Dem Senator Says Party Needs to Stop Attacking ‘Oligarchy’ and Focus on Losing ‘Woke’ Reputation
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the "oligarchy," arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans.
You're viewing a single thread.
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:
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.
I read the article and I completely disagree with her. ‘Oligarch’ means something different than ‘king’, and many Americans don’t have the same negative reaction to the word ‘king’, which is often romanticised in media, whereas ‘oligarch’ calls up images of nefarious machinations in authoritarian regimes – exactly what’s actually going on.
Also, being whiny that the bullies are calling us ‘woke’ is reactionary and misses the whole point. This is where we should be doubling down, not diluting our language.
e: also also, having spent decades in UxD and usability (which entailed a lot of surveying and analysis), I’d be hesitant to rely on surveys that show a population’s preference for one word over another, because word feels are affected by far more than knowledge of their definitions, and the reasons aren’t easily captured in a survey. The reasons are what matter, not necessarily the word, and I’m sure she didn’t explore this enough to understand the sociology here.
What's more "alpha" than backing down from a bully and adhering to their chosen framing of an issue?
You know what would actually be "alpha" (ugh)? Not trying to figure out the ideal terminology for whatever state she thinks the populace is inclined to right now and actually driving the conversation to bring people to our viewpoint. Like having a national tour highlighting wealth inequality and corruption by literal mustache twirling villains. Because if you say it enough and talk about the problem that's right there fucking everything up right now and LEAD, they'll adopt whatever goddamned term you feel like.
Our country was also founded on saying fuck off to a king. It's part of the foundational mythology of the country. To a lot of people the word oligarchy means precisely nothing.
Rule by powerful elites isn't unamarican. It's actually kinda the opposite, given the caveats on our democratic system and it's history.
A king however is actually one of the few unambiguously unamerican things out there.
This is not to disagree with your point, but more to say that it's not without room for debate.
As for the "weak and woke" bit, I'm gonna disagree. That one read to me as a need to address public perception, not criticism from the right. Backing down from a bully is different from trying to change public perception. I didn't see it as a statement of needing to be less woke, but of needing to be perceived as being effective and concerned about things other than the most pejorative senses of the term woke.
That political parties need to be viewed in a positive light by the public to be effective is inescapable.
Most of your peers don’t have that reaction. They should~ but they don’t. Ask them to name a king not from a Disney movie and report back. *edit: ask them to name the king independence was fought over. I’ll bet many can’t, and I’ll bet none can give you the actual reasons (other than vague concepts like ‘freedon’ or ‘taxation’).
I’m with you. Let’s stop fighting each other and figure this out.
I can definitively tell you that anyone I know who I could ask that question of would be able to say Richard, George or Luis with a random number afterwards, at least knows king George due to musical theater, and would be able to give a more detailed breakdown of the factors behind the revolution than the vaguely conceptual, although I'm not sure what level of granularity you need for it to be the "real" reasons. (You'd get taxation without representation, quartering troops, Boston massacre, and probably some that i can't recall and a "the rich white ruling class resented being governed and seized an opportunity for justifiable rebellion and the cause was just pretext")
My brother in law would be the most uncertain. He almost certainly doesn't know what an oligarch is, but he has enough 'murika to him to be resentful of royalty. From the kids most royalty he could name would be animated I think. Probably hand wave the essentials of the revolution without getting names right, and I have a sneaking suspicion he'd call the Boston tea party a cause.
There's a lot of variety in what you find in people.
Yes they mean something different. If you go ask 5 random people what an oligarch is, at least one is likely not to know what it means.
The "woke" reputation stuff is also a little weird, but there again, the people using it as an insult probably don't have a good working definition.
It's easy to say "words have meaning" but lots of people, even left leaning ones, don't always know what those meanings are.
I’m not saying ‘words have meaning.’
I’m saying we create meaning and we should not just give in to the fascists’ definitions.
They do not define us.
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 don't see anything wrong with talking about the oligarchs as "kings" as well. I think that language could work just as well with Zuck, Bezos, etc. as it would with Trump.
I think it would have been better if she had used a "yes, and", recognising that the Sanders/AOC rallies are bringing a lot of people out and getting them more engaged, then suggesting using the "kings" language on top of it.
I don’t see anything wrong with talking about the oligarchs as “kings” as well. I think that language could work just as well with Zuck, Bezos, etc. as it would with Trump.
I disagree, I don't think people would resonate with that language as applied to other, 'good'/quiet billionaires like Gates, Buffet, or Page - in fact I think that's exactly the point of swapping terms because it sounds more specific to how those billionaires utilize their wealth and influence instead of the fact that they have it to begin with.
I'm cool with your disagreement. It's not known right now what the best strategy is, and I'll concede I could be wrong on that one. I don't know if it will resonate more to "focus on the worst billionaires" or push "no such thing as an ethical billionaire".
while your point is benign enough-- so no shade on you, I do think context matters, focused language matters, and watering down language-- like Slotkin is trying to do-- is a cheap rhetorical trick to control the narrative. Her proposition is at best pointless and at worst manipulative to sabotage progressive messaging with nonsense. Its a classic zionist move too.
One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.
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
People really like first not admitting they didn't read, then doubling down on absolute nonsense around here.
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?
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.
Wtf is a ‘cognitive’ meaning?
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.
Rubber, glue
Again, not my opinion.
Look around: who voted Trump into office? What thoughts voted him in? I doubt they're anti-capitalist.
But [wealth] is a problem
Again, many don't share your anti-capitalist sentiments. They'd say the problem is cronyism such as political connections & undue influence of moneyed special interests in politics. These are not the same.
They aren't opposed to accumulation of wealth. They're opposed to wealth gained through illegitimate means (eg, connections to win government bids, pass laws in their favor, capture regulatory agencies, reduce competition): economic government corruption, ie, crony capitalism.
They boil down to the same answer: get money out of politics (eliminate the dependence of campaigns on fundraising, reform lobbying) & break up the 2-party system.
If we believe wealth inequality is the source of the issue
Many think it's a symptom: the problem is political access from wealth disadvantaging others from gaining wealth or crony capitalism.
“A presidential cabinet position shouldn't be for sale to the highest bidder” is more direct without requiring buy-in to an idea many don't accept. You focus on wealth rather than that no level of wealth should be able to buy that sort of thing.
one is addressing the actual issue
Questionable: the actual issue is illegitimate power as originally stated. Some people care more that it was gained at all: they shouldn't have that illegitimate power through wealth or any other means (personal connections, favors, etc). They want the cronyism removed from capitalism.
so nerfing your messaging and platform
It's not: it's framing the same goals in language other voters will accept. Neither oligarch nor kings implies capitalism as you stated.
Democrats will not win on the messaging being proposed
Until Democrats build in other states the kind of establishment they have in California & New York, Democrats in other states will need to adapt their message to their voters.
Frankly, adapting a message isn't enough. They need to beat Republicans at social media, have their own answer to right-wing influencers & podcasters like Joe Rogan, probably pump out their own viral bullshit, answer Republican troll farms with Democrat troll farms.
"It's not my opinion"
spends the next ten paragraphs expressing that opinion
Insisting that the problem isn't wealth accumulation, but instead "corrupt" wealth that just happens to be accumulated under capitalism is just delusion and denial.
Bernie and AOC are two of the most nationally-favorable politicians in the US, and the core message from both is "wealth inequality is the problem".
I'll just say it again: if democrats run their platform on "cronyism" and not wealth disparity and accumulation, they will continue losing. But don't take my word for it - that's what they've been running on.
Edit:
They need to beat Republicans at social media, have their own answer to right-wing influencers & podcasters like Joe Roga
Lmao, Ken Martin, that you? This is such a boomer take. This is like trying to claim Clinton lost in 2016 because she didn't tweet enough or use the right young-person slang, skibidi
Yea but opposing 'kings' isn't even close to the problem of 'oligarchs'
I don’t disagree, but for the sake of elections, they’re effectively equivalent. I agree the billionaires are most of the problem, but their names aren’t on the ballot. It’s the guy who is trying to play king.
It’s the guy who is trying to play king
yea.... except he's just the end result of a far broader problem
This is exactly the concern with hand-wringing over semantics- the democrats aren't losing because they aren't being vocal enough about their opposition to Trump, they're losing because they're actively avoiding the root problem.
Pick another word for oligarchs if you want, so long as the attention is being drawn to the root problem of wealth inequality and the billionare class. Don't just abandon the issue because you're afraid it looks like you might be critiquing our economic model when that's absolutely what we're doing
but their names aren’t on the ballot.
Theres a lot more to fighting the oligarchy than voting.
Sure, but I would say it’s a good thing to focus on for a minority political party.
Exactly.
I disagree. How exactly is that obvious?
You're just sore that we all think she's DNC trash.
Do you know what the word "most" means? Do you also see that the article misrepresents her position which is basically "use an easier word than oligarch"?
Take a breath; if you did read the article, you apparently didn't read my comment. It doesn't say "if you disagree it's obvious you didn't read it".
take your upvote for reading the source and making me do the same.