I'm not sure that a better solution is possible in America's current political climate. As I see it there are basically three approaches that a progressive could take in a policy debate:

- Persuasion: I think that you are mistaken as to what is in your best interest, here's why my approach would benefit you more.

- Negotiation: Here's how we can work together to find a solution that meets both of our interests.

- Zero Sum: I recognize that this isn't in your best interest but I don't care because its in my interest.

Due to the power of Fox News and the Republican party's current willingness to ignore facts, I don't think persuasion is possible.

Similarly, the strategy that Fox News and the Republican party have taken of promoting polarization, demonizing the other side, using straw-man arguments, etc.[1] Makes it impossible to have the kind of nuanced debate and compromise that would be necessary for a negotiated solution.

Therefore, it seems like all that is left is a zero sum solution. If the other side won't listen or negotiate then the only option remaining is to implement our policies whether they like them or not.

I'm not saying that's an ideal situation, but it seems to me that its the reality that we find ourselves in.

[1] To be fair, I think that progressives do this to a worrying extent as well. However, I single out the Republican party due to the degree to which they have focused on this strategy and because the fact that many Republicans get all of their news from Fox makes the strategy almost unassailable.

You don’t need to convince republicans, you need to convince moderates who can be persuaded to vote one way or the other in a given election. In the context of a general election, we’re talking about thousands of people in a handful of states. I’m struggling with how the idea of “condescension isn’t persuasive” is finding so much friction here.

The democratic party still hasn't learned from their mistakes of the last election unfortunately.

The condescension isn't really coming from the democratic party. Mostly it's from their allies in the press. The democratic party probably knows what the problem is, but doesn't really know how to deal with it.

This reveals that it is possible to combine the Persuasion and Zero Sum methods that the poster above described: "Once I have persuaded 51% of voters to my view, I no longer need to care about your view."

The idea that moderates or "the center" would win an election just broke Labours back in UK. It's also what broke Clintons campaign in 2016. The left has a big enough voting base to win elections, what it lacks is motivating them to vote. The exact opposite of what happens when you water down your positions in search of "moderates".

Interestingly, right-wing parties understand this quite well. If they loose an election you never hear that they have to convince moderates. Instead they get even more radical.

The issue that I see is that due to the electoral college and gerrymandering, it can be difficult to win even if you can convince moderates.

The other issue is that many of the issues that progressives are concerned about (e.g. climate change, inequality, gun control) require action by society as a whole. Ideally we would negotiate and find policies that address the priorities of both progressives and conservatives. However, that doesn't currently seem to be possible.

> The issue that I see is that due to the electoral college

Please read the federalist papers.

Care to elaborate?

Because of the electoral college, voices are not wiped out and discounted entirely in this country.

I do not want the equivalent of a yellow vests movement happening here.

Gerrymandering is a huge issue, and it makes it so that moderates don’t have to exist because of safe districts.

The fundamental disagreement about priorities between the parties somehow turned into disagreement about facts in the past decade.

I don't think the electoral college is an effective way to give everyone a voice because it creates a situation where some votes count more than others and it allows a minority of the population to hold the country hostage.

I believe that something like proportionate representation is a better solution. It would still allow minority populations (e.g. rural areas) to band together and get representatives elected that reflect their priorities. However, since the system is no longer winner takes all it promotes finding solutions via negotiation.

About that "promoting polarization", it takes two to polarize. You too have the option to cave. You are free to end the polarization at any moment.

Demonizing the other size is impressively the other way. It's happening whenever you see people flinging words like racist, sexist, fascist, and nazi.

Wrong: demonization is obviously one-sided. Because it alone can drive polarization, polarization is not "two-sided".

Moreover, there is a difference in calling spade a spade, and hate speech.

I'm not sure I think "just cave in" is a realistic solution to polarization. That doesn't actually solve anything it just creates more resentment.

In terms of demonization, I think its fair to use words like racist, sexist, and fascist when they are accurate descriptions. Before the Trump administration I was opposed to using those terms because I didn't feel that it was clear that they were accurate. However, I do think they are accurate now.

In my opinion, Nazi is only a reasonable term when the person is actually advocating for Nazism which, other than actual Neo-Nazis, is very rare. The only example I can think of where it might be valid was when Trump said that there were good people on both sides of a Neo-Nazi rally.

Media in the echo-chambers emphasize the bogeyman/straw man arguments of the other side, ensuring that right-leaning audiences only sees the video and soundbites that reinforce the effete, ivory tower, condescending, detached-from-reality stereotypes. Similarly, the left-leaning population only sees the racism, intolerance, education-bashing, and fact denial. Neither represents more than 5% of the population, but each political leaning believes the stereotype represents 50% of the other side.

I've always thought that the line about people voting against their own interests was just addressing an irrelevant point. Billionaires who support Sanders and Warren are voting against their own interest because they'd get taxed higher, does anyone think that's bad? There's nothing wrong with voting on principle, rather than for what directly benefits you personally.

Do the American political right not constantly say the same thing? But face less scrutiny when they say it.

The American political right faces constant scrutiny from left learning news in America. The simple fact is that somehow labor unions seem to be turning against the political left, which means someone messed up big time.

Failure to scrutinize your performance when you are losing is a recipe for more losing.

You don't have to guess what a lot of people's interests are. They will tell you. In my constituency people were annoyed with our sitting member who is Labor because the train prises increased. They want lower train fares so they voted conservative. So yes, it is actually easy in some cases to say someone voted against their interest.

No. They didn’t vote against their interest. They voted for someone who supposedly would fulfill their interests. Voting against your interests implies you know your interests are wrong.

Would that change a single thing about the way you vote if they did?

Not sure how I vote is relevant to the conversation.

I usually see the argument "you're voting against your own interests" from the free-market, libertarianish side. You may be right that it's often viewed as condescending, but I'm not sure what the alternative would be since the proper pursuit of 'enlightened self-interest' is the whole point of that sort of politics.

The condescending part is that the left views poor people who vote for non-democrats as voting against their self-interest. No one knows what someone’s self-interest is except the person who is voting. Considering the US has only 2 major options on elections, there is a panoply of reasons why someone votes and merely saying “poor people who vote republican are brainwashed idiots” is what grates on people who believe everyone has their own agency regardless of their economic class.

> The condescending part is that the left views poor people who vote for non-democrats as voting against their self-interest.

Is it condescending if it's true, though?

Condescension and correctness are largely orthogonal axes.

You have it wrong. In many cases poor people are better served by voting for lower taxes, cheaper products, maintaining the status quo so there factory job can stay a little longer. It might mean dropping union protections because it makes there state more investable. In the auto sector jobs shifted to southern states without unions.

I didn’t say anything about the issues. What could I be wrong about? All I said is, if you believe anyone from X voting for the other guy means that they are brainwashed, you are delusional. People vote how they want for innumerable reasons. All poor people, gay people, black people, etc. cannot be easily bucketed into voting units. Everyone has their own agency as individuals.

>the condescending part is that the left views poor people who vote for non-democrats as voting against their self-interest.

And the right views poor people who vote for Democrats as lazy grifters just looking for a handout, naive fools in the pocket of globalist elites, or else not "real Americans" like themselves.

It isn't only the left or Democrats which have a problem in this regard. The right/Republican end of the spectrum is fueled by its naked contempt for everyone outside their camp.

Naked contempt from one side. Pitying condescension from the other.

It's nice that we have a choice.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Unfortunately, my state went for Kang.

It seems like a losing argument, from whichever direction. Who would not be ashamed to confess, that they took only their own interests into consideration when voting?