Two Politico Magazine articles on politics, conservatism and finding common cause on issues
There are two articles from Politico magazine that I've been meaning to share for quite a few weeks now, but I never seemed to find the time (or other, more time-sensitive posts took priority). So I figured that, so long as I have a couple of hours free...
First, there is a feature about Democrats' efforts to make in-roads in Ohio among white voters who voted for Trump two years ago. As the article itself notes, there is a school of thought among the more left-leaning commentators that Trump voters were driven less by economic anxiety and more by racism and xenophobia. But the article makes a case that it isn't an either-or proposition. That there are economic issues - economic issues that are very specific to retirees who worked in factories and mines - that do matter, issues that neither party really paid attention to, at least not on the national level. Overall, I recommend you read the whole thing, because the article gives a pretty nuanced pictures of older, working-class voters and shows that people are more complex - and are not always as predictable - as stereotypes suggest. (Which seems like it would be pretty obvious, but people of all political persuasions and ethnic/racial backgrounds keep missing it).
The other piece deals with Kent Sorenson, a Tea Party firebrand in Iowa who became a state representative with a shot at national politics - only to get convicted of taking a bribe and wind up serving a few years in prison. I've seen others describe it as a piece about a conservative who has seen the light became liberal, but that isn't what happened here. Going by the article, Sorenson is still more conservative than not - but his time in prison destroyed his faith that the police and the legal system is always right, that people who wind up in prison deserved it, and that longer, harsher prison sentences are the best way to combat crime. And, yes, he became less racist in the process.
The issues Sorenson brings up aren't exactly new, and he was hardly the first person (or even the first ex-convict) to talk about them. But having someone who used to brush off those issues as lefty propaganda say it gives it more power. (And if you are thinking that I'm being awfully general here, it's because I want to encourage you to actually read the whole thing).
I suppose it kind of goes back to something I've been mulling over since the 2016 election. People argue about the future of the Democratic Party, whether Democrats should try to get the white working-class voters or appeal to minorities and the marginalized out-groups who are less likely to vote as if the two must be mutually exclusive. But I don't think that's the case. White working class voters from rural Ohio actually have plenty of common interests with black voters from Chicago's West Side (they both want decent jobs and more investoment in their communities, for one).
There is room to build bridges or, when bridges can't be built, to at least work together for things they do have in common. It takes time, effort, and empathy. Lots and lots of empathy.
First, there is a feature about Democrats' efforts to make in-roads in Ohio among white voters who voted for Trump two years ago. As the article itself notes, there is a school of thought among the more left-leaning commentators that Trump voters were driven less by economic anxiety and more by racism and xenophobia. But the article makes a case that it isn't an either-or proposition. That there are economic issues - economic issues that are very specific to retirees who worked in factories and mines - that do matter, issues that neither party really paid attention to, at least not on the national level. Overall, I recommend you read the whole thing, because the article gives a pretty nuanced pictures of older, working-class voters and shows that people are more complex - and are not always as predictable - as stereotypes suggest. (Which seems like it would be pretty obvious, but people of all political persuasions and ethnic/racial backgrounds keep missing it).
The other piece deals with Kent Sorenson, a Tea Party firebrand in Iowa who became a state representative with a shot at national politics - only to get convicted of taking a bribe and wind up serving a few years in prison. I've seen others describe it as a piece about a conservative who has seen the light became liberal, but that isn't what happened here. Going by the article, Sorenson is still more conservative than not - but his time in prison destroyed his faith that the police and the legal system is always right, that people who wind up in prison deserved it, and that longer, harsher prison sentences are the best way to combat crime. And, yes, he became less racist in the process.
The issues Sorenson brings up aren't exactly new, and he was hardly the first person (or even the first ex-convict) to talk about them. But having someone who used to brush off those issues as lefty propaganda say it gives it more power. (And if you are thinking that I'm being awfully general here, it's because I want to encourage you to actually read the whole thing).
I suppose it kind of goes back to something I've been mulling over since the 2016 election. People argue about the future of the Democratic Party, whether Democrats should try to get the white working-class voters or appeal to minorities and the marginalized out-groups who are less likely to vote as if the two must be mutually exclusive. But I don't think that's the case. White working class voters from rural Ohio actually have plenty of common interests with black voters from Chicago's West Side (they both want decent jobs and more investoment in their communities, for one).
There is room to build bridges or, when bridges can't be built, to at least work together for things they do have in common. It takes time, effort, and empathy. Lots and lots of empathy.