Matt goes off live on http://www.twitch.tv/chapotraphouse buy our book: http://www.chapotraphouse.com/book http://www.soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house http://...
i think i'd dispute matt's initial conclusion: that the increased turnout in this election, and the dems poor showing, means that everyone is (now?) only operating on this psychic non-material political level. that could be true in this case, but it seems to me that that's only true precisely because biden and co didn't really, substantially offer anything material.
what was for sale from the dems was not material relief, nor an inspiring vision, but simply variation on Trump bad/civility good. or, as matt says, don't be an asshole.
that this result (that increased turnout by itself didn't bring about a governable victory for the "left") occurred is notable, but it doesn't deflate our (at least mine and formerly Matt's) presumption that increased turnout with material rhetoric is a winning electoral strategy. certainly having that situation obtain has eluded us -- but, to the degree we're looking for wins by election, "getting bigger" seems to be the correct way forward.
edit: scribbled this mid listen. his point is more subtle: that we could imagine that a natural distribution of potential voters, ordered by their propensity to vote; that the availability of mail in balloting increased the number of voters at the margin; these new voters are, necessarily, at the lower end of propensity to vote; people who have a lower propensity to vote are, likely, less interested in notions/concepts like the civic good or society (otherwise they would've been engaged in voting); thus, we shouldn't be surprised that these new marginal voters didn't break for Biden -- they're more disposed to this psychic, don't be a pussy shit. pretty thoughtful.
but again, that doesn't mean that in the counterfactual case, where the dem candidate offered something substantial, that "new" voters wouldn't be compelled to vote inline with their material, rather than their psychic interests. this only suggests that where voters don't have skin in the game, increasing voting at the margin doesn't necessarily suggest gains for the "left."'
edit2: this is just a running journal now. matt makes good point RE capitalist realism deflating potential voters beliefs RE promises of material change. still not deflating my conviction that our role is to open up that rhetorical/intellectual space (against CR). but obviously we can only work with candidates which would make good on the peoples trust for substantial, substantive change (or they will, understandably, be more snakebit).
I think the idea is it’s hard to imagine any candidate/campaign doing a better job at opening up that space on a national level than Bernie, and his campaign was a complete failure. There might be occasional opportunities at the local level, but the structural characteristics of the system will repress them either before or after they are able to reach national prominence.
i think i'd dispute matt's initial conclusion: that the increased turnout in this election, and the dems poor showing, means that everyone is (now?) only operating on this psychic non-material political level. that could be true in this case, but it seems to me that that's only true precisely because biden and co didn't really, substantially offer anything material. what was for sale from the dems was not material relief, nor an inspiring vision, but simply variation on Trump bad/civility good. or, as matt says, don't be an asshole.
that this result (that increased turnout by itself didn't bring about a governable victory for the "left") occurred is notable, but it doesn't deflate our (at least mine and formerly Matt's) presumption that increased turnout with material rhetoric is a winning electoral strategy. certainly having that situation obtain has eluded us -- but, to the degree we're looking for wins by election, "getting bigger" seems to be the correct way forward.
edit: scribbled this mid listen. his point is more subtle: that we could imagine that a natural distribution of potential voters, ordered by their propensity to vote; that the availability of mail in balloting increased the number of voters at the margin; these new voters are, necessarily, at the lower end of propensity to vote; people who have a lower propensity to vote are, likely, less interested in notions/concepts like the civic good or society (otherwise they would've been engaged in voting); thus, we shouldn't be surprised that these new marginal voters didn't break for Biden -- they're more disposed to this psychic, don't be a pussy shit. pretty thoughtful.
but again, that doesn't mean that in the counterfactual case, where the dem candidate offered something substantial, that "new" voters wouldn't be compelled to vote inline with their material, rather than their psychic interests. this only suggests that where voters don't have skin in the game, increasing voting at the margin doesn't necessarily suggest gains for the "left."'
edit2: this is just a running journal now. matt makes good point RE capitalist realism deflating potential voters beliefs RE promises of material change. still not deflating my conviction that our role is to open up that rhetorical/intellectual space (against CR). but obviously we can only work with candidates which would make good on the peoples trust for substantial, substantive change (or they will, understandably, be more snakebit).
I think the idea is it’s hard to imagine any candidate/campaign doing a better job at opening up that space on a national level than Bernie, and his campaign was a complete failure. There might be occasional opportunities at the local level, but the structural characteristics of the system will repress them either before or after they are able to reach national prominence.