The speaker believes Kamala Harris will win because the majority of middle voters will likely reject Trump, viewing him as a 'no' option. However, the margin of victory is expected to be small, reflecting a trend of increasingly narrow election outcomes.
The speaker argues that identity politics, while well-intentioned, has failed as a practical strategy. It often creates divisions rather than unity, as it focuses on differences rather than commonalities. The speaker highlights that identity politics struggles to address the layered inequalities within society, leading to further fragmentation.
The speaker notes that identity politics failed to unite voters, particularly within the Democratic Party. While Republicans successfully consolidated diverse groups under a single banner, Democrats fragmented their base by focusing on intersecting identities. This led to a lack of cohesion and electoral success.
The speaker suggests that political strategies should focus on capturing the specific, personal pains of voters rather than abstract identity narratives. They emphasize the need for parties to communicate effectively and build coalitions around shared experiences, such as being American or a worker, rather than dividing people based on identity.
The speaker reflects that the election revealed the existence of people with fundamentally different views, which their information channels had previously shielded them from. This realization was a significant 'reality check,' highlighting the deep divisions in society and the need to engage with opposing perspectives.
The speaker criticizes the media for creating an echo chamber that reinforced their belief in a Harris victory. They argue that media narratives, while not wrong, were irrelevant to many voters, particularly those who ultimately supported Trump. This disconnect between media portrayal and voter behavior contributed to the election's outcome.
The speaker advocates for greater empathy and understanding in political engagement. They suggest that individuals should reflect on their own privileges and biases, and strive to connect with others on a human level. This approach, they argue, is essential for building a more cohesive and just society.
The speaker concludes that people should love their own time and society as much as they love their country. They argue that the present is the only reality we have, and it is essential to engage with it constructively rather than idealizing the past. This mindset is crucial for addressing contemporary challenges and building a better future.
全体注意必须紧急停止引用茨威格。
(01:29) 必须超越身份政治
(16:28) 必须明白他人存在
(23:58) 必须走出昨日世界
(30:18) 必须(稍微)爱(一点儿)
开玩笑的kids don’t do this at home (29:59)
Some references:
“The quintessential condition of 21st century liberal/progressive Democrat/Labor politics: a couple of fundamentally good guys imagining a more just world that their core political philosophy has absolutely no ability to bring about.” Freddie deBoer, Liberalism Cannot Produce Outcomes Satisfactory to Liberals, https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/liberalism-cannot-produce-outcomes) (02:07)
Daniel Finn, Two Centuries of the National Question, https://jacobin.com/2023/02/two-centuries-of-the-national-question) (07:27)
福山《身份政治》 quoting Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (08:06)
陈嘉映,《救黑熊重要吗?》,https://www.sohu.com/a/496864704_121119350) (10:22)
“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932) (Brandeis, dissenting) (12:41)
“If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?” Cormac McCarthy, No Country for Old Men (20:56)
“I want to earn enough money I can get away from everyone.” DDL, There Will Be Blood (PTA, 2007) (33:13)
“右派注重自由,左派注重平等。而法国的口号是:自由平等博爱。”马克龙,2024 (33:56)
葛兰西《狱中札记》(34:55)
茨威格《昨日的世界》(36:11)
BGM credit to deca joins