Draft talk:Pete Buttigieg

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Corrections[edit]

Last point in the article is just plain inaccurate. I get that this is a draft but cmon lets not deliberately spread misinformation. It's clearly deliberate because the source linked even says community service, not military service. Military service and community service are not the same thing. — Unsigned, by: 67.218.90.4 / talk / contribs

Agreed, I changed it to what the link says. Soundwave106 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A necessary article (at this time)?[edit]

I’m not trying to be a party pooper, but I’d suggest holding off on a Buttigieg article in mainspace until it becomes a bit clearer whether he becomes a force within the Democratic Party or if he has already had his 15 minutes of fame. Otherwise, we’ll might end up with a random selection of entries on “what’s their face” ex primary hopefuls.

At least someone like Yang (whose article also and appropriately continues to languish in draft space) can be said to have had some sort of primary impact by bringing UBI into the forefront —and I say this as an sceptic on UBI in general and an opponent of Yang’s model in particular. By contrast, Buttigieg has so far been most notable for his unremarkable politics and his entire life seems to have been an exercise in “conventional political CV box ticking” and, at this point in time, I’d consider him to be about as notable as Deval Patrick (no, I don’t hold it against you if you’ve already forgotten about him, and that’s kind of my point).

Basically, I think a Buttigieg article is premature, so leave it in draft space until at least after November. In the case Biden/Harris manages to unseat Trump/Pence and if a Biden administration end up featuring Buttigieg in a meaningful position, then it might be time for a mainspace article on him. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-regularly checked up on this article because I thought he would be a rising star in the party, but unless he gets a position of above-average prominence in the Biden administration, I have also been expecting it to be nominated for deletion for some time now. I would say delete it until we know more about his future. This is not that much to recreate, and most of it probably would not be relevant to him being, I dunno, secretary of defense or something.-Flandres (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
He's still a public figure with possibly weird beliefs. Whether or not he joins Biden's team is not relevant to how missional a Pete article is, merely how many people will appreciate the effort. If you wish to work on this article, don't feel discouraged, because I'm one of the people who will still appreciate the effort.
As for Yang and UBI, I don't like UBI on principle but I do love that it's about asking and answering the right questions, i.e., "what does the future of labor look like and how do we prepare for it". I feel UBI is wrong because my answer isn't "have a few people work while everyone else gets paid to sit on their arses" but rather "there will always be work to do, we just have to actually hire people to do it even if that means Big Government, e.g., smaller classrooms, every minor crime gets a detective instead of being ignored, more nurses, etc". CoryUsar (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I can’t really see what uniquely weird about Buttigieg’s ideas. He seems to me to be a rather pedestrian and unimaginative peddler of stale formulas from the status quo Democrats who see “innovation”, “creativity” and “education” as magical formulas that will surely fix everything, if we just keep repeating them for another couple of decades. That’s why I compared Buttigieg with Deval Patrick; because both seem to me to be such wholly unoriginal apparatchiks and custodians of what has been the conventional wisdom of the DNC since at least the 1990s. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Don't know if anybody was still paying attention to this, but it appears Mayor Pete just might get a cabinet position after all! That goes some way to justifying the presence of this draft anyway...-Flandres (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
As per my earlier comment: If Buttigieg gets a cabinet position, then he might well merit an article. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Are we salty here?[edit]

Interesting article, from Politico

From "Why Pete Buttigieg enrages the young left":

"The unspoken truth about the furor Buttigieg arouses is that his success threatens a core belief of young progressives: that their ideology owns the future, and that the rise of millennials into Democratic politics is going to bring an inevitable demographic triumph for the party’s far left wing."

Buttigieg parlayed an obscure mayoralty in Indiana into a Cabinet position in Biden's administration. UncleKrampus (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the term salty would usually imply that Pete won something. I guess a cabinet position with Biden might be considered winning something. I personally never really understood the appeal of Pete, to me if the Dem candidate 'has' to be a compromise to appeal to the moderate voters then Biden always seemed like the obvious choice. As the kind of "young" "Democrat" that the article you linked to was probably talking about the only value that the moderate candidates had in my eyes was their potential to remove Trump. From my perspective Biden and Pete and the rest of the moderates don't really want to make big changes, they seem content with tweaking the status quo, but when I look around I see big changes that need to be made. I can't comment on that "unspoken truth" thing, maybe others think that way, I look at the variety of political positions my generation holds and the institutional inertia of America's society and I have little hope for "an inevitable demographic triumph". SolPyre (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Very late comment here. The Politico article is pure speculation and doesn’t contain any data that supports its core claims: That Buttigieg is very popular among young voters, or that the anger of the Democratic left is really based on some hidden fear that he will steal their thunder.
The Politico article thus completely ignores the actual criticism of Buttigieg and the rather obvious reasons why “the left” would loathe him (the he basically seems like the ultimate, entitled, careerist, corporate Democrat cynically trying to be “hip and young” and trading on this image/imagery — as opposed to the likes of Klobuchar and those others mentioned).
Instead, the article favours of a very pro-Buttigieg interpretation that is conjured out of thin air, completely unsubstantiated by any sources (as is the underlying claim of Buttigieg’s popularity with the youth vote), and which just happens to be both very flattering to Buttigieg and his ideology and to ignore any of the actual criticis. Honestly, the Politico article seems more like a crossover between puff piece and vacuous punditry than a serious opinion piece, let alone journalism. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)