Why the Left Loses elections

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, it’s used as a catch-all stereotype for vulgar materialistic uppity snobs who live in a dream world of academic theories and never do any ‘real’ work.

Pretty much synonymous with the usage of the term ‘bourgeois’ in communist rhetoric when you get down to it: middle class always means those overpaid idiots just above you.

I think a good definition of Middle Class is one who is clearly not rich but in a position to feel that, in economic terms, they have gotten a fair shake from society.

It would be interesting to see a poll of citizens of countries all over the world that determines what per cent would identify that way. I suspect that in the West, far fewer people believe themselves to have gotten a "fair shake" than 50 years ago. I wonder what the response would be from China or other Confucianist societies in which one is more expected (as I understand it) to accept one's lot in life and not question authorities.

Just thought, we may have hit upon one of the reasons why leftist, or leftist led at any rate, political parties tend to lose more elections than they win: class politics is closely associated with leftist political thought, and class identity is lived and experienced subjectively as a form of longstanding and traditional identity sub-politics that doesn’t easily fit with any attempt to theoretical rationalise the notion.

Any takers?

is that another way of saying that most folks see themselves as middle class [working class in UK]? so they will vote for the party or political position that best represents people with money [centrist or right-wing democrats, or GOP here, or conservative party in UK]? and that only once in a while when everybody is flat busted, that there will be a critical mass to swing left?

Possibly: in the UK at least adverse economic conditions tend to favour the Conservatives under an increasingly fiscally and socially right wing leadership (although Labour always swings to the left internally when in opposition in these circumstances)
Benign economic conditions tend to favour moderate leadership of both parties, and with two exceptions (1945 and 1973?4?) Labour governments with convincing majorities have only been elected when the economy is doing well.
The Tories are very effective at campaigning on a ‘keep what little you’ve got’ basis that works well when people are feeling short on cash flow.

i think it is the opposite here, democrats tend to do better when things are in the dumper.

Haha!
Just thought: “two cultures divided by a shared language”

(It’s a stock British phrase that comes up when discussing our relationship with your country)

Interesting: over here it seems like the cultural situation is most people need to feel they have cash to splash about to feel ok with the idea of a left of centre government doing some of that splashing on social problems and infrastructure.
Although they will vote for right of centre governments with big expensive plans when they’re feeling the pinch: so I’m skeptics as to the proposition that the phenomena is entirely rational cash-flow oriented.

one example of the democrats-preferred-in-economic-downturns- from '29 [october stock market crash] to '32 [the depth of the depression] republican herbert hoover did NOTHING with the levers of gov't control, to ameliorate the situation, didn't lift a finger. the market regulates itself, he said. so in november of '32 a plurality, a landslide, of voters said "ENOUGH!!" and voted in a democrat [FDR] who said he would use gov't to help the people. and he did.

Yes, we had the same “let the market sort itself out, consequences be what they may” approach from Conservative governments during the Great Depression (a departure for the Tories, during most of the preceding 70yrs they’d been pro-intervention “One Nation Tories” and the Liberal party had been the laissez faire ones).
The public responded by voting in our first Labour government lead by Ramsey Macdonald. Unfortunately the party disintegrated due to factional infighting when faced with the need to prioritise between policies: Macdonald sacked his entire cabinet and hired Tories in their place in order to give the country some, any, kind of functioning government.
His name and reputation are still regarded as a byword for treason by many on the British political left to this day.
It took collaboration with the Tories in the WWII coalition national government for the Labour Party to regain public trust.
They then won the ‘45 election with landslide majority and broadly speaking implemented the policies they’d failed to deliver on in the ‘30s.
(The Marshall Plan aid from your country meant they had enough cash to damp down the squabbles over priorities for the most part, although the health minister did resign in protest when the leader (Attlee) insisted on mandating a nominal fee for prescriptions)