I agree that democratic messaging is a mess on this issue (among others) and that a lot of the cause of that mess is because they are trying to please too many factions at once. I think, by the way, this reads to many voters not only as confusing, but inauthentic and it causes people to question "what does this person really think?" All politicians are inauthentic to some degree and not necessarily sinisterly so -- representing people is a dance that must balance leadership (I know what's right, let me lead my constituency there) and followership (my constituents have made it clear that they want this, and I represent them). But when you can't even tell a politician's orientation towards an issue, there's not much to hold on to.Cornuck wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 9:06 am I agree that this is where the Dems fail - messaging on these topics from them is confusing at best. They want
to appeal to their far left arm, as well as centrists and somehow appease everyone. Biden did too little, too late with his border plan, and it was shut down for political reasons, and of course, nothing was done.
But I'm not sure how demonizing immigrants gathers support. Yes, you can go after the costs associated with it, but I don't see the support for helping down-and-out Americans (unless it's for the vets). Even a majority of Republicans support a 'path to citizenship' for many immigrants. Having a policy of mass deportation might appeal to some, but it's going to be a humanitarian nightmare if they try to carry it out. This country is rich enough to support both groups.
The second paragraph above, however, is an example of how messaging can easily get confused. First, huge majorities opposed the Biden-Harris immigration policy, including large sums that are still in the democratic voting block. When a response is hectoring -- you shouldn't be demonizing immigrants -- it doesn't show listening to the complaint, and the politician distances themself from the constituent. The person who wants the policy change thinks, wait, I'm a "demonizer?" Why? Because I use the term illegals? Because I didn't make it clear that not every Venezualan was a gang member taking over apartment buildings? Because I don't think people who aren't lawfully permitted to be here are here? They think, the politician is worried about nicities, I am worried about my job, my wages, my safety. If the response to a complaint is that its full of "hateful rhetoric" or some such thing, it shows more of a concern with words than conditions -- and that's one of the things driving a wedge between democrats and their former voters.
Then you write that maybe these are costs (supporting illegal and temporary refugee status (and handing out that status like crazy) immigrants) might be unnecessary costs, but its not like republicans are looking to redirect those resources to the down-on-their-luck. This misunderstands the sentiment among many -- a complaint that if they get that I should get that or shouldn't I get that before they get that isn't a necessarily belief that I should get that. If the government wanted to give every immigrant $5000 and every citizen $0, I might say "Americans should get American tax money returned first," but that doesn't mean I support cutting everyone a $5000 check (and saddling my kids with even more debt). The sentiment is simply *don't treat these folks better than you treat your own citizens.* Some people want more stuff from government whatever the economic consequences, some people don't because of the economic consequences, but nearly all presumptively don't want US tax dollars going to non US citizens or those without permanent residency status. In some instances, most might agree it is appropriate or necessary, but the burden to overcome that presumption always exists. And this is why your observation that the country is rich enough to support both populations grates on people's sentiments, even if its a true statement. The primary reason for the sentiment is not "treat me like them" it is "they shouldn't be here so they shouldn't get public tax support."
(I'd also note that the Republican plan *does* get stuff to citizens; immigration depresses wages, exacerbates housing shortages, and strains public resources (even if there aren't grant aids -- there's roads and schools and public safety resources (when a town like Springfield goes from about 40,000 to 60,000 people in a few years....) This is what separates left wing populists from right wing populists (though for each group, the populism comes before the left and right. The left populists typically want more government assistance, the right populists typically are more concerned with government policy that they think make things harder for them to achieve on their own)).
I think it can end rather quickly, but that ending it will absolutely involve a recognition that the Crimea is part of Russia and that Donbas is either part of Russia or will have self-determination (and ultimately be a vassal state of Russia). I think people "care" that this is unjust, but one must balance abstract concepts (justice) with real world effects and likely scenarios (Ukraine's chances of winning back that territory are minimal, to have a chance it would involve countless hundreds of billions more in the war machine and hundreds of thousands (likely more than a million) more lost lives, it would require NATO countries to authorize the use of their weaponry beyond what they've authorized, creating an escalation in the conflict, etc., some even suggest Ukraine gets nukes and the head of NATO said it will be done deal that Ukraine will join NATO -- which leads to what). While Americans tends not to have foreign policy be their #1 voting consideration, I think that there is a belief that the right question to ask is "how does it benefit the US to continue aiding this war" and the case has not been made convincingly to the American people that it furthers US interests or that it does so at an acceptable humanitarian and economic cost. People were much more likely to support a war that might be won and done than a multiyear conflict that doesn't seem to have Ukraine Wins, Russia Capitulates as a likely endgame headline.Cornuck wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 9:06 am As for foreign wars, I can see how your statements about the switching of values and interests in Republicans from the Bush era has soured on a topic like Ukraine. But rather than address the complex geopolitical consequences, the message from trump has been "I can end it on day 1". Do people really buy such simple solutions? Or do they not care that the 'solution' is likely Ukraine giving up land to its invader?
I share your concern re tariffs. But I think the next administration sees tariffs as a tool, not as a good in and of themselves. They aren't trying to construct an autarky, where America makes everything it consumes. Tariffs are part of a negotiation -- other nations can free up their markets to American goods or they can see their access to American markets come at a greater price. If its not effective, it can be adjusted -- again, because it is a tool and not a principle. Well, I think they think that -- I hope they think that (but you never want it to be 100% plain to the principal on the other side of the table that's what you think....) Whether to adjust an approach is a little bit of a game of chicken, and there's a risk that in playing that staring contest poorly will result in some of the fears you are concerned about.Cornuck wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 9:06 am As I've had to say in a few posts this month "Time will tell". I'm not an expert in world economics and policy, but I don't see a lot of good things coming down the road. My main concern is that his planned tariffs will raise prices and retaliatory tariffs will crater the price of grains (which affects my area more than anything).
