As a history junkie, I always knew fascism could come to America, but I thought it would require a major depression first, perhaps after AI wiped out our jobs. I also know that the most critical time to act is now, and that leftist movements in countries like Turkey and Hungary gave into distrust and united too late as their institutions crumbled.
I would also never point out to a non-Harris voter that Trump is a dictator-in-waiting and we should not follow Europe's tragic flirtation with fascism. Especially not when most people don't even know what authoritarianism is. For the same reasons why I tailor my email requests on how helping me is in the other person's interests as opposed to rattling off the reasons that appeal to me.
In 2018, Trump only relented to approving wildfire aid to California after one of his directors pointed out that the area affected, Orange County, had more Republicans than Iowa. I suspect the director didn't much care for voter identification, but imagine what would have happened if he had said, "You're the president, you should care for everyone regardless of party. These are innocent lives we're talking about."
As someone who believes humans are primarily self-interested, I was frustrated by the DNC's endless abortion ads. Because honestly, unless you are in the middle of an unplanned or unsafe pregnancy, why would most people care? As for democracy, it's difficult for people who find the current system fundamentally broken to say, yeah let's keep something that isn't working out for me.
So what did voters care about? The DNC surely had enough intelligent consultants to know. It's the three issues I hear about in my circles too: economy, crime, and immigration. So why didn't I see ads pointing out that Trump's tariffs are actually an inflationary tax on working class Americans to pay for tax cuts for billionaires? Or Harris' policies for reducing crime and addressing the border?
1) Voting for Self-Interest
To everyone upset at Latinos for voting against their interests, I get it. But maybe Latinos, like everyone else, are human? And like everyone else, they are not all good, not all bad, and vote according to what they believe are in their best interests (and resent people who claim they know better).
Here's how not to convince a person they're wrong, messages of "I hope your relatives get deported and you get what you voted for." Which honestly sounds a lot like, "I hope you get deported and I know what's better for you." I want to believe this is solely the work of Russian bots. Regardless, you can count on Republicans to share these messages with the Latino community.
I live in California, where I see firsthand how well-intentioned regulations end up hurting my company's ability to expand or hire more talent. I know a rabid gun enthusiast who often rants about how nonsensical California gun regulations are. We both voted Democrat. Aren't we voting against our interests? Should people who don't know me scoff and hope my employer goes out of business and I lose my job? Or that guy deserves to have all his beloved guns confiscated?
So why did Latinos vote against their self-interest? They don't believe they are, and we didn't do a good enough messaging job. In fact, I'm surprised Latinos have voted Democrat as long as they have considering their socially conservative views. The main reasons why they stayed is 1) Democrats are for the working class (a perception that is quickly slipping away) 2) Republicans are racist and want to deport us.
So why didn't Trump's racism scare them away? They did, for some. Overall, Democrats won the Latino vote this time. They may not in two years as more of their Republican friends and relatives convince them to switch sides.
So if you believe Latinos are being hypocrites for not wanting undocumented immigrants to have the same rights, well, Latinos have been voting Democrat for decades. What changed? Did voters suddenly become brownshirts overnight? It's not that simple, as much as the human brain searches for shortcuts.
So let's refrain from stereotyping an entire group of voters and consider ways to improve our messaging. Losing the Latino vote will be fatal for Democrats. This is not a drill. Even California will not be safe.
2) National Attitudes
Since Trump became the GOP nominee in 2016, I've wondered why their voters picked him and not a true conservative ideologue like Ted Cruz. I figured it was because he loudly vowed to punish all the people Republicans hate. And that may be true to a degree. But then I was surprised by the Trumpers willing to cross the aisle to vote for Congresspersons like Andy Kim, Jared Golden, and Elissa Slotkin. It made no sense, because I viewed the dynamic in policy terms.
There is a certain type of candidate that can capture the public's imagination, an outsider who speaks necessary truths and doesn't act like a stereotypical politician. You don't necessarily know what they stand for, except that it must be common sense and the same things you believe in. They reflect a refreshing break from the old order, which doesn't care about you. Trump fits that mold, and that's why I saw voters who are not political whatsoever gravitate toward him.
Meanwhile, the national mood has soured for candidates who appear too slick or scripted, like they were plotting a run for office since the day they could walk. These include Mitt Romney, Ron DeSatan, and yes, a current California governor. And when I saw Kamala Harris, yes, I knew the racism and sexism would be extremely difficult to surmount. But her demeanor and speech also screamed politician. And for that reason alone, many voters will not listen to a word that comes out of her mouth.
So if we know if the national mood favors a candidate who doesn't seem like a politician, let's put some thought into that preference, picking the right candidate based on the constituency. If voters are calling for more Elissa Slotkins, Jeff Jacksons, and AOCs, let's adopt their playbook.
3) Choose Your Battles
For all the flak Joe Manchin received, Joe Biden wouldn't have had much of his impressive agenda accomplished without him. If Democrats are to have any shot at affecting policy, they must control the Senate, and the math is extremely grim. I personally don't see it happening without winning any red seats while keeping all the blue and swing seats. The issue will only worsen as Republicans adopt Hungary/Russia-style tactics to control the media, manipulate the election process, and punish political enemies.
Some of the candidates we support may say to their voters, "biological men shouldn't play women's sports." Wait, hold up, you completely lost me here, you're thinking. How dare you throw trans people under the bus for votes. Let me conduct a thought experiment. The voters who wanted a ceasefire in Gaza and said they would vote Trump, Stein, or not at all over Genocide Joe. What did you tell them? Did you not think they were idiots, disingenuous about preserving human lives? Did you implore them to be strategic, to vote for an unacceptable imperfection to avoid greater loss of life?
The trans issue works. It's why the GOP shamelessly spent $143 million in ads over it. But how come they can get away with identity politics but we're called out on it? Virtually all voters have never been harmed by a trans person, you say. Okay, but voters don't feel that way. I know someone who said she was planning to vote for Hillary but changed her mind because she doesn't want men in women's restrooms. Many voters (including many Latinos) similarly believe genders are fixed at birth and they don't want their children "indoctrinated" to believe otherwise.
If you believe trans rights are a hill to die on, I won't fault you. I believe tolerance for bigotry for one group makes it more socially acceptable to be bigoted for others. But most voters think no, their candidate's bigotry will stop short of hurting them.
What I am saying is trust candidates to know how to talk to their communities (Like Ruben Gallego's refusal to use the term Latinx). If the candidate needs a Sister Souljah moment lecturing Democrats that there is too much policing over language, let them. Deal with the world as it is so it can become closer to the world you wish it was.
4) How to Talk to Someone Who's Open to Fascism
The following is not about reaching voters who are supportive, even gleeful, about fascism. But if we do not address the voters who are open to fascism today, who may still come back depending on the circumstances, they will become the supporters tomorrow.
I believe that no matter what part of the world you're from, which demographic or which ideology, humans are the same in this respect: "We want to be heard. We want people to know what's important to us. What impacts other people is not as pressing as what I think is important."
Not everyone may feel this way, but I'm willing to bet most are. And in the last election, more voters believed that Trump listened to them on the three issues that mattered most. And they felt he wasn't preachy about it.
But he didn't build that border wall! But crime went up! Economy went down! Okay, but regardless, for whatever reason, voters still felt the Democrats were not listening. And they still aren't. And something needs to be done about that.
So the first step is to listen. Yes, we'll remain informed, volunteer, and donate. But without an increase in actual voters, how do we win? Our coalition needs to claw back some of the voters who flipped. So stay engaged in your communities, counter the misinformation when it spreads in your Facebook or Nextdoor group. But most of all, listen and try to understand where they're coming from. If they think Democrats aren't listening, let them know that this one is. Aim to speak for no more than 30% of the conversation.
It will be extremelllyyyyyy frustrating. When they tell you China will pay for the tariff. Or that they're afraid of going to the bathrooms now because of trans people. You'll wonder why it's your responsibility to be the bigger person, why you have to do all the research and answer truthfully while the other side can just resort to anger and lies. Fight it. Listen. If you agree with a point, let them know. "Yeah, we should lower the deficit." "Some politicians are in Congress too long." Patiently explain what a tariff is. And don't bring up parallels to Hitler. It won't work, and they'll think you just called them a Nazi.
Then, after they explain their concerns, say: "I can see how that would be an issue for you. I hope Trump is able to address it and it works out. If he does improve the economy, that would be great." And leave it at that. For now.
Wait, what? Aren't I supposed to tell them that their relatives are going to be deported, that democracy is over, that inflation is going to skyrocket? What they'll hear is: "I think you're an idiot who will FAFO."
In my experience, if I find a person disagreeable, I won't want to have a conversation even when I agree with them. So our goal right now is to reserve our anger in other settings and not confirm right-wing stereotypes that we look down on people who disagree with us. Things will get very bad in this country. And when they do, you want them to be able to come back to talk to you, because they may not have the peers or the media to tell them so and you planted a seed that made them think more critically.
Yes, I am aware that I'm asking you to sacrifice a piece of your mental well-being for a strategy that, while more effective than shutting others out, may still fail a majority of the time. But I can guarantee you it's still much more effective than canvassing or dialing for votes. Plus, people are more likely to trust those they know or live in their communities.
Ask ChatGPT how you should react if your young daughter wants to be with an older man, and you'll likely get a similar response. Listen. Gently explain your position. Invite the man over. Let your daughter know you're there for her. Because if you just yell or forbid her from seeing him, now you've confirmed what the older man has said about you, and she feels she does not have the open door to come back when things inevitably go south, knowing that at best you will gloat. Now, am I comparing Trump supporters to young women entering a clearly bad situation? Yes, yes I am.
I've also found that Christians who resort to fire and brimstone are far less effective than those who are friendly to non-Christians without expectation of conversion. Who display open-mindedness and agree on areas where Christians have failed. They're more likely to convince people to come to church with them and get non-Christians to ask them questions. But it can require months, years of patient work.
If you've survived this long hearing me out, thank you. If you think I'm full of crap, that it's not your responsibility to show grace that you did not receive, that my strategy amounts to capitulation, you can let me know in the comments. But ultimately, it's a fact of life that we are only human and will act in our self-interests. The Republicans know how to weaponize this tendency, turn it into votes and use those votes to wield power. So let's think about how we can maximize the amount of good we can still accomplish with the tools we still have, in this critical period of time.
