What Andrew Yang & Tulsi Gabbard Can Teach Pete Buttigieg | TaraElla Report S5 E2

NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.

 

TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome again to the fifth season of the TaraElla Report. Today, I will be having a chat with my friend Ashley, who is considering which 2020 US Presidential Candidate should be her favorite.

Ashley: You know, I am a bit frustrated with the current state of political discussion in much of the West right now, and especially regarding the 2020 US Presidential race. There's a lot of talk about policy, but there's not a lot of talk about the effect of specific platforms on how people can be brought together or else divided. In my view, and I know it's going to be controversial, specific policies matter less than their effect on the shifting alliegiances of people. In my experience, first as a pro-SJW left-liberal, then as an anti-SJW right-liberal, and then as a more neutral observer of everything, the people shape a movement and its response to future developments more than any specific policy. That's why, when I look at candidates, I want to focus on what coalition of people they can bring together, and how everyone else reacts to them, rather than any of their specific policies.

TaraElla: So how are you viewing the 2020 candidates? Who, in your opinion, has the potential to bring the right coalition together, and who, in your opinion, is hopeless at that?

Ashley: I tend to look for candidates who can bring together diverse and unusual coalitions. They tend to be the winning ones, after all. The other thing is, looking at history, we only achieve progress on anything when we can bring people on all sides to work together. Knowing all this, I think a candidate is only good if they can build a diverse coalition. I know many people don't like Donald Trump, but I think his victory in 2016 was just to be expected, because he could bring a diverse coalition together with his cross-over appeal, while Hillary only brought in the usual Democratic voters, also minus some that went to Trump's coalition. Of course, Trump is also quite divisive, which I think has a bad effect culturally, and this makes him unable to generate consensus to fix things and change things. Even his fans hope that he would tone down on his rhetoric, but unfortunately he just won't, and this might be his undoing. As for the 2020 Democrats, I think Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, and also Mayor Pete Buttigieg are all interesting, because they appear to have cross-over appeal to some extent. I think Tulsi and Yang are especially strong here. I guess their platforms, their personalities, and the culture of their fanbases all contribute to this ability to build a broad-tent. As for those who definitely don't have cross-over appeal and therefore are as uninteresting as Hillary, I think this category would include Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and honestly, most of the others as well. They're just hopeless.

TaraElla: I think it's interesting that you have brought up the role of various factors contributing to whether a candidate can build a broad tent with cross-over appeal or not. I guess we can see it in the case of both Gabbard and Yang. For Tulsi Gabbard, her campaign starts with the core message of ending the endless wars. This is a message with a very broad appeal, resonating with people across the political spectrum. Both 2016 Bernie Sanders supporters and 2012 Ron Paul supporters have been attracted to her campaign's message, for example, and Sanders and Paul are often thought of as poles apart on the political spectrum. Then there's the personality factor. Tulsi is a calm, rational and friendly person, and her speech has a de-polarizing effect on people, which can be seen in how self-identified left-wing and right-wing people often begin to get along better once they become Tulsi supporters. This is opposite to how groupings of Trump supporters often get very hostile to leftists, or groupings of Hillary or Warren supporters often get very hostile to conservatives. Finally, there's a broad-tent culture to the Tulsi fanbase as well, because her fans come from all across the political spectrum. A broad tent culture naturally develops in response to the need to get these diverse people working together. I would even say that, if you want to escape the echo chambers of mainstream media, if you ever needed a reminder that progressives and libertarians can still be on good terms these days, the Tulsi fanbase is a good place to go to.

The factors of platform, personality and fanbase culture also contribute to Andrew Yang's broad spectrum appeal. Yang's campaign is built around the idea of reforming capitalism to serve the needs of humanity, and the centerpiece is the signature policy of a UBI for all. This is a policy that has broad appeal to many people from diverse backgrounds, and is able to get them to rally behind it despite their previous differences. Yang himself has a friendly personality, and he sets an example for his supporters by getting along well with people across the political spectrum, people with all sorts of different views, people from all walks of life and all kinds of backgrounds. Being generally shut out from mainstream media, Yang has instead reached out via alternative media like podcasts and web-based shows, and he's been to many such outlets across the political spectrum, picking up fans and supporters as he goes along. This again creates a support base of great diversity, with a broad tent culture naturally developing over time as these people get working together to support Yang and his vision.

If you look at the factors of platform, personality and fanbase culture and apply this analysis to Pete Buttigieg's campaign, I think you'll see why he wasn't as successful as Yang or Gabbard in building a broad tent. While I would give credit to Mayor Pete for trying to build a broad tent, which is more than can be said for many of the other 2020 candidates, his attempt hasn't been successful in my opinion. Polls have shown that Mayor Pete's support remains disproportionally dominated by highly educated people with a cosmopolitan-liberal outlook, which may also explain why his support is not growing much. Now, don't get me wrong, I actually like Mayor Pete a lot as a person, because he has the kind of personality to bring people together. His calm rejection of the campaign to boycott a certain food outlet was Pete at his finest, in my opinion. But what was missing from his campaign? Firstly, he has no signature policy around which a broad spectrum of people can rally around. Much of his platform is generic Democratic stuff, which independents and conservatives reject almost out of habit. His platform gives independents and conservatives no reason to pay attention to him. Secondly, he has not made a particularly strong effort to bring in a diverse support base. He has not been on right-leaning media much, and he has spent too much time on establishment media and not enough time on web-based media. He also cares about what the irrelevant elites think too much, for example those activists who say that he's 'not gay enough' or 'not the right kind of gay', and doesn't seem to care enough about the fact that he is not registering among many independents and skeptics of the progressive establishment. This is why people like Yang and Gabbard are picking up these votes, but Buttigieg isn't, despite his goodwill towards working across the spectrum. I think there's still time for things to turn around at this point, and Mayor Pete should really reconsider his direction.

Elizabeth Warren Techno Plans vs Andrew Yang Cash Bags | TaraElla Report S5 E1 COMEDY ED.



TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome to the fifth season of the TaraElla Report. Remember, this is the comedy edition, so try not to take anything here too seriously. Today, I will be having a chat with my friend Katie, who is considering which 2020 US Presidential Candidate should be her favorite.

Katie: Several 2020 candidates interest me. I think it's time for someone bold to come up with big plans to fix things. I am particularly interested in Elizabeth Warren, and maybe to some extent Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg. I'm keeping an open mind as to who is better. But Warren's got all the plans going on. You know, she's got a plan for copying some of that Bernie platform, a plan for taking some of that Hillary spirit, and also a plan for, something I couldn't really remember. I really like people with plans. That's why I am leaning towards Warren at the moment. Yeah, I am a Warren Warrior. I'm backing the woman with all the plans.

TaraElla: Yeah, but there are good plans, and there are not so good plans. Warren's plans are technocratic, which I guess is like the political equivalent of techno music, both were big in the 90s but people have long since gotten sick and tired of them. Remember how the rapper Eminem even said that techno was over, way back in 2002. I really can't believe that Warren is still into political techno nowadays. On the other hand, if you go onto the Yang website, you'll see that he has lots of plans too, I think it's more than 100 from memory. And those are good, 21st century plans, not techno plans. Like who else is going to give people $1000 every month, guaranteed, no questions asked? People can go to concerts in any genre they like with that UBI, they're certainly not going to be stuck with techno, techno and more techno.

Katie: Yeah, techno is so uncool. But the thing is, I know you said you don't like Warren very much, but for some reason, she's very popular among my friends. You know, maybe it's because she's like a kind grandma. Who doesn't like a kind grandma running the show? I guess that's actually why I am leaning towards Warren at the moment. In fact, since everyone likes a kind grandma, I wonder why you don't like her.

TaraElla: Excuse me, but Warren doesn't come across like a kind grandma to many people. Really. If you have a look at the polls, independents don't like her very much. And who could blame them? She's not exactly the 'kind' kind of grandma, pun intended. Instead, I think she's more like the bridge-smashing type of grandma. Remember while we campaigned for gay marriage, we did put in a lot of effort to build a bridge with the other side. Now Warren's basically taken a sledgehammer and smashed that bridge to pieces with what she said at that recent debate, ruining all our hard work. You know what I'm thinking about? While Warren's actually a law professor, I think she's also very talented at creating conflict, so I think she should contact a sociology department and try to get a side job teaching conflict theory, if this running for president thing doesn't work out for her.

Katie:
My other concern about Yang is that I've heard people call his UBI 'NeetBux', and I've heard that NEET means something like gamers. I wonder if the UBI will promote video game culture. I mean, I have nothing against gamers, but that culture revolves around video games, right? I don't know how to play video games at all. I'm just worried that, in a world where video games dominate culture, I would look like an outdated person straight from the 19th century.

TaraElla: Who told you that nonsense? I think it proves that fake news is still alive and well, unfortunately. Of course you don't need to be a NEET to qualify for the UBI. You know, the U in UBI stands for 'universal'. The other thing is, you don't need to play video games to be a NEET. That's just a stereotype. In fact, I think that being a NEET may not be so bad after all, especially if there was a UBI. You get all the time to do whatever you like. You get to write that novel you have always wanted to write, or you get to make music 24/7, or something else. Or you could get stuck making YouTube videos all day. Wait a minute, are full-time YouTubers NEETs? I think they may be. You realize something new every day.

Why Andrew Yang is the Future; Elizabeth Warren is the Past | TaraElla Report S5 E1

NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.



TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome to the fifth season of the TaraElla Report. Today, I will be having a chat with my friend Katie, who is considering which 2020 US Presidential Candidate should be her favorite.

Katie: Several 2020 candidates interest me. I think it's time for someone bold to come up with big plans to fix things. For example, I think there should be a serious attempt to reform capitalism. Therefore, I am particularly interested in candidates who promise to seriously reform capitalism, like Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, and maybe to some extent Pete Buttigieg. I'm keeping an open mind as to who is better. I know you said you don't like Warren very much, but for some reason, she appears to be very popular among my friends, so I am leaning towards Warren at the moment. I wonder why you don't like her.

TaraElla: There are three main reasons why I don't like Warren: firstly, her plans to 'fix capitalism' are not the best, especially when you compare it with someone like Yang. Her economic plans come across as very technocratic, which means they are top-down solutions invented and implemented by the elites. While I think some of those plans could make things better, everyday individuals still have less agency than they should. If anything, economic power may become even more concentrated in the administration and the elites. On the other hand, Yang's plans respect the agency of everyday individuals more. His centerpiece is the UBI, which gives everyone $1000 a month to spend however they like. It is the ultimate decentralization of economic power and agency, something which I think is much needed now. Secondly, she is pretty close to the political establishment, and doesn't appear to want to put an end to the pointless wars. I think you should listen to how Tulsi Gabbard talks about Warren. Finally, some of Warren's language is quite divisive. Frankly, I think she sounds like the mirror image of President Trump sometimes.

Katie: So you think Warren is divisive? But as I said, many people like her. She is definitely the current favorite among my friends who identify as 'progressive'. So why do you think she is divisive? And if she is so divisive, why is she still so popular?

TaraElla: I say Warren is divisive firstly because she keeps framing things in identity terms, like how she said that 'race matters'; and secondly because she often needlessly irritates those on the opposite side of politics, especially when she talks about President Trump. There's also the fact that, if you look at conservatives, Warren is one of their most disliked candidates. She is definitely not going to be a President for unity, and in my opinion that's a bad thing. However, her divisiveness may unfortunately explain her popularity with some self-identified progressives, because they are increasingly under the influence of the conflict theory worldview. I'm not saying that they are consicously embracing conflict theory; what I'm saying is that their views have been increasingly influenced by that school of thinking.

Katie: It's interesting that you brought up the conflict theory thing. I haven't read much sociology, so I'm not too familiar with the details, but what I understand is that conflict theory people are pro-conflict, right? Given that most of us would rather have peace, is there a reason why they would want conflict instead?

TaraElla: It's a long story. Basically, conflict theory believes in conflict being the engine for social change. Of course, I strongly disagree with this view, which is another reason why I think candidates like Yang and Gabbard are better than candidates like Warren. Let me provide some context here. One of the reasons why our economic and social situation in the contemporary Western world is so unsustainable is because it was heavily shaped by the long 1968 generation, who used the 'tools' of conflict theory to create their change. Ever since then, Western society lost its spirit of consensus, and political debates became polarized. When administrations on both sides implement solutions without care that people on the other side are alienated by them, the social fabric becomes torn over time. This is why I believe we must move to another method for progressing society, one where we bring people together, listen to the concerns on all sides, and come up with consensus solutions. During this primary, I can see the beginnings of a new dawn for this approach, for example in the way Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard have created broad tents of support, including everyone from the left wing to the center-right. Yang in particular has been surging in the polls lately, which I think provides early evidence for the success of this approach. I think Pete Buttigieg, who you mentioned earlier, is another candidate who is attempting to go broad-tent, but for some reason he hasn't had the same level of success. But the interest is definitely there.

Katie: Could it be a generational thing? I've noticed that the people you mentioned were all born between the mid-1970s and the early 1980s, and their supporters also tend to be younger. On the other hand, Warren is of the older generation, and polls show that her support skews older.

TaraElla: I think there is definitely a generational component to this. As I said, the conflict theory worldview first went mainstream during the years of the 1960s and the 1970s, often called the long-68.

The polarization of that period had a formative effect on young adults coming of age, so many people in that generation basically internalized the conflict theory worldview. I suspect one reason why conflict theory is mainstream again is because the long-68 generation are now at the age where many of them control the levers at the top level of elite society. On the other hand, those of us born in the 1970s and 1980s developed our political consciousness in the more peaceful time of the 1990s and the early 21st century. Many of us have long had a more cooperative view of the world. This is why I think we prefer the 'big tent' approach over the 'divide and struggle' approach.