Timidity strikes again

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

The NY Times editorial board has a piece explaining how opponents of Trump should do what Peter Magyar did to expel the monster.

But they draw the usual tactful [aka terrified] veil over one of the larger items.

The second lesson may be harder for Democrats — and center-left parties in Europe — to absorb. Mr. Magyar, who identifies as center right, won partly by avoiding the social progressivism that dominates elite left-leaning circles and alienates many voters. He ran as an economic progressive and a cultural moderate if not conservative.

He used patriotic symbols like the flag and benefited from having a last name that means “Hungarian.” (Imagine a candidate named “Joe American.”) He portrayed himself as a nationalist and suggested he might expel Slovakia’s ambassador over its treatment of Hungarians living there. He campaigned in rural areas that Mr. Orban’s previous challengers had overlooked. Mr. Magyar promised not to send troops or weapons to Ukraine. He declined to attend a Pride march in Budapest, making it harder for Mr. Orban to paint him as captive to L.G.B.T.Q. activists.

There it is. Forced teaming strikes again. LGB activism is one thing and T activism is quite another. The T makes the LGB radioactive for a lot of people. It’s not helpful for mainstream media to keep pretending that the two are inseparable.

We certainly do not endorse all of Mr. Magyar’s tactics, and we hope no American politician would feel the need to avoid a Pride march.

Yes but a Pride march is one thing and a Trans Pride march is quite another.

Mr. Magyar is one of many contemporary politicians who have won elections with a mix of economic progressivism and social moderation. Other national candidates have done so in the Netherlands, Poland, Denmark and elsewhere. In the United States, as we have documented, congressional Democrats who have won tough races in recent years almost all offered feisty economic messages while rejecting far-left positions on crime, immigration and other subjects

They’re afraid to say it. “and other subjects” – they mean the T. Don’t say it! Don’t touch the third rail!

Comments

3 responses to “Timidity strikes again”

  1. iknklast Avatar
    iknklast

    The problem is, and I don’t see many saying it, that in avoiding the “far-left social progressivism”, it is more than trans. It is feminism and anti-racism as well.

    It seems to me that the politicians who are winning are sucking up to white males, whether it is far-right, center-right, or center-left. Don’t say ‘women’s issues’ or ‘race relations’. Throw the gays and lesbians under the bus.

    Not pandering to the T is fine with me, but there is so much other baggage in the formulation, and I read so much that tells progressives to soft-peddle or abandon ALL social-left policies.

  2. Bjarte Foshaug Avatar
    Bjarte Foshaug

    One recurring theme on the anti-MAGA podcasts and YouTube channels I follow is that Democrats should refuse to talk about be “distracted” by “culture war issues”, like the invasion of female only spaces by male fetishists or the mass-application of experimental medical treatments on children and teenagers *, and rather stay laser-focused on economic issues, affordability etc. Of course I’m not eligible to vote in American elections, but if I were, I wouldn’t want Democrats to avoid the topic. What I would like to see was some recognition that they got this particular issue disastrously wrong and had learned from their mistakes. For all their talk of the necessity of building a broad coalition against the MAGA movement, I don’t see how they expect to be able to do this while continuing to vilify anyone who hasn’t forgotten everything we all used to know about the biological differences between men and women and refuses to pretend otherwise.

    * Of course, as we have come to expect by now, one ever puts it like that. It is always expressed in language (e.g. as a matter of being for or against “trans rights” best left unspecified) that concedes the whole argument to the TRAs in advance.

  3. iknklast Avatar
    iknklast

    Bjarte, I think the problem with forming a “broad consensus” is the nature of the base itself. The Democrats have a very large tent, and there are a lot of conflicts within said tent. There are pro-choice Dems (the majority) and anti-choice Dems. There are pro-gun regulations Dems (the majority) and anti-gun regulation Dems. There are feminist Dems, anti-feminist Dems, and (what is probably the majority, but I don’t know) those who feel this issue isn’t as important as others, or believe it is all resolved. The same with racism, though I think probably fewer are in the third category. There are Dems who are quite comfortable with LGB issues and there are Dems who are uncomfortable with LGB issues. There are both TRAs and TERFs.

    The problem is, economic issues, which are important, and which do often appeal to a broad swath of Dems, are esoteric to most people. We have a lot of Dems who are great with that issue, but the problem is they are policy wonks, and the people tune out as the talk gets more boring and more incomprehensible. Trump can shout about the price of eggs and the price of gas; he gets people to respond, the cheer, and to vote for him, but he has no idea of the various economic forces that work together to create these things. So even on that issue, the Dems falter, not really through any true fault of their own, but because the tide has changed toward what people will vote for. They haven’t yet started swimming the other direction and telling people in simple words and phrases what they stand for (who could possibly be against affordable health care, except those who are rich enough not to need it and evil enough to be unwilling to pay for it?). Some of us love the policy wonk stuff; that can be provided on websites, with simple links saying ‘click here for details’ or something like that.

    I don’t actually want the Dems to ‘dumb down’, just to find a way to reach out to those who aren’t wonkish, leaving complexities to those who understand them. There are simplish ways to describe policies, which should be deployed without leaving out important information.

    But one thing the Dems need to remember is that their base is heavily female and BIPOC. White men have the other party. A lot of people want social justice, as long as the price of eggs doesn’t go up because of it, so the Dems need to securely fasten social justice together with economic issues, getting people to understand they aren’t losing anything when others gain. This is a huge order, since many men perceive (possibly correctly) that they do lose something when they are no longer the only force that matters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts