The article discusses the misguided belief that personal suffering experienced by Trump voters will lead them back to political stability and empathy. It critiques the strategy underlying many Democrats’ midterm plans, which assume that shared hardship through financial and government-related challenges will inspire compassion for others. However, this perspective overlooks the reality that some voters may actually take pleasure in the suffering of others. Robert Kuttner’s argument is highlighted, suggesting that individual experiences of pain do not always correlate with a return to rational self-interest or care for governance.
This wait-it-out theory has been a cornerstone of many Democrats' strategic planning for the midterms, relying on an assumption of personal suffering leading to rational self-interest.
The notion that there is a quantifiable level of suffering that will lead voters back to stability and governance is flawed and often doesn't hold in practice.
Some Trump voters revel in the suffering of others, creating a divide that contradicts the expectation that shared hardship will unite and generate empathy.
The article argues that instead of counting on suffering to provoke empathy, there must be a deeper approach to understanding voter motivations and sentiments.
Collection
[
|
...
]