Search This Blog

Showing posts with label 2016 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016 Election. Show all posts

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Hillary Clinton and Millennial Contempt

by Chris Alarie

Recent polls show a tightening of the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But rather than Trump poaching voters from Clinton, the race is closer now largely because significant segments of voters are choosing to back third (and fourth) party candidates Gary Johnson, a Libertarian, and Jill Stein, of the Green Party. Four-way polls consistently show that these two candidates draw more support away from Clinton than they do from Trump. Interestingly, Johnson and Stein both find high levels of support from millennials, voters age 18 to 29. Clinton's problem with younger voters and the way that she and her supporters respond to it demonstrates a larger problem within the Democratic Party and our society as a whole: the mutually reinforcing contempt between Baby Boomers and millennials.

The Democratic primary contest between Clinton and Bernie Sanders was much closer than Clinton and her allies within party leadership expected thanks in large part to millennial voters' strong preference for Sanders over Clinton. While Clinton eventually won the nomination,1 she has struggled to win the support of those young voters. Even Clinton's vaunted and all important advantage with non-white voters is significantly less pronounced with young minorities. Her message from the primary that she is the most experienced candidate did not register with a generation that has come of age in an era where the consequences of the economic failures of the Baby Boomer generation have fallen hardest on the youngest cohort. Indeed, Clinton's decades of experience may be more of a burden than a boon in her efforts to connect with millennials. Young voters see her as a part of the corrupt political and business establishment that wrecked the economy and housing market just as the millennials began to graduate from college. Her close ties to the finance industry and her penchant for raking in corporate speaking fees do not help matters.2 These sorts of qualities are not appealing to young voters. In a Harvard IOP poll conducted late last year, voters between the ages of 18 and 29 put significantly more value in "integrity", "level-headedness", and "authenticity" than either business or political experience as the most important qualities for a presidential candidate. Simply put, millennials do not trust Hillary Clinton.

Since she clinched the Democratic nomination, Clinton has made some efforts to appeal to young voters. But she has mostly waged her general election campaign under the seeming assumption that millennial voters—who are more progressive than previous generations, dislike Donald Trump much more than they dislike her, and have overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama—will come around eventually. Indeed, if she paid any heed to millennial concerns about her lack of trustworthiness and long standing connections to wealthy elites, she likely would not have spent the better part of the late summer fundraising from those elites at private events. However, these recent poll numbers indicate that Clinton erred in her assumption and millennials are not, in fact, coming around. Clinton's supporters are not happy about this development. But rather than express frustration with their candidate for failing to pay anything other than lip service to the concerns of young voters, Clinton supporters have taken a different tack—one that is generally common among Baby Boomers on a whole number of subjects: blaming the millennials themselves.

A tweet from Mother Jones co-editor Clara Jeffery is representative of the response by older Clinton supporters3 to these recent polls:
Some frustration on the part of Clinton supporters is understandable. Clinton, for all her serious flaws, is nowhere near as bad as the rolling disaster and looming existential threat that is Donald Trump. And Clinton supporters can make the case that their candidate has made a genuine attempt to address millennial concerns with her domestic policy agenda. But this response, in addition to being so obviously condescending, completely misunderstands the situation. Sure Clinton has made some small effort to appease millennials with her genuinely progressive domestic policies. But by continuing to comport herself as the ultimate, experienced insider, she is completely ignoring the central issue of her trustworthiness that is so important to those voters. Also, by assuming that millennials will consolidate behind her now that she is the Democratic nominee overestimates how significant party loyalty is to a generation that generally prefers to eschew the sorts of identifiers and labels that matter so much to Boomers and Generation X. Clinton's overreliance on the threat of Donald Trump's near guarantee of chaos and her championing of herself as the solemn, serious defender of the status quo ignores how badly the status quo has been for young people. Millennials supported Bernie Sanders because he was genuine, trustworthy, and revolutionary. Hillary Clinton has made no effort to be any of those things yet she still expects those same voters to support her. In reality, she is actively pushing young voters toward two candidates even more flawed than she by refusing to take any of young voters' concerns seriously

This follows a typical pattern of interactions between Boomers and millennials on any of a number of subjects. Boomers, by the virtue of antecedence, are in large part responsible for the conditions of the world that the millennials are in the process of inheriting. For a whole host of reasons, the Boomers have been far less than satisfactory in their role in this process. When millennials offer criticism, the Boomers actively ignore the concerns of millennials, belittle them, and complain about how different they are from how the Boomers were at a similar stage in their generational development, all the while refusing to acknowledge their own dramatic failings. It has even led to a laughably terrible journalistic genre known as "Millennial Bashing". This is, essentially, what Clinton, her Boomer supporters, and her campaign surrogates have done throughout the election. And while it is ultimately unlikely to cost her the election, it is at least putting it at risk. It also leads me to wonder if there is a looming generation schism within the Democratic party and progressive politics in general.

One of Clinton's more pathetic attempts to pander to younger voters is her campaign's laughably out of touch use of memes and internet culture.4 Perhaps the meme researchers on her campaign need to familiarize themselves with Old Economy Steven. In this meme, a photo of a teenaged Baby Boomer from the early 1970s is overlaid with, at the top, a typical Boomer complaint about millennials and, at the bottom, some assertion demonstrating either how much easier it was for Boomers when they were young or how badly they have failed the younger generation in the intervening years. It is, as Kevin Roose and Stefan Becket write, a "wry commentary on the way today’s young people struggle with student debt, unemployment, and other recession-era economic concerns, only to be described as lazy and entitled by members of an earlier, luckier generation." It is also the meme that far and away best represents how millennials and Hillary Clinton view each other. Were she to adopt it, it would likely be one of the first times that younger voters could feel that she is being authentic. That honesty alone would not be enough for her to garner their support, but perhaps it would be a first step toward the candidate acknowledging the concerns of a crucial segment of her electorate.


Chris Alarie is Spectacular Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.



1 And the endorsement of Senator Sanders.
2 Nor does her reluctance to divulge the content of her speeches.
3 Born in in 1967, Jeffery is actually right on the cusp between Boomers and Generation X. But her attitude fits squarely within the typical Boomer view of millennials.
4 Both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have made similarly pathetic attempts to glom onto meme culture. Trump, on the other hand, has been adopted by a particular sector of the internet with a love of both frog memes and white nationalism.

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Your Official UVM Presidential Endorsement

by Chris Alarie

Many of you have been clamoring to know where Uncanny Valley Magazine stands on this year's presidential election. Please allow this to serve as our official endorsement for the 2016 presidential election.

On the one hand, it would be easy to endorse Bernie Sanders, whose sane but dramatic, left wing agenda is probably the only plausible plan that any candidate has put forth that would stand even the remotest chance of preventing America from eating itself. There is, perhaps, something understandable in endorsing widely reluctantly accepted candidate Hillary Clinton, as she is almost certainly going to be the Democratic nominee and the final line of defense against President Donald Duck Trumpet. And, of course, our general, default stance on politics is Vote 4 Doug. And we would be remiss if we did not point out that Ted Cruz still has not come right out and denied being the Zodiac Killer. But the uniquely bizarre tenor of this election, as well as the extent to which stakes that have been raised regarding the future of our country, we can truthfully only offer the following endorsement:

Voting is for Nerds.

Thank you and God bless the United States of America.

Chris Alarie is some stupid joke title affixed to Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Doug Explains Why Marco Rubio is NOT a Robot

by Douglas Slayton

 

As we discussed last time, the run-up-to-the-election-deciding-pie-eating contest is getting very fierce. Names are being called, feelings are being hurt, and only one can leave with the rose. While the Democrats only have two real options (sorry Steven Spielberg), the Republicans have at least thirty six candidates—and very possibly exponentially more because new candidates keep bursting out of the chest of noted Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan like the popular 1979 sci-fi-horror film Alien, but with a healthy dose of xenophobia. In the upper echelon of these smiling, vacant eyed homunculi is Marco Rubio, just behind the rubber puppet that is Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, who is probably that neighbor you have who is really nice but is actually the Zodiac Killer.


Chief within the name calling amongst the contestants is the accusation that Marco Rubio is a robot; this could be not be further from the truth. This criticism likely comes from his steely complexion and and dry, angular handshake. While these are characteristics of robotism, they are nothing without the true underlying causes.


Robotism is a condition that is contracted at birth when people, instead of being birthed from cellular entanglement of two warm blooded humans who don’t really care for each other but due to their fear of their slowly approaching demise feel that having a fraction of their dna survive another thirty to one hundred and twenty years is preferable to happiness, are constructed from metal bits under sweatshop conditions in the South Pacific. So not much different from human birth, but different enough. Those who have robotism live very different lives than meat people: the aging process is quicker as every year they are simply re-equipped with whatever technological advancements may have been developed in the past twelve months. But those with robotism also live virtually forever. Meat people only live thirty to one hundred twenty years—no less no more.


There are many reasons we can speculate that Rubio has these row-boatian characteristics. He could have been infected with some kind techno virus, but this is unlikely as he never wears raver clothes and has yet to ever mention Jamiroquai in public. He could be one of the silver men: a cult who worship those with robotism as both spiritually and sexually superior to the meats. The silver men theory is popular because there have been instances noted where a silver spray-painted gentleman who resembles Rubio has jumped out of a fake bush scaring people at Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco. This, we know, is a popular tradition for the silver men to cull meats from the robotians. Though the most likely explanation, according to my expertise, is that he may have been hit very hard in the head with a steel pipe, contracting wererobotism. Wererobotism is a very rare and serious disease wherein a meaty begins to think they are a robot, so they start eating only industrial metal shavings 1 and only move in jagged forty-five degree movements.2 Wererobotism—I am trying to say—is not a real thing; it is a thing robotists use as an excuse for when they start taking on those qualities.


The long and short of it is that Marco Rubio is not cool and should come out and apologize to the robot community rather than taking on robotist stereotypes in order to try and pander for their votes. Robots can’t vote anyway, but that is mostly because of claustrophobia.

Douglas Slayton is Professor Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.





1 A robotist notion suggests that robots only eat industrial metal shavings, but this is perpetuated by the fact that robots are systematically forced to live in industrial areas because of economic hardships due to years of oppression. Industrial metal shavings are heavily marketed in these areas at bodegas in with bullet proof glass around the counters.
2 This is another robotist notion because of a three year period from ‘79 to ‘82 where the popular joints for robots were clicking joints that would stop every forty five degrees creating the illusion of quick jerky motions

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Doug Explains the Iowa Caucus

by Douglas Slayton

Editor's Note: this is the first in a new series of articles whereby Uncanny Valley Magazine Professor Editor-in-Chief Douglas Slayton explains important, newsworthy topics. If you would like to read Doug's explanation of a particular topic, please send us an e-mail at uncannyvalleymagazine@gmail.com.

In the run up to the crowning of the new President some of you have walked up to me on the street
and yelled indignantly, "What is Iowa?!" and one even was like, "What is a Caucus?" to which I probably responded by crying or running in the opposite direction, because I thought you said something else. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. In order to make this up to you I will now explain what the Iowa Caucus is.

Firstly, Iowa, contrary to popular belief, is not in fact a state. Iowa is a governing body responsible for transportation and farming regulations. Iowa is actually an acronym, but no one remembers what it stands for because James Garfield possessed the only documents outlying its meaning at the time of his death and everyone forgot he had them until after he had been shot into to space. Coincidentally, that is why we have a space program: to recover these documents from his frozen corpse. As the need to govern both transit and farming grew, the department of Iowa grew to the size of a state after purchasing land from the states surrounding it so the officials and their family would not have to commute in from the coasts any longer. As more people began to occupy the compound, it became necessary to create more civilized infrastructure to support this new population, which led to the current misconception of its statehood.

A popular dictionary defines Caucus as "not what you think it is you perverted little fuck, put the book back on the shelf and go to class." This does not clarify the situation. Throughout the course of the "election cycle" half of what are considered "states" hold Causcuses. They are an ancient and brutal ritual where the supporters of each party must battle each other to prove that the candidate they support leads the strongest warriors and will better protect us from roving clans of geese that Canada uses to oppress the United States.

While all of this is common knowledge, it is important background for the current dispute that is the topic du jour for the media. This past week, this election season's Causcuses began with an especially brutal bout among the Democrats, leaving thousands dead and ten times as many homeless in the rampage across the non-state of Iowa, with the front runners' (Hillary Clinton and Bernard Sanders) supporters being some of the most vicious and entitled Caucusers1 of all time. Clinton's were mostly armed with money from rich people and Sanders's was composed mostly of those who were young and had nothing to lose. I don't actually know the results; as a noted apolitical and perpetual presidential write-in candidate myself, I am not legally allowed to follow any coverage until there is an official, final announcement.

I would like to take a moment and ask why I haven't been invited to any debates. Is it my unpopular stance on outlawing chicken wire headwear? Anyway...

On the Republican side, some stuff happened too, I am sure. Like, look at them: they obviously did some shit. Although, traditionally, Republicans are less brutal because they are all related and think that fighting within the family is inappropriate.

Now someone just yelled at me from across the bus asking what the difference between a Causcus and a Primary is. This is a good question.

Primaries are what the younger states use to decide the candidates. As such, they are less brutal and more civilized. The constituency all casts double blind ballots for their choice. As the ballots are double blind, the voter does not actually know what they are voting for, so it is basically luck based. Traditionally, the candidate listed on the right side of the ballot has done better because of the right handed dominance in our culture. In the last decade, though, officials finally noticed the trend and have started randomizing the ballots. But usually it ends up with useless results for "other" and comes down to whichever candidate has not been battered into submission from the press and public.

It is important to stay informed on these issues and political events, so when a estranged relative or potential sexual partner (haha, yeah right) asks about who it is you voted for or who you think might pull it out in the end, you can flippantly say something like, "Oh the brutality of it all is too much for my poor heart to take. Please, please let me die already." To which they will respond with a tearful assertion that life and politics have meaning and you will simply shake your head endlessly until they leave, confused.


1 Or, as they are commonly known, Caucasians.


 Douglas Slayton is Professor Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.

Friday, December 25, 2015

Xmas Poem

unsigned checks
by Douglas Slayton

it had always been cold
where you were born
i promised i would be
a warmth between you
skin and bone

when i called
i never heard back
so i keep the windows closed

Douglas Slayton is Professor Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Inequality and the Limits of America's Two-Party System

by Chris Alarie


Over the past several months, the American public and, perhaps more importantly, media have been deeply fascinated by the 2016 presidential election, despite the fact that we are a year away from election day and a few months out from even the earliest nominating contests. Some of that is a result of the necessities of the 24 hour news cycle, the horse-race-style1 coverage of elections that the media favors,2 and the particularly odd characters who populate the nominating contests. But another source of interest is the way that the battles for each party's nomination have put a spotlight on intra-party issues, particularly with regards to America's income and wealthy disparities.3 Both the Republican and Democratic parties are in the midst of battles as to how each party should best address the questions surrounding inequality. These intra-party debates illustrate one of the more pressing but under-discussed political problems in America: the way our two-party system is hurting the democratic process and preventing the government from properly addressing the economic concerns of the general public (in this case, the increasing divide between the super-wealthy and the rest of the country—a function of worsening income and wealth inequality as well as a lessening of economic mobility).

America is, for all intents and purposes, the only major democracy that has only two effective political parties. And the two parties are entrenched in such a manner that their respective areas of expected electoral control are, if not predestined, then highly predictable, at least. The Democrats have a distinct advantage in the electoral college, giving them an easier path to control over the electoral branch of the federal government. The Republicans have a stranglehold over much of the governments at the state level which, in turn, gives them a similarly overwhelming control of the House of Representatives. The only segment of the federal government that is currently a remotely open contest between the two parties is the Senate, depending on which seats are contested in each particular election. The manner in which these two parties are entrenched is a key facet of the worsening problems of inequality.

In a recently published Vox article, Lee Drutman explains how America seems to be stuck in a reinforcement feedback loop of income and wealth inequality that is both a product of and engine behind Republican control of the government. It is a well-supported, interesting article and is well worth reading in full, but for my purposes, can be summarized as explaining that the last few decades of largely Republican controlled economic policies have created an extreme level of income inequality that has created a less informed and less politically engaged electorate, which in turn favors Republican electoral goals. Essentially, the Republicans have used their control over the federal government to make the federal government ineffective in addressing inequality, which in turn allows them to campaign against the federal government as a solution for inequality in front of an electorate that, thanks to the aforementioned inequality, is less prepared to evaluate these problems and less likely to engage with the political process, both of which favor the perpetuation of this strategy on the part of the Republicans. While the reasons for this feedback loop are manifold and complex, it is, in part, a function of the limitations of our two-party system.

The Democratic and Republican parties have effective monopolies over, respectively, the liberal and conservative factions of the government, with the middle ground becoming more and more empty. And with these monopolies comes an increased focus on ideological consistency, particularly in the GOP, and a greater need to establish differences between the parties on most issues. The problem is that each party's ideology is unlikely to represent the beliefs of most voters on every single issue. Anything outside of either party's orthodoxy, even an idea that finds bipartisan support among the general electorate, necessarily becomes either a partisan cause—if it fits within one party's ideology—or an unsupported cause—if it doesn't fit within either party's ideology. Income and wealth inequality are problems that follow this first model in that they are a primary concern of a majority of Americans but are only identifiable as problems within the ideology of the Democratic party, essentially rendering a cause that should have broad support as a partisan cause that is subject to all of the problems and ineffectiveness of our polarized system of government.

For statistical evidence that a sizable portion of the populace is concerned about inequality, one could look at polls from the New York Times/CBS and Gallup. But for more anecdotal evidence that the issue is important to voters from both parties, one need look no further than the very different, insurgent populist campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Indeed, inequality is the primary issue on which Sanders has centered his campaign and a significant source of his unexpected success and momentum—to the point that likely eventual nominee Hillary Clinton has had to (perhaps unconvincingly) focus on the issue, as well. On the other hand, Trump's success is a bit harder to tie to any one issue. But it is still worth noting that Trump has addressed the issue of inequality more directly than any other Republican candidate, stating that he would like to raise taxes on hedge fund managers4 and has no intention of reducing medicaid or social security—which amounts to as much of defection from GOP orthodoxy on the subject of inequality as could be imagined by a leading presidential candidate. The strangeness of Trump's behavior and his attendant popularity has led to a veritable cottage industry of articles in which a journalist speaks to Trump supporters in order to discover the reasons behind their support. While the supporters' responses run the gamut from relating to his racist, nationalistic rhetoric on immigration to his supposedly self-financed campaign's freedom from the influence of special interests to his general blustery demeanor, many Trump supporters point to his comparatively stronger focus on the issue of inequality relative to other Republicans. Indeed, the enthusiasm for Sanders and, to a lesser extent, Trump illustrates the extent to which inequality is an issue of importance to the public across the political spectrum. However, the fact that neither candidate seems likely to eventually win the presidency or even capture his party's nomination demonstrates how the two-party system prevents the government from truly addressing the problem of inequality.

Once the primaries are finished, the general election will pit establishment candidates against each other, with Hillary Clinton almost certainly facing off against either Jeb Bush or, more likely, Marco Rubio. While they have made some brief overtures toward the plight of the middle class, Rubio and Bush are extremely unlikely to be concerned with income and wealth inequality than Trump.5 And while Clinton is much more likely to campaign against inequality than her Republican opponents, her history and connections to wealthy Wall Street donors renders her a much less convincing crusader against inequality than Sanders. In a system that had more than two parties, Trump and Sanders6 would be able to participate as candidates outside of the Democratic and Republican parties and perhaps stand a chance to campaign to a general electorate with their comparatively great focuses on inequality.7 But in a two-party system, we will instead be presented with a choice between a Republican candidate who has no interest in the issue and a Democratic candidate who does not have as much interest as a large portion of the progressive segment of the electorate and perhaps even less than some voters who generally lean more conservative. Inequality becomes a comparatively weakened partisan issue instead of the generally popular cause that polls indicate it to be.

Ultimately, a political system that features more than two viable parties would be more likely to represent the vast and varied concerns of the public as a whole. And perhaps an issue that is concerning to a majority of Americans across the political spectrum such as income inequality would be more likely to be addressed by the government. But the entrenched power of the two parties—fueled in part by the campaign contributions of the wealthy elites who benefit from inequality—makes this an impossibility.8 While there are a number of potential means by which outside parties could gain traction, such as ranked choice voting or proportional representation, the likelihood of any being implemented is extremely low. Instead, we are stuck with a two-party system that encourages reinforcing feedback loops and ignores broadly supported issues like inequality.

Chris Alarie is Senior Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.



 Beware the Vast Equine Conspiracy.
2 And that the public devours.
3 This focus on the economy is a reflection of how many, perhaps even most, political issues in this country are folded into domestic economic debates.
4 Of course, the tax plan that he ultimately released does not follow through on that promise, illustrating just how significant the influence of orthodox conservative economic policy is.
5 Or any Democrat.
6 It is worth noting that lifelong political independent Sanders only recently joined the Democratic party in order to try to secure its presidential nomination.
7 I should note that Hillary Clinton, like nearly any progressive, is likely more concerned about inequality than Donald Trump.
8 Indeed, campaign finance reform is the elephant in the room on this issue, as it is in regards to much of American politics.