How the left can win: Drop the statistics and tell real people's stories

[marmar]

How the left can win: Drop the statistics and tell real people's stories
Sociologist Jessica Calarco explains why the right keeps winning, and how progressive narratives can turn the tide

By Paul Rosenberg
Contributing Writer
Published March 15, 2025 5:45AM (EDT)


(Salon) Why do progressives seem so bad at building coalitions, while the American right — which has its own share of internal divisions — has done so effectively? That’s been the subject of endless debate over the years. But in late February, sociologist Jessica Calarco — author of “Holding It Together: How Women Became America’s Safety Net” (Salon interview linked below) — boiled the essence of the problem down to a few key points in a Bluesky thread:

The right has united around a rejection of government as the solution to social problems. Which means they can generally agree to block new policies and programs. The left is united in its desire for government solutions. But that means they have to face the harder task of agreeing on what to do.

For related reasons, the right can also unite people around shared enemies. Because even if people don't trust government to solve their problems, they still want someone to blame when they're struggling. And the right gives them scapegoats in spades.

The right also blocks the left's efforts toward solidarity. Because if the right's default is to block everything, then the left has to make harder choices about what to try to push through. Which means there's only money/time/energy for some factions to get the new programs/policies they want.

And notably, where the right does agree to implement some new program or policy, it's usually a policy or program that: 1) attacks the scapegoats they've built their solidarity around, and/or 2) pushes the cost onto those least able to fight back.

....(snip)....

Struck by the simplicity and power of her formulation, Salon reached out to Calarco for further elaborate on the basic dynamics she describes. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

In response to a question about ‪why progressives are bad at building coalitions, in contrast to the right, you wrote a brief thread that goes to the heart of the issue. What you wrote wasn't necessarily new, but it was concise and well constructed, and made points that are commonly ignored.I'd like to go through it point by point. You start by observing that since conservatives have “united around a rejection of government as the solution to social problems,” they find general agreement around blocking any and all new policies and programs. How does that shared goal help them unify?

The right oftentimes breaks out into two core groups, the religious right and the business right. On the religious side, churches often want to play that role of social safety net, instead of the government. They want either families or churches to be that protection, that source of solidarity and support for people in navigating their day-to-day lives, in part because there's money to be made there.

On the business side of the equation, it's more wrapped up in not wanting to pay for the social safety nets that many other countries put in place. Funding large-scale social programs typically demands fairly high taxes, especially on wealthy people and large corporations. So the different sides of the right can come at this rejection of government for very different reasons. Yet if the goal is simply to block new and expensive programs — especially social safety-net programs that will provide people with a sense of security and stability — that's the easiest place for them to agree.

....(snip)....

Grossmann has told me that he hopes that "liberals will learn the need to offer a broader symbolic message about the role of government in society and to accept that they are behind on this front.” Your book seems to makes a similar argument around the politics of care.

..... That has made it harder for those on the left to make a strong case that government is good, because government has gotten less effective at solving people's problems. You have to make the case that this is the product of under-investment and that those on the right are the ones who have driven this under-investment in government programs that can help people, but only if they are fully funded. ..................(more)

https://www.salon.com/2025/03/15/how-the-left-can-win-drop-the-statistics-and-tell-real-peoples-stories/

[Pisces]

1. Talk with a 4th grade vocabulary. Seems to appeal to the masses