|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
To me, American libertarianism at its heart has always been about an extreme interpretation of laissez faire capitalism than anything else. Stuff like drug legalization has always seemed like window dressing. |
I cannot help but feel like that does a disservice to sincere libertarians. To some extent it's true that libertarians talk about economics to an inordinate degree, but I suspect that libertarians often turn to economics for the same reason that "leftists" turn to sociology: they feel like that's the best path to justifying their ideology (and conveniently, both disciplines are very vulnerable to fudging results in favor of one's biases). I suspect the average libertarian would not see things like drug legalization as mere "window dressing," because their support for drug legalization and support for laissez faire economics stem from and are an expression of the same ideological source. Yes, it's an extreme position, insofar as it's premised on a relatively simple idea, but to the extent that there's a problem with it, it's not that it's "extreme," it's that it would produce very poor results for a lot of people, and the pool of people for whom those results would be poor seems like it will increase rather than decrease over time. |
True, it does flow from the same source, but at least for the ones I've seen/talked to things like drug legalization are a by product of extreme free markets rather than an end in themselves. It's funny I see libertarianism as a form of authoritarianism. From my interactions, at least with the more fervent, democracy is seen as an impediment to liberty, and free markets are seen as more important than free political choice. I think you can see some of this thinking with the university of Chicago advisors to Pinochet, or the neoliberalism of the Washington consensus that imposes market reforms by diktat.
Johnson and Weld are probably weak tea when it comes to strident libertarianism, so it might be a reasonable choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox,
That's some good trolling on liberals up there. You are well on your way. Here is a liberal-trolling masterpiece:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/why-do-liberals-hate-cory-booker/278992/
| Leon wrote: |
It's funny I see libertarianism as a form of authoritarianism. From my interactions, at least with the more fervent, democracy is seen as an impediment to liberty, and free markets are seen as more important than free political choice. |
Those sorts of libertarians may break for Trump this cycle. See Peter Thiel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Fox,
That's some good trolling on liberals up there. You are well on your way. Here is a liberal-trolling masterpiece:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/why-do-liberals-hate-cory-booker/278992/
| Leon wrote: |
It's funny I see libertarianism as a form of authoritarianism. From my interactions, at least with the more fervent, democracy is seen as an impediment to liberty, and free markets are seen as more important than free political choice. |
Those sorts of libertarians may break for Trump this cycle. See Peter Thiel. |
Ha, Booker. If not for his Wall St connection, I'm pretty certain HRC would have selected him her running mate. Hell, if Bernie had gotten killed in the primary, I bet she would have gone with Booker.
So thanks Bernie, you derailed Booker's political path! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Fox,
That's some good trolling on liberals up there. |
So you'll reject what you don't want to believe, and dismiss as "trolling" genuine, observable examples of that wish you wish to reject? As a liberally-inclined individual myself who would be happy to see the politics of America's political left be something more than petty identity politics fueled by tribal sentiment, I was expressing disappointment more than anything, but I can see you aren't interested in a serious discussion about that. Have a nice day.
Last edited by Fox on Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:03 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| It's funny I see libertarianism as a form of authoritarianism. From my interactions, at least with the more fervent, democracy is seen as an impediment to liberty, and free markets are seen as more important than free political choice. |
I see your logic here. I'm not sure authoritarianism is exactly the right choice of words here, since it invokes images of an authority figure imparting concrete commands which individual citizens must obey, but there is certainly a sense in which libertarianism -- or at least a not uncommonly articulated version of it -- inclines towards restricting the "freedom" of the populace to pursue collective political solutions to shared problems. To concede Kuros' point, it's fair to accept that there are other understandings of libertarianism which might be less noxious in this fashion; versions which might prefer individual action to local governance, prefer local governance to state governance, and prefer state governance to federal governance, all the while accepting that each level of governance is legitimate and, more importantly, that sometimes it really is in everyone's interest to pursue a matter through the lens of a higher governmental authority. It's largely a question of to what degree a given libertarian is willing to let his image of the perfect obstruct his contribution to furthering his conception of the good, to borrow a cliche.
And you know what? I can understand that. I'm extremely bad at compromising my ideals myself, so much so that I will not even vote, as I don't truly believe in representative democracy, nor would I be able to truly endorse any current candidate even if I did. But, I'll try not to get in the way of people who want to pragmatically do their best either.
| Leon wrote: |
| Johnson and Weld are probably weak tea when it comes to strident libertarianism, so it might be a reasonable choice. |
Right, more moderate Republican than anything. And that's the thing about libertarianism: if one tries to embrace its more reasonable and appealing elements while rejecting the more extreme ideas, it quickly stops resembling "libertarianism" and starts looking like "moderate conservatism" instead. Of course, as Kuros implied, if the Libertarian Party is to grow, it would need to expand, which means moderating, which means less "utopian free market fundamentalism" and more compromise with reality as it stands. Nominating Johnson over the George Washington gun fellow (I forgot his name, sorry) is something of a "commitment to seriousness," yes, and it came at the right historic moment for the party. If someone put a gun to the heads of my family and forced me to vote, and the vote could not be a write-in, it would probably be cast for Gary Johnson as things stand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| It's funny I see libertarianism as a form of authoritarianism. From my interactions, at least with the more fervent, democracy is seen as an impediment to liberty, and free markets are seen as more important than free political choice. |
I see your logic here. I'm not sure authoritarianism is exactly the right choice of words here, since it invokes images of an authority figure imparting concrete commands which individual citizens must obey, but there is certainly a sense in which libertarianism -- or at least a not uncommonly articulated version of it -- inclines towards restricting the "freedom" of the populace to pursue collective political solutions to shared problems. To concede Kuros' point, it's fair to accept that there are other understandings of libertarianism which might be less noxious in this fashion; versions which might prefer individual action to local governance, prefer local governance to state governance, and prefer state governance to federal governance, all the while accepting that each level of governance is legitimate and, more importantly, that sometimes it really is in everyone's interest to pursue a matter through the lens of a higher governmental authority. It's largely a question of to what degree a given libertarian is willing to let his image of the perfect obstruct his contribution to furthering his conception of the good, to borrow a cliche.
| Leon wrote: |
| Johnson and Weld are probably weak tea when it comes to strident libertarianism, so it might be a reasonable choice. |
Right, more moderate Republican than anything. And that's the thing about libertarianism: if one tries to embrace its more reasonable and appealing elements while rejecting the more extreme ideas, it quickly stops resembling "libertarianism" and starts looking like "moderate conservatism" instead. Of course, as Kuros implied, if the Libertarian Party is to grow, it would need to expand, which means moderating, which means less "utopian free market fundamentalism" and more compromise with reality as it stands. Nominating Johnson over the George Washington gun fellow (I forgot his name, sorry) is something of a "commitment to seriousness," yes, and it came at the right historic moment for the party. If someone put a gun to the heads of my family and forced me to vote, and the vote could not be a write-in, it would probably be cast for Gary Johnson as things stand. |
There is a deeply paranoid conspiratorial minded aspect to libertarianism that leads to things like hoarding gold and 9/11 trutherism. I don't think it's salvageable. It was Friedmans u of chicago students and ideas that supported liberalization of Latin America through dictators and ignored/quietly approved of the killings, disappearances and torture. I don't think libertarianism is possible except through the barrel of a gun. I don't think the libertarian party is a good protest vote, despite how reasonable JOHNSON/weld are |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I don't think libertarianism is possible except through the barrel of a gun. |
Can you explain what you mean here? After all, American governance itself is through the barrel of a gun: you comply with the laws passed by the government, or you are arrested, and if you resist arrest, you will likely be shot to death. What is "governance" except a monopoly on coercive force? Given that, you must mean something I am not seeing here.
| Leon wrote: |
| I don't think the libertarian party is a good protest vote, despite how reasonable JOHNSON/weld are |
What would be a "good" protest vote in your estimation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Fox,
That's some good trolling on liberals up there. |
So you'll reject what you don't want to believe, and dismiss as "trolling" genuine, observable examples of that wish you wish to reject? As a liberally-inclined individual myself who would be happy to see the politics of America's political left be something more than petty identity politics fueled by tribal sentiment, I was expressing disappointment more than anything, but I can see you aren't interested in a serious discussion about that. Have a nice day. |
Not in this thread or at this time, no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
There is a deeply paranoid conspiratorial minded aspect to libertarianism that leads to things like hoarding gold and 9/11 trutherism. I don't think it's salvageable. It was Friedmans u of chicago students and ideas that supported liberalization of Latin America through dictators and ignored/quietly approved of the killings, disappearances and torture. I don't think libertarianism is possible except through the barrel of a gun. I don't think the libertarian party is a good protest vote, despite how reasonable JOHNSON/weld are |
It would be nice to have an interview where Gary Johnson could be given a chance to refuse the "efficient markets hypothesis" that it has been saddled with.
Gary Johnson is saying that libertarianism is broad and means socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I am hardly fiscally conservative anymore, but if Gary is willing to not sit back and say nothing while the Fed to funnel billions of dollars to MBS's I feel he may be the best option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Weld is definitely my favourite of all the people running for president / VP this year. If I could magic wand one person into president next year it would be him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| It's funny I see libertarianism as a form of authoritarianism. From my interactions, at least with the more fervent, democracy is seen as an impediment to liberty, and free markets are seen as more important than free political choice. |
I see your logic here. I'm not sure authoritarianism is exactly the right choice of words here, since it invokes images of an authority figure imparting concrete commands which individual citizens must obey, but there is certainly a sense in which libertarianism -- or at least a not uncommonly articulated version of it -- inclines towards restricting the "freedom" of the populace to pursue collective political solutions to shared problems. To concede Kuros' point, it's fair to accept that there are other understandings of libertarianism which might be less noxious in this fashion; versions which might prefer individual action to local governance, prefer local governance to state governance, and prefer state governance to federal governance, all the while accepting that each level of governance is legitimate and, more importantly, that sometimes it really is in everyone's interest to pursue a matter through the lens of a higher governmental authority. It's largely a question of to what degree a given libertarian is willing to let his image of the perfect obstruct his contribution to furthering his conception of the good, to borrow a cliche.
| Leon wrote: |
| Johnson and Weld are probably weak tea when it comes to strident libertarianism, so it might be a reasonable choice. |
Right, more moderate Republican than anything. And that's the thing about libertarianism: if one tries to embrace its more reasonable and appealing elements while rejecting the more extreme ideas, it quickly stops resembling "libertarianism" and starts looking like "moderate conservatism" instead. Of course, as Kuros implied, if the Libertarian Party is to grow, it would need to expand, which means moderating, which means less "utopian free market fundamentalism" and more compromise with reality as it stands. Nominating Johnson over the George Washington gun fellow (I forgot his name, sorry) is something of a "commitment to seriousness," yes, and it came at the right historic moment for the party. If someone put a gun to the heads of my family and forced me to vote, and the vote could not be a write-in, it would probably be cast for Gary Johnson as things stand. |
There is a deeply paranoid conspiratorial minded aspect to libertarianism that leads to things like hoarding gold and 9/11 trutherism. I don't think it's salvageable. It was Friedmans u of chicago students and ideas that supported liberalization of Latin America through dictators and ignored/quietly approved of the killings, disappearances and torture. I don't think libertarianism is possible except through the barrel of a gun. I don't think the libertarian party is a good protest vote, despite how reasonable JOHNSON/weld are |
Huh? You lost me here. What does the liberalization of Latin America have to do with libertarianism? I mean I understand the connection to Chile, but beyond that, not really. Where did liberalization of Latin America take place beyond Chile and perhaps Colombia (which doesn't have a figure like Pinochet or Peron)? Peru maybe? And in Argentina, liberalization of the economy is, I'm guessing, more tied to Menem and its current president, and not to any dictator. I'm not very knowledgable about Latin America though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Fox,
That's some good trolling on liberals up there. |
So you'll reject what you don't want to believe, and dismiss as "trolling" genuine, observable examples of that wish you wish to reject? As a liberally-inclined individual myself who would be happy to see the politics of America's political left be something more than petty identity politics fueled by tribal sentiment, I was expressing disappointment more than anything, but I can see you aren't interested in a serious discussion about that. Have a nice day. |
OK, I'm a bit confused. The Republican Party has morphed into identity politics: working class whites basically. Yeah, you have the Republican establishment, the Paul Ryan, John McCain et al group, but they're a minority in their own party now. Trump's nomination encapsulates the current Republican Party. The dems though, they're just a collection of everyone else that stands for nothing really. Basically they're unified in not being anti-science, being relatively socially liberal, and what else? Eh, that's it. The only reason the Dems are united is the fact that the GOP has so many positions that the majority of Americans disagree with.
| Quote: |
| There's a reason the Democratic nominee was able to casually dismiss the idea of effectively regulating the banking industry by suggesting it, 'wouldn't end racism or sexism.' There's a reason why that nominee's gender is itself seen as a compelling reason to vote for her by many of her supporters. There's a reason you find yourself arguing against basic, definitionally-correct, common-use English phrases like, "illegal immigrant." There's a reason why you yourself pushed memes like the "Every 28 Hours" one, which deceptively implies that police violence is a "Black" problem despite the fact that both in absolute terms and when compared to rates of violent criminality, more European Americans are killed per year by the police than African Americans. There's a reason why students on campuses across the country are pushing absurd sets of demands for certain racial groups to receive special privileges. There's a reason why Bernie Sanders supporters -- supporters of a candidate whose conception of "leftism" is a bit more traditional and overall less focused on identity politics -- get accused of "racism," "sexism," and so forth as a basic go-to attack (to say nothing of, say, supporters of Donald Trump, or for that matter, any Republican candidate); it's always "racist" this, "sexist" that, "homophobe," "Islamophobe," and so on and so forth. There's a reason an issue as absolutely trivial and marginal as what bathroom people who are confused about their gender should use has become a national matter. I can go on and on, but I think I've made my point: if one were to "totally reject" the notion that American "leftism" is about identity politics, it would be reality that is the object of said rejection. |
Ok, so I should have read this first. Whoops. You really think Hillary won the DNC nomination because people wanted a woman president?? Yes, women around Hillary's age, but that's about it. The majority of people under 45 were Bernie supporters.
Hillary won the nomination because she's "safe". People know her. She's not a socialist, which still scares people of a single demographic. People didn't vote for her because they liked or could identify with her, they voted for her out of FEAR. Fear of Trump/Cruz/any GOP candidate. They thought she had the best shot at winning.
As for Bernie supporters being accused of racism and sexism... I would equate that more with Hillary fans than the left-wing itself...
And as for Trump being called racist? I don't know how you couldn't, sorry.
Anyway, I'll just leave at this: many who vote for Democrats don't do so for all that you hate about the left-wing, but they do so because the opposition epitomizes and represents something they are not. They vote for Hillary in spite of all her faults because in their eyes the other choices are worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
OK, I'm a bit confused. The Republican Party has morphed into identity politics: working class whites basically. Yeah, you have the Republican establishment, the Paul Ryan, John McCain et al group, but they're a minority in their own party now. |
I don't disagree, and that's largely a result of a demographic regularly attacked and demonized by left-leaning practitioners of identity politics in America -- white males -- responding in kind. This is the problem with identity politics: it infects everything, fracturing society as it does. We're to the point where even wanting to have a basic, functional immigration policy is "racist," and where the demographic decline of European Americans is vigorously applauded without consequence. If anything, I'm surprised it's taken as long as it has for this sort of push back, and it's a shame that, instead of pausing and wondering, "How did we manage to alienate these people so vigorously, such that they'd turn to someone like Trump," the people pushing identity politics in America instead chose to double down on their rhetoric and political tactics, insisting that supporters of Mr. Trump are "racist," "sexist," "whateverist." It's so common at this point that it's like water to a fish: an unquestioned component of American society, not paid any attention precisely because of its ubiquity.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| The only reason the Dems are united is the fact that the GOP has so many positions that the majority of Americans disagree with. |
Well, more precisely, the main reason the Democrats are united is because "white males" have served as an effective target for their identity-politics tactics. Absent that focus, their own rhetoric would tear their party apart from within. You saw this with the way in which supporters of Hillary Clinton attacked supporters of Bernie Sanders as "too white," "too male," "racist," "sexist," "Bernie Bros," and so forth. You see it with the way "feminists of color" attack other feminists as well. And all of it is tolerated, even encouraged.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Ok, so I should have read this first. Whoops. You really think Hillary won the DNC nomination because people wanted a woman president?? Yes, women around Hillary's age, but that's about it. The majority of people under 45 were Bernie supporters. |
I said that was one example of Democrat Party identity politics, and you've assented to that by acknowledging older women seem to have bought into it. But it's only one example out of the many I listed; none are adequate on their own to express the totality of the problem, but combined, a pattern ought to be evident to anyone interested in seeing it.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Hillary won the nomination because she's "safe". People know her. She's not a socialist ... |
What makes her "safe?" The fact that she'll reliably push identity politics without making serious waves for America's wealthy, business, and warmongering classes. And yes, she's not a socialist, which is part of my point: America's "left wing" had a choice between a pro-war, center-right individual who will focus on identity politics rather than on pursuing serious change for an increasingly dysfunctional system, and a "socialist." It chose the former, and in doing so, handily demonstrated its values.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ... they voted for her out of FEAR. Fear of ... |
Exactly! And just as "random GOP candidate whoever" is treated as "scary" enough to justify a vote for a repugnant Democratic candidate, "old straight white Christian dudes" are used more generally as a boogeyman to hold a coalition of tribal groups together which otherwise might not have that much in common. It's exactly the same pattern. Do you think African Americans have some intense affection for homosexuals? They don't, but because of "old straight white Christian dudes (who want to send white police officers to kill their innocent sons, something to which no other race is subjected)," they'll vote for the same party. Take out the "bad guy" that serves as a lynch pin, and how long would that coalition hold together? That's one example, but it's hardly the only one; there are lots of tensions between Democrat-voting minorities which are politically diffused by the presence of the "bad guy."
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| As for Bernie supporters being accused of racism and sexism... I would equate that more with Hillary fans than the left-wing itself... |
"Hillary fans" are both an immense portion of America's "left-wing" and the dominant force within it. That's why she was able to win the nomination, after all!
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Anyway, I'll just leave at this: many who vote for Democrats don't do so for all that you hate about the left-wing, but they do so because the opposition epitomizes and represents something they are not. They vote for Hillary in spite of all her faults because in their eyes the other choices are worse. |
I agree with that. General political trends do not apply to every specific case, and Bernie Sanders did as well as he did at least in part because many Americans who are "liberally" inclined would like to see something different. But they are ultimately not much of a force in American politics; the Federal Government does not and for the foreseeable future will not be driven, nor even strongly influenced, by their ideals, because they are not even a dominant portion of the "American left," to say nothing of broader American politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Weld is definitely my favourite of all the people running for president / VP this year. If I could magic wand one person into president next year it would be him. |
Really? Is it because Strom Thurmond (or was it someone else?) killed his nomination to ambassador to Mexico for heterodox positions?
You know, I often see George H W Bush's decision to acquiesce to raising taxes as the pivotal turn in the Republican Party. Reagan won over Democrats and then worked with Democratic politicians. When Bush Sr. tried to do the same, Grover Norquist and others sacrificed him on the altar of "Amercians hate tax increases." Basically, ideology over governance. Ever since, the Republican Party has been unable to govern well.
Do you see Weld as a throwback to moderate Republican competence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
OK, I'm a bit confused. The Republican Party has morphed into identity politics: working class whites basically. Yeah, you have the Republican establishment, the Paul Ryan, John McCain et al group, but they're a minority in their own party now. |
I don't disagree, and that's largely a result of a demographic regularly attacked and demonized by left-leaning practitioners of identity politics in America -- white males -- responding in kind. This is the problem with identity politics: it infects everything, fracturing society as it does. We're to the point where even wanting to have a basic, functional immigration policy is "racist," and where the demographic decline of European Americans is vigorously applauded without consequence. If anything, I'm surprised it's taken as long as it has for this sort of push back, and it's a shame that, instead of pausing and wondering, "How did we manage to alienate these people so vigorously, such that they'd turn to someone like Trump," the people pushing identity politics in America instead chose to double down on their rhetoric and political tactics, insisting that supporters of Mr. Trump are "racist," "sexist," "whateverist." It's so common at this point that it's like water to a fish: an unquestioned component of American society, not paid any attention precisely because of its ubiquity. |
A demographic regularly attacked? So are African americans. I'd say they've been demonized a lot more than us white dudes. Every other demographic I know has animosity towards African Americans. And unlike white people, African Americans have historically been at the bottom of the social and economic ladder in this country.
And I'm sure Hispanics and Asians and every other race/ethnicity has been bashed here and there for anything. If us whites seem to get it more, it's because we're a) the biggest % of this country b) been at the top for the entire history of this country. In other words, we're bound to be a "target".
Who exactly is pushing identity politics? Hillary? The Democrats? Well when the opposition is saying, "Deport Mexicans!" and you think, "Well shit, I'm Mexican" or "____ is Mexican, what the hell did they do wrong?" you're going to be more attracted to someone who says, "That's just racist and stupid." In other words, one could argue the Dems have gone that direction simply as an easy way to defeat the Republicans. I don't know why you are blaming the left when the GOP's whole Southern Strategy starting in the 60s brought up identity politics (and is so argued by Rick Perlstein's series on the right wing).
Of course the GOP was able to follow that Strategy due to the civil rights movement in the 60s. Would you say the civil rights movement itself was a product of identity politics? Perhaps it evolved into that?
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| The only reason the Dems are united is the fact that the GOP has so many positions that the majority of Americans disagree with. |
Well, more precisely, the main reason the Democrats are united is because "white males" have served as an effective target for their identity-politics tactics. Absent that focus, their own rhetoric would tear their party apart from within. You saw this with the way in which supporters of Hillary Clinton attacked supporters of Bernie Sanders as "too white," "too male," "racist," "sexist," "Bernie Bros," and so forth. You see it with the way "feminists of color" attack other feminists as well. And all of it is tolerated, even encouraged. |
I don't know how effective that attack was. I don't think it really won any votes for her. Their focus really isn't on white males. I don't know, maybe I just tune it out and am immune to it since I'm a white male who has been living in liberal areas for almost all my life.
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Hillary won the nomination because she's "safe". People know her. She's not a socialist ... |
What makes her "safe?" The fact that she'll reliably push identity politics without making serious waves for America's wealthy, business, and warmongering classes. And yes, she's not a socialist, which is part of my point: America's "left wing" had a choice between a pro-war, center-right individual who will focus on identity politics rather than on pursuing serious change for an increasingly dysfunctional system, and a "socialist." It chose the former, and in doing so, handily demonstrated its values. |
No offense, but you are the one that seems so focused on identity politics. People think she's safe because she'll maintain the status quo and continue the polices of Obama. I guess you think Obama also pushes identity politics?
Fox, I'll end with this: given the electoral system plus our form of government, it really is only possible to have two political parties. You believe the Dems are the ones who started identity politics. I believe it was the GOP, and the Dems have just strategically said, "We'll accept anyone that the GOP doesn't like" and the overwhelming majority accepts that (hence why blacks and homosexuals are almost all Democratic even though there is that animosity many blacks have towards homosexuals). You criticize the Dems for this, but ok, what other option do homosexuals and blacks have?? The GOP in its current form? HA! To reform the party within? Well we will see if Sanders' campaign will lead to that reform. Probably not, but time will tell. As long as the GOP remains in its current form and US demographics continue their current trend, the Dems don't have an incentive to change their strategy much. And I'm sure one could argue that as long as the Dems remains the same, the GOP doesn't have an incentive to change either, EXCEPT if it ever wants to win the White House again, it will have to*.
And if that's your point: you lament the fact that left-wing is all about identity politics, and you don't see it changing anytime soon, ok, fair enough. I would just disagree on putting the blame on the left-wing itself.
*Trump has a legit chance at winning this year, but in 2020 and beyond? I'm very skeptical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
