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.
