As I noted, I meant my declaration about fashionable politics to sting. I really do consider it bad for the country to do business that way, and wish to shame others into not approving of such social and emotional, rather than logical appeals.
I think attacks on my position might form along the following lines:
1. Fashionable is an unnecessarily inflammatory and objectionable term. Some other descriptor would be fairer, something along the lines of “represents the ideas of a majority of Americans well”.
2. Relatedly, what I am describing as “fashion” includes an array of values that Democrats believe they should be trying to sell in any way possible. Trivialising them with language is an attempt to trivialize important moral questions.
3. Some liberal values are actually unpopular, and must overcome an inertial cultural drag against them. They are many, not few, and cannot be easily generalized.
4. The fashionableness is true but trivial: every election winner captured a greater percentage of low-information voters, almost by definition. Obama won a majority of knuckleheads this time, but Bush won them before that, and presumably, Buchanan won more of those than John Fremont and Millard Fillmore. This is the “Yes, but so what?” argument.
Can you think of others? I am asking you to refrain from any refutation of these criticisms at present - I plan to have fun doing that myself – but I am trying to get a full picture of what might dash my ideas to the floor, and also, to get a better wording for these lines of attack. Please humor me. Reading Fashionable Politics, what occurs to you as possible weaknesses or unfairness?