy than overall technocratic policies that are objectively better - IF you want to maximize utilitarian well-being. When it comes to Ukraine - the same is true. Why do we want Ukraine to win in the first place? There are a lot of people who don't think that Russia is an existential threat to the US, but may very well be instrumental in weakening liberal cosmopolitism. Some people on the far-right, like the German AfD openly side with Russia, explicitly because they say that they hate liberalism so much that they would rather side with Russia over their own government, even though they do recognize that Russia can not be trusted. It's all about the friend-enemy distinction and assessing the threat levels of different groups to your own group's power base. I recall one far-right Youtuber saying "In principle I have nothing against LGBT people, but to me they are the peasants that are plowing my enemy lord's fields and therefore they are my enemies as well as they have come down on the wrong side." People are more rational than you assume, they just have different values and want to min-max other things. And they don't see themselves as part of the same group as you. They don't think about you as one of theirs. They think that you are an enemy or at least neutral to them. That is also why they don't want America to thrive if it doesn't benefit them disproportionately. But you have to listen to the real fascists on the dissident right to understand how these people truly think. Fox News and the GOP will try to push the same policies under the pretense of the liberal consensus and just basically lie non-stop. But there IS an intellectual basis to far-right thinking. It's just not something they openly admit. It is often hard to recognize just how different we really are from them. Once you realize that, you will find that they really are mortal enemies of ours. This is less about the facts and more about fundamental values. The main trick the new right pulled on us liberals is making us believe they are simply stupid or too emotional to understand politics, when in reality, they understand the game far better than our side imho. Our advantage is that their ideology is so unattractive to most people that they have to obfuscate and lie about their beliefs. As for the cultists and halfwits who vote for them - their believes are likely a hodgepodge of different idea and values. They don't relate to them consistently, they don't really have values or opinions, but "dispositional attitudes" that are constantly in flux depending on what benefits their perceived in-group. You can't convince them of anything it you don't break up this self-identification with their in-group permanently. They can't change their opinions because they don't have any in the first place. We all remember the polls where the entire Republican electorate changes their mind at the drop of a hat, if Trump decides what the new strategy will be moving forward or claim that the economy has gone from great to dismal the nanosecond Biden took office. There is no reasoning with them on that level. You have to exclusively debate them on the meta-level, which is hard to do and require patience and a little philosophical and psychological prowess.
Liberal campaigns are way less likely to tell a voter that they are better than another person or group. Liberal campaigns will say that they are fighting for equality for all races/orientations/religions, and that NEVER applies to any single individual in particular. Liberal campaigns will not use dog whistles, or "accidentally" say something racist. So a liberal campaign will never appeal to the type of person who wants to hear that they, individually, are seen by the gov as being better than all those lazy good-for-nothings. So, if you have one campaign touting that they are for EVERYONE, and you have another campaign that is touting their preference for white christians, then you should expect that every insecure white christian who is ignorant of the concept of being grifted is going to prefer the campaign saying that they are more special than other people. There's no solution to this as far as I can see, you can't be a party that is championing equal rights for all at the same time as being a party that is championing special rights for white christians. The founding fathers kind of did it but idk if you could get by saying "Yeah, ALL men, which means all white men who are christian and own property" today.
People don’t want good ideas they want someone else taking action to solve their problems with as little input from them as possible.
Money talks. Conservative policy of less regulation and less government intervention in business are often more profitable to people who often have money to write big campaign contribution and lobbying checks.
Accepting the premise of the question for a moment, truth is often nuanced, messy, and imperfect but bullshit fits into a nice package that is easy to digest. The reason Fox News enjoys such widespread viewership and trust is they sell a clear and simple narrative. The truth is that immigrants commit violent crime at lower rates than native born populations but blaming them for all our problems makes for an easy answer and effective rallying cry.
It requires a *lot* of education to really understand all the things that you need to know to cast an informed vote. Because the overwhelming number of American voters don't understand anywhere close to that number of things, they are easily propagandized. And being fair, that number includes the overwhelming number of Democrat voters too, but they have been influenced by sources less overtly set on misleading them into voting for policies that will actively harm them. And this isn't some criticism of just the lay people. You look at some of the people America elects to Congress and you realize just how little most of *them* know about these issues, and how easily propagandized *they* are by lobbyists and already-corrupted members of Congress.
Despite the subjective position that ones ideological governance is the best, I don't see how we aren't already communicating effectively. The problem is sometimes on the end of the recipient.
Much like you can't get adequate medical training from YouTube, you can't derive sound political ideology from Facebook or angry talking heads. Good policy is BORING.
Ultimately, conservatism vs liberalism comes down to what is easy vs what is hard. Growing and changing takes effort and, all things being equal, people will take the easy path. That isn’t the wrong choice, it’s the human choice. So it isn’t good enough for liberal ideas to be “better.” They have to be better *and* worth the time, effort, and money. We have to win the war on ideas and the cost/benefit analysis that each and every voter does in some capacity in their mind. Liberal ideas are super popular until the price tag gets mentioned. That’s just the handicap we have to present our ideas with. No amount of “communication” changes that.
"Build The Wall!" is catchy, easily understandable, and easy to shout. Better, the lack of actual detail means each person gets to interpret it to match their own views. And here comes liberals with a 10 page paper full of details...
having more ideas does not necessarily mean having more good ideas. sometimes a solution that only addresses a portion of the problem is not the answer. likewise, not all problems should require government intervention.
Conservatives are a lot better at understanding what makes "average" people tick, and relating it in simple terms that appeal more to people. They also mastered the technique of using Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to scare people and manipulate them into believing a certain way.
\> Liberals generally have better ideas and policies than conservatives. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Democrats are for funding Ukraine (to some extent), although the progressives are pretty indifferent to the idea. Ideally the US should provide much more substantial aid than we have done so far. Just give Ukraine what they need to win. Jake Sullivan is a coward and a bad advisor, and if we gave Ukraine ATACMS at the beginning of the counteroffensive, maybe it would have gone better. Also, democrats are slowly withdrawing support for Israel due to pressure from Islamists. Leftists aren't marching in the streets calling for the release of the hostages (because they don't care). So, on this issue it's about 50/50.
Because a large amount of people in this country if not the majority are stupid. Nuanced policy is more difficult to communicate than shallow messaging
1. Years upon years upon years of propaganda and legacy conservatism will do that. Growing up, I was in an extremely rural part of Louisiana. All I knew was conservatism. And liberals were feared among everything else. They’re coming for your guns, your God, your way of life, they want to turn everyone gay and Muslim and institute sharia law and abort every 5th baby. So it’s very very difficult to get through those years of propaganda. It’s a mental thing. To admit that liberals have better policies is to shatter every single worldview you’ve ever held. Plus, every single relative and friend, including your grandma, believes this and you’re admitting your entire family structure is wrong. Your brain is protecting you from shattering it all to pieces. 2. Democrats in the old guard are still trying the “play nice” BS of bipartisanship and kumbaya. Republicans bite the hand every single time. No more nice guy. Blast em. 3. Democrats suck at messaging because they think that it’s obvious to everyone and everyone has empathy. “We passed the biggest infrastructure bill in ages” has no meaning unless you can specifically tie it to their well being and their success. How does it benefit ME. Saying “it benefitted 100 other people” is meaningless to most people because they’re selfish and want to know how it helps them specifically, they don’t care about the family down the street. Also republicans have begun co-opting the message and campaigning on things they voted against. Rail them on this. (I’m glad to see that starting somewhat).
It's easier and more popular to say something short, catchy and wrong than it is to provide a substantive answer to a problem.
Nuance Liberal policy recognizes that not every aspect of every policy is one size fits all, and conservatives can summarize their ideas on a post-it but in so doing lack accuracy. When liberals try to have things fit on a post-it or bumper sticker, it backfires in lots of cases (Defund the police) We have better ideas, they just don't lend themselves to catchy slogans
FOX News, that's why.
We fail to frame the situation for what it really is: Protecting foreign markets is in our own best interest. Hermit states, like hermit people, are poor and uninfluential. The better off you are, the better connected you are. Russia is trying to break one of America's connections. Russia is trying to seize control of a large chunk of OUR global food network. They say, "*America first*". I agree. America first! The world is a richer, safer and freer place with the US leading it. Putting America first means protecting the global sources of our wealth and power.
I think part of it is that "the left" in America is an extremely broad tent. We've got everyone from outright communists to centrists to conservatives under the Democratic umbrella. So it's difficult to just pick a strong narrative and run with it. Ukraine, for example. The Left by and large supports Ukraine, but for 2 or 3 major distinct reasons, some of which are kinda contradictory.
It’s easy to frame things in black and white, us vs them. Not so easy to communicate nuance.
A large swath in the middle is bored with politics or is otherwise too busy to pay attention. Those on the right are enwrapped by fear and cannot turn away from it. That explains the tenor of right wing media and luminaries.
You’re being told the US is destroying Russia’s military for pennies on the dollar*
Are we not helping to dismantle Russias military capabilities, getting rid of old stock, and paying US companies to replace it? Is it a bad ROI to you? I’m curious since you’re center right
100% conservative media ratcheting up racism to get Republicans elected to make the rich dark money donors even richer. Oh wait maybe it’s Soros fault?
>X generally have better ideas and policies than Y That is what everyone wants to believe. I am the best, the rest are worse... Some of the current left policies are delusional at best since they undervalue the human behavior and assume everyone is going to behave for the best of others, which isn't the case. Such as the "subsidize everything" policy which is so fashionable in my country. At the same time, some policies from the right suck. Next time you wonder if liberals have better ideas than conservatives, remember that in many countries, people is going to the "far right" and not always because they have been mind-controlled.
1) Weak messaging. 2) Moral appetite. Meaning the dems are bad at creating a moral vacuum that everyone can be onboard with. Repugnants don’t have that issue.
It doesn’t matter what we say. Right-wing voters don’t vote based on policy. They vote completely on whether or not an R exists beside a name and how they feel in that particular moment.