Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the "oligarchy," arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans.
The article title is incredibly misleading. Even the first sentence of the article makes clear what she was actually saying:
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the “oligarchy” on Thursday, arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans and should be replaced with “kings.”
She’s advocating for using a more relatable term, not for a change in party values. The “woke” comment irks me, but again is focused on terminology and not ideology.
When you need the dumb fucks’ votes, you gotta speak their language. Or at least water it down to be palatable to someone who was “educated” in our broken-ass system.
Yea but opposing ‘kings’ isn’t even close to the problem of ‘oligarchs’
One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.
If it was really not ideologically tilted she’d suggest ‘billionaire’ instead of oligarch, but the dems are afraid of losing the support of the 'good billionaires
I think we’re both talking past each other: oligarchy doesn’t imply capitalism, either.
The order you wrote the 2 sentences—kings…oligarchs then one…the other—isn’t parallel.
Oligarchs have lesser, shared authority than a king, and neither implies capitalism, so semantic cues weren’t clear enough to reject suggested parallelism.
Someone who knows the cognitive meaning of oligarch would be confused the way you wrote that.
Anyhow, anti-capitalist sentiment isn’t really that relatable to many Americans: too many Americans dream about gaining obscene wealth, socialism is still a dirty word among too many, they think those business elites somehow “earned it more” than others.
There is some reason to think criticizing power (elites stacking the deck in their favor like unelected rulers) is more likely to broadly appeal to those folk.
Meeting them where they at with a more familiar word isn’t irrational, either.
While I’m fine with explicit language to oppose business oligarchs, I also see an argument for a different tact & same results in rustier, less urban states.
The… cognitive meaning? Wtf is a ‘cognitive’ meaning?
There is some reason to think criticizing power (elites stacking the deck in their favor like unelected rulers) is more likely to broadly appeal to those folk
And how do you think those elites are stacking the deck?? I think you’re intentionally dismissing something that most americans understand extremely well - that the ‘elite’ are able to stack the deck in their favor because they have obscene wealth. Elon bought his way into trump’s circle and fucked with Wisconsin’s election using his immense fortune and influence. That isn’t a mystery, not even to diehard conservatives.
The other issue with ‘kings’ is that in a MONarchy, there is only one monarch, one King. Even the people you’re claiming to speak for know that the problem extends well beyond Trump, and thinking of Elon and Bezos and Zuck and Gates all as Kings of their own kingdom unnecessarily complicates what is otherwise a clear quid-pro-quo relationship between them and a government they are supposed to be subservient to. Oligarchs may be ‘officially’ less than the governing structure they’re a part of, but they are the defining feature of a government by the name of oligarchy.
I also see an argument for a different tact & same results in rustier, less urban states.
I have family in those states, and even though we have differing voting habits, they have always shared my resentment against those with ill-begotten obscene wealth and influence. It is often one of the few things we have in common politically, and I think democrats just don’t want it to be true.
Cognitive meaning is when words are used to convey information and emotive meaning is when words are used to convey your own beliefs (your emotions).
And how do you think those elites are stacking the deck??
It’s not about me.
It’s about how others think, and they don’t necessarily think wealth is a problem.
They may think more about power & corruption.
I think you’re intentionally dismissing something that most americans understand extremely well
I think you overestimate Americans & don’t know how many think unlike you.
they have always shared my resentment against those with ill-begotten obscene wealth and influence
That’s cool for your family.
It’s a mixed bag: plenty of people in those states also vote the way they do because they think they someday could be rich.
There’s an anti-intellectual strain that dislikes people who say words like oligarch.
Merely complaining that someone is rich is oblique & takes some steps & assumptions to arrive to the part that bothers people.
Complaining that they exercise undue power over you & cheat you out of a fair shot makes the point directly.
Many had little problem with the wealthy itself until they saw the Musks, Bezos, & Zuckerbergs line up with the president for favors, ie, corruption.
It’s not about me. It’s about how others think, and they don’t necessarily think wealth is a problem.
But it is a problem, so nerfing your messaging and platform in such a way as to avoid addressing it ends up making things worse (not to mention that you end up losing the people who know it’s a problem and are frustrated at the constant running away)
I think you overestimate Americans & don’t know how many think unlike you.
Rubber, glue
At some point, democrats need to start making the case for their platform instead of tailoring it to what they think voters believe. If we believe wealth inequality is the source of the issue and needs to be addressed, then we need to go to bat for that platform instead of shying away from it because some people have been propagandized into believing it’s communist to talk about. Constantly running away from that platform makes it look more like democrats actually endorse the inequality
Merely complaining that someone is rich is oblique
“Nobody should have so much money they can buy their way into a presidential cabinet position”. That’s not oblique, that’s straight to the point
Complaining that they exercise undue power over you & cheat you out of a fair shot makes the point directly.
“This person is abusing power” vs “This person used their wealth to fuck you over”. Both are simple messages, but one is addressing the actual issue while the other is complaining about who is exercising power and not how or why they have that power to begin with
Democrats will not win on the messaging being proposed, because their own base is getting frustrated with the double-speak and impatient with the lack of progress. You can blame those people if you want but it won’t make them any more likely to win.
Read the fucking article before you comment. It’s obvious most did not.
The article title is incredibly misleading. Even the first sentence of the article makes clear what she was actually saying:
She’s advocating for using a more relatable term, not for a change in party values. The “woke” comment irks me, but again is focused on terminology and not ideology.
When you need the dumb fucks’ votes, you gotta speak their language. Or at least water it down to be palatable to someone who was “educated” in our broken-ass system.
Yea but opposing ‘kings’ isn’t even close to the problem of ‘oligarchs’
One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.
If it was really not ideologically tilted she’d suggest ‘billionaire’ instead of oligarch, but the dems are afraid of losing the support of the 'good billionaires
I’m sure the average, middle-of-the-road voter with mundane concerns thinks that. So relatable.
“King” isn’t even related to capitalism.
People really like first not admitting they didn’t read, then doubling down on absolute nonsense around here.
“People shouldn’t be able to have that much money when everyone else is struggling”
You’re right, that is completely unrelatable, who would ever think like that
You speaking for yourself there?
I think we’re both talking past each other: oligarchy doesn’t imply capitalism, either.
The order you wrote the 2 sentences—kings…oligarchs then one…the other—isn’t parallel. Oligarchs have lesser, shared authority than a king, and neither implies capitalism, so semantic cues weren’t clear enough to reject suggested parallelism.
Someone who knows the cognitive meaning of oligarch would be confused the way you wrote that.
Anyhow, anti-capitalist sentiment isn’t really that relatable to many Americans: too many Americans dream about gaining obscene wealth, socialism is still a dirty word among too many, they think those business elites somehow “earned it more” than others. There is some reason to think criticizing power (elites stacking the deck in their favor like unelected rulers) is more likely to broadly appeal to those folk. Meeting them where they at with a more familiar word isn’t irrational, either.
While I’m fine with explicit language to oppose business oligarchs, I also see an argument for a different tact & same results in rustier, less urban states.
The… cognitive meaning? Wtf is a ‘cognitive’ meaning?
And how do you think those elites are stacking the deck?? I think you’re intentionally dismissing something that most americans understand extremely well - that the ‘elite’ are able to stack the deck in their favor because they have obscene wealth. Elon bought his way into trump’s circle and fucked with Wisconsin’s election using his immense fortune and influence. That isn’t a mystery, not even to diehard conservatives.
The other issue with ‘kings’ is that in a MONarchy, there is only one monarch, one King. Even the people you’re claiming to speak for know that the problem extends well beyond Trump, and thinking of Elon and Bezos and Zuck and Gates all as Kings of their own kingdom unnecessarily complicates what is otherwise a clear quid-pro-quo relationship between them and a government they are supposed to be subservient to. Oligarchs may be ‘officially’ less than the governing structure they’re a part of, but they are the defining feature of a government by the name of oligarchy.
I have family in those states, and even though we have differing voting habits, they have always shared my resentment against those with ill-begotten obscene wealth and influence. It is often one of the few things we have in common politically, and I think democrats just don’t want it to be true.
Source:
It’s not about me. It’s about how others think, and they don’t necessarily think wealth is a problem. They may think more about power & corruption.
I think you overestimate Americans & don’t know how many think unlike you.
That’s cool for your family.
It’s a mixed bag: plenty of people in those states also vote the way they do because they think they someday could be rich. There’s an anti-intellectual strain that dislikes people who say words like oligarch.
Merely complaining that someone is rich is oblique & takes some steps & assumptions to arrive to the part that bothers people. Complaining that they exercise undue power over you & cheat you out of a fair shot makes the point directly.
Many had little problem with the wealthy itself until they saw the Musks, Bezos, & Zuckerbergs line up with the president for favors, ie, corruption.
But it is a problem, so nerfing your messaging and platform in such a way as to avoid addressing it ends up making things worse (not to mention that you end up losing the people who know it’s a problem and are frustrated at the constant running away)
Rubber, glue
At some point, democrats need to start making the case for their platform instead of tailoring it to what they think voters believe. If we believe wealth inequality is the source of the issue and needs to be addressed, then we need to go to bat for that platform instead of shying away from it because some people have been propagandized into believing it’s communist to talk about. Constantly running away from that platform makes it look more like democrats actually endorse the inequality
“Nobody should have so much money they can buy their way into a presidential cabinet position”. That’s not oblique, that’s straight to the point
“This person is abusing power” vs “This person used their wealth to fuck you over”. Both are simple messages, but one is addressing the actual issue while the other is complaining about who is exercising power and not how or why they have that power to begin with
Democrats will not win on the messaging being proposed, because their own base is getting frustrated with the double-speak and impatient with the lack of progress. You can blame those people if you want but it won’t make them any more likely to win.