|
Post by Kapitan on May 8, 2020 14:49:53 GMT
Yep, that's pretty much what I mean. When it gets beyond debating matters of policy and governance and becomes just blanket opposition (and demonization), there's just not a way out. What's the term, a "gordian knot?" We need unilateral disarmament ... and we're not going to get it.
Let's just say Biden wins (which is not a sure thing at all). There is zero chance that the Republicans play nice, decide to work with him, even though he is about as institutionalist/establishment as you can get, and is obviously a relative centrist (who has been pretending to be progressive to get the nod). ZERO chance. It's going to be a repeat of the Obama-era McConnell pledge to ruin his presidency and ensure he's a one-termer, only amped up as payback for the Trump administration's Democratic opposition.
But that opposition was partly inspired by that aforementioned Obama opposition. Which was partly inspired by the previous Bush opposition. Which was partly inspired by the previous Clinton opposition... It goes back at least to Reagan era, with Newt Gingrich's philosophy of nationalizing and demonizing everything, and speaking through the media on everything.
I have no confidence anyone will ever take the route of lowering the heat, amping down the vindictiveness.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 20, 2020 15:27:25 GMT
I had written this up earlier this morning and then my suddenly spotty internet connection failed just as I was posting. So here goes again...
For more than a year now, former Georgia House member and failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has been considered a (the?) frontrunner to be Joe Biden's running mate. As a relatively young, black woman, the idea is especially welcomed by progressives who put particular stock in people's immutable characteristics, and there is no doubt she was very successful in driving up minority voting in Georgia. That's attractive for a party looking to flip that state at least purple, if not blue.
Yesterday the Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen wrote a column I largely agree with, in which he says choosing Abrams would be a mistake. He calls her the Democrats' Sarah Palin, noting that she would be the least experienced VP ever (or at least in the modern era).* (In fact, she's less experienced: Palin was a governor, anyway.) I would argue she lacks Palin's particular brand of anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, proud-to-be-clueless populism, and so I am not saying they'd be similarly capable. But just on experience? Abrams is not ready, and the VP for the by-far oldest president in history would need to be ready. There is a reasonable chance Biden would die in office even in one term.
*Think of the past 20 years of VP candidates' experience: Dick Cheney was a House member, Sec. of Defense, and successful businessman; Joe Lieberman was a veteran senator; John Edwards was a rising star and senator; Joe Biden was a veteran senator with leadership experience; Sarah Palin was a governor; Tim Kaine is a senator; and Mike Pence was a House member and governor.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on May 20, 2020 15:38:41 GMT
Tucker Carlson did a segment on Stacey Abrams last night. Not only was she a failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate, but apparently she lost by 55,000 votes! And then she and some other Democrats were claiming racism (by guess who?) as the reason she didn't win. In your post you noted Abrams' experience; Tucker Carlson was more direct and challenged her supporters to name one major accomplishment that would qualify her to be the VP, or as you said, a successor to Biden if he can't fill his term.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 20, 2020 15:52:53 GMT
I want to be careful because I don't think experience is the only criterion, and everything is always situational. And after all, two of the Democratic candidates I liked the most didn't have much traditional experience: Mayor Buttigieg has only ever been a mayor, though he also was a Harvard grad, served in the military, and worked for McKinsey; and Andrew Yang has zero political experience, though he was also an Ivy-leaguer and has had a diverse professional career. In both cases, those people struck me as really smart, and worth consideration. I figured their lack of experience could be bolstered by a VP and cabinet who could handle that side of things, much like happened with Pres. Obama (who at least was a first-term U.S. senator as well as former Illinois congressman and law professor).
A big difference is that they were (in my scenario) adding failsafes for a backup plan. With a president Biden, Abrams would BE the backup plan. So if your backup plan has a fatal (or at least serious) flaw, that's an issue. If your experienced VP dies while you--a young president--are in office, you pick another VP. If you--an old president--die in office and your VP is inexperienced...the country has an inexperienced president.
I worry that the media and party have gotten carried away with Abrams's fundraising/activism, which are obviously important in politics. But they aren't the same as governing. (Not unlike the brief Beto O'Rourke energy that faded as soon as people began paying attention to what he was actually saying as a presidential candidate, as opposed to how cool he seemed doing a DIY and largely Instagrammable campaign against Sen. Cruz in Texas.)
What's worse, I think they have gotten carried away with the demographic excitement of a black woman in the role. I have no issues with a black woman as president or vice president or anything else, but I'd prefer to know she is the best candidate. And ditto for every other color, gender, orientation, etc. I know it is wildly out of fashion to still adhere to MLK's ideal of color-blindness, but I do still find that our best aspiration. It would be cool to have a black female vice president or president, sure. But it's got to be the last consideration, not the first.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on May 20, 2020 16:48:33 GMT
I have no issues with a black woman as president or vice president or anything else, but I'd prefer to know she is the best candidate. And ditto for every other color, gender, orientation, etc. I know it is wildly out of fashion to still adhere to MLK's ideal of color-blindness, but I do still find that our best aspiration. It would be cool to have a black female vice president or president, sure. But it's got to be the last consideration, not the first.
Which, of course, Biden DIDN'T say. When was it he said that he would choose a female VP candidate? During one of the debates with Bernie? I agree, I want the best VP candidate - period. I don't care what gender or race they are. Biden's getting a free ride on this issue. He made a politically correct statement/choice to win an election, not what's best for the country.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 21, 2020 17:31:35 GMT
(This probably fits best into the coronavirus thread but it has political aspects, so...) Remember four or five months ago when Alan Dershowitz, longtime liberal attorney, was suddenly shoved into Trumpist status by the mainstream media and the left because he was willing to take a job for Trump, or defend various aspects of Trump's actions since running for president, or for talking on Fox?
Well, I'm pleased to notice the below, not so much for the points themselves as the opportunity to point out that people don't--absent annoying media and social pressure--sort easily into two camps. Read what Prof. Dershowitz has to say about people's right to NOT wear masks, or the government's right to forcibly vaccinate people. I think you'll agree what he says is very, very far away from the right's positions on these issues. Prof. Dershowitz is, at least on these topics, no stooge for the president or Fox.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on May 22, 2020 15:22:16 GMT
So any loosenings are obviously not based on the health situation. They are clearly based on public and political pressure that "it's time."
I'm quoting this partially out of context from the "Coronavirus" thread, but I wanted to insert President Trump and the election into the discussion. Obviously, he wants the economy to be recovering by election time, but he's got a great excuse on that front. What I think he needs to be more careful of is pushing to reopen too soon. If he does, and it backfires, that deadly failure (along with another potential economic shutdown) will be the most recent memory in voters' minds.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on May 22, 2020 16:23:21 GMT
If Trump loses the election, he can point to the pandemic, not because of the effect it had on the economy, but because of the way he was personally exposed with his daily proclamations.
After the impeachment proceedings, had the country not gone right into a pandemic, Trump probably would've gotten a bump in the polls. And, actually, had he handled this pandemic in so many different/better ways, he would've maintained his momentum, and maybe substantially increased his lead over Biden. But Trump not only failed, he failed miserably, and it turned off not only republicans in general, but some of his base.
Forget (even though the democrats won't let you) that Trump didn't take the pandemic seriously at the beginning. He still could've weathered the storm and shown the country strong leadership. He actually put together a pretty good task force team, and it was a good idea to have those daily press conferences and updates. But this is where Trump blew it. He couldn't let the scientists and experts do the talking; he had to butt in and open his big mouth. The bigger problem was that he didn't have a clue what he was talking about. And a problem bigger than that was that Trump could not show empathy. All he wanted to talk about was the economy, foreign countries, his critics, and what a great job he was doing. I'll use the analogy of a "party" to describe those daily task force press conferences. The ratings were very high, not because of Trump, but because of the scientists and experts who were giving valuable information. But Trump wanted to be the star, he wanted to be invited to this popular party, so he invited himself. He injected himself into the proceedings. Like a party, Trump saw somebody playing a guitar or a piano and getting all the attention. Well, Trump couldn't have that, so he started to play the guitar and the piano, too. The only problem was that he didn't know anything about playing the guitar and the piano. And it showed. Ultimately, Trump embarrassed himself. He showed just how stupid he was, not just as a leader, but as a person. And, the next thing you know, people started to leave the "party". They didn't want to hear this fool, so they left.
A reporter would ask Trump, "How do you feel now that the death toll from COVID-19 is over 50,000?" And Trump would say, "One death is too many", and then IMMEDIATELY go into how the U.S. percentage-wise has lesser deaths than China, that we were producing more ventilators than whatever country, and worst of all, start talking about how great the economy WAS before the pandemic and that it will be even greater. Better than ever. THAT'S how he felt about thousands of people dying? Millions of people were getting sick, and at 2:30 AM Trump was tweeting about - insulting actually - some political opponent or media person who disagrees with him. THAT'S what our President is doing/thinking as people are dying?
Who in the hell wanted to hear that! Parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, friends, and co-workers were getting sick and dying before our eyes, and all Trump wanted to talk about was how he was going to fix the unemployment rate and the stock market in 2021. He just didn't get it. He isn't capable of getting it. He was exposed. He exposed himself. Forget about all of his ignorance and buffoonery when it came to science with his insane talk about injecting bleach and light into the body. The American people wanted to see a President who cared about others first and foremost, not his re-election. They wanted to see and hear and feel true empathy and sympathy from their President. They didn't get it and they never will. If Trump loses the election, it will be because of the pandemic, not specifically because of the coronavirus itself, but because of the way he handled it, and specifically his lack of character.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on May 22, 2020 21:12:02 GMT
From a voter's point of view, it's one thing to put policy over character, but I do wonder if his lack of empathy (and competence) during such a sensitive time will change things. Especially if things end up getting worse closer to the election. The more people die, the more likely it is to hit close to home for all of us. That's a dangerous thing for Trump IMO.
It's interesting reading your post, SJS, as you've clearly followed the daily conferences and news closely. Unlike most, I tuned out. I haven't watched or listened to a single conference. I briefly tuned in about a week ago and the first thing I saw was a picture of Trump with a huge banner behind him that read, "America leads the world in testing". I hate that shit! How insecure can you be? And, it's so obviously misleading. That's what really gets me. It's not fooling anyone. Or is he just trolling? I hate that we always have to ask ourselves that of our President. Anyway, I promptly tuned back out.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 22, 2020 21:17:38 GMT
Yet despite the obvious political challenges Trump has ... there's Biden, putting his foot in his mouth yet again, "jokingly" telling black people who aren't sure for whom to vote that they're not really black. Delightful.
I don't believe Joe Biden is racist in any traditionally understood way (though by the newer ideas of systemic racism and anti-racism, he probably would be considered such), but I do think he is prone to falling into that decades-long Democratic establishment failure of just assuming they have the black vote, period. Republicans (and conservatives) are racist, the end. Right?
Well, no. Data shows black Democrats are actually more conservative than white Democrats, for one thing, and a recent study also shows black and Hispanic people are less offended by numerous instances of "racist microaggressions" than are white people. (I can find and cite both of these, if necessary.) Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act, right? Again, kind-of...sure, Johnson was president and was a Democrat, but Republicans voted in favor at higher percentages than Democrats did. (We could then get into the question of "the Southern Strategy," which is complicated but legitimate.)
But my real point is, nobody should be able to tell us who qualifies as what they obviously already are. Four years ago, the Advocate basically said Peter Thiel wasn't gay because he was a Trump supporter; within the past year, the New Yorker said Pete Buttigieg wasn't really gay because he was insufficiently woke and didn't act gay enough, or some such nonsense. And now Biden suggests that being black requires being a Democrat.
No.
And not just no, but progressives know it's a big fat no. This is how:
Even if you cede the point that Trump is a racist, or Republicans are racist--which I am not doing (but would entertain the idea to some degree on the president, not the party)--that still doesn't mean black people shouldn't vote for him if they think his policies align with their values or objectives more than the Democrats' do. A conservative black voter may well suspect that the president would drop a casual n-bomb or freak out if he had dated Ivanka, and yet see that a) the president isn't willing or able to re-enslave black people or outlaw blacks from voting, etc., and b) will reduce regulations, appoint conservative judges, etc.
In that case, the black conservative voter would probably hold his nose and vote Trump. The reason progressives have no room to talk on the subject is that every single election of my adult life, huge numbers of progressives argue to do the exact same thing in voting Democrat. Far-left progressives regularly argue that Democrats like Joe Biden--literally, Joe Biden, plus the Clintons and other similar, business-oriented, somewhat hawkish, centrist Democrats--are warmongers, are (at least institutionally) racist, are crony capitalists, are promoters of the military industrial complex, are imperialists. This isn't a secret, this is discussed all the time. Far-left progressives say this constantly, but a large segment of them vote Democrat because they judge, according to their political calculation, it's better than "wasting their vote." (This exact argument is going on right now between Noam Chomsky, who says he'll vote Biden, and Chris Hedges, who will presumably vote Green. These are two of the four or five most prominent progressives in America.)
That is the exact same calculation, just from someone of a different political viewpoint and so someone coming out on the other side. A black conservative could easily dislike Trump, but as a conservative, think he's a better choice than the Democrat, and not want to "waste his vote" on a third-party conservative.
The arrogance of these people who think they can and should tell other people what and how to think, and to have the balls to say they're not "real" anything if they don't fall in line, is astounding and offensive.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 28, 2020 16:23:30 GMT
I might just be feeling particularly depressed and anxious with the local goings-on, but oh well, this is how I'm feeling at the moment:
I suspect we might be in for a terrible summer and fall in this country, maybe like the awful days of '68. We are seeing frustrations over race and class boil over into public shaming, piling on, so-called "cancellation," and in cases like here, violence. The president seems dedicated to fanning every flame he can at ever opportunity and has been signalling that he wouldn't accept a political loss in November. Meanwhile we're still in the midst of a pandemic that we can't even seem to agree on as being a pandemic.
Hopefully I'm wrong and the noise is just noise, the violence just an aberration, and the president just being who he is (hopefully without anyone taking him seriously). Maybe people are at their wit's end from isolation and the nicer weather will relax everyone. But I really worry.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on May 28, 2020 16:37:38 GMT
I agree with you and I'm worried, too. This is a terribly depressing trifecta. As I mentioned in The Lounge thread, this Minneapolis tragedy is going to explode in the coming months; there are so many unfortunate angles to it. The pandemic isn't going away either. For one thing, to a large extent the media won't allow it to. And, finally, eventually Biden will come out of his basement and Trump will continue to self-destruct. Every day will be some new confrontation. Yes, it's gonna be a sad, sad summer I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on May 28, 2020 16:43:55 GMT
I might just be feeling particularly depressed and anxious with the local goings-on, but oh well, this is how I'm feeling at the moment: I suspect we might be in for a terrible summer and fall in this country, maybe like the awful days of '68. We are seeing frustrations over race and class boil over into public shaming, piling on, so-called "cancellation," and in cases like here, violence. The president seems dedicated to fanning every flame he can at ever opportunity and has been signalling that he wouldn't accept a political loss in November. Meanwhile we're still in the midst of a pandemic that we can't even seem to agree on as being a pandemic. Hopefully I'm wrong and the noise is just noise, the violence just an aberration, and the president just being who he is (hopefully without anyone taking him seriously). Maybe people are at their wit's end from isolation and the nicer weather will relax everyone. But I really worry.
It might seem worse because what's happening is local to you. I feel like 2014-2015 was worse, although we have a ways to go until the election.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 28, 2020 17:48:16 GMT
I hope SJS and I are wrong. Honestly I was beginning to worry before the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, much less the rioting. But that said, it's the future, which means it doesn't even exist for us to know (contrary to the amount of prognosticating we humans do).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 1, 2020 19:09:37 GMT
In answer to TCK's question from The Lounge, the multiracial makeup of protests doesn't give me hope because of the rhetoric that is dominating many of those protests, which is what is popularly called "anti-racist." This (like "anti-fascist") sounds like the greatest thing in the world, and so it seems absurd to be against it, but in my opinion both of these two things are the very same thing they purport to oppose in some ways. And even if they weren't, I think they are both contrary to what we need for a positive, healthy society based on what they say and do.
The "anti-racist" rhetoric focuses almost entirely on racism, not only the overt and direct racism that virtually all of us in this country oppose, but the fuzzy concepts of institutional or systemic racism. I believe those things are real, but I do not believe they are the same thing as direct racism, I do not think they should be handled in the same way, and I do not believe they are as immediately harmful. More to the point, examples are often made simply by using demographic data broken down by race, which is somewhat arbitrary and ignores any other factors. Yes, on the whole black people in America make less money than white people. Fact. But other groups, like southeast Asians, Ashkenazi Jews, and (I think) south Asians (e.g. Indians) make more than whites. Is this another example of institutional racism? If so, what are we doing about it? Or, what about the reality that different groups of black people--black being a color, after all, not a distinct ethnic group or "race" (whatever that term actually means)--outperform different groups of white people? Should Appalachian whites demand racial equity against west African blacks?
If you turn everything into a grievance of racism, so will everyone else.
Crime is another awful but real problem. I agree entirely that we need to stamp out police brutality. When someone breaks the law--and the law is written so that crimes and punishments are not based on color, by the way, as they have been for decades or more--then that person needs to be arrested, fairly tried, and (if guilty) punished appropriately. The cop who killed George Floyd deserves to be punished harshly. We cannot accept our authorities to abuse their power.
But the idea that police disproportionately kill black people over white people (or other races) isn't as clear as it seems. Media attention, percentage of interactions with police, and the uncomfortable reality of who commits crimes--typically impoverished people, which are sadly disproportionately black--are just a few factors that complicate this. (Native Americans are killed at a far higher rate, by the way.) The issue is police or other authorities killing civilians as anything except a last resort. Racializing it means that other groups will do the same.
There is far, far more violent crime, just going by the numbers, by black people against white than vice versa. It's not close. Do we want white people to begin taking out vigilante justice on black people? NO WE DO NOT. We don't want anyone doing this against anyone. The problem is violence. If someone commits violence based on race, that person is awful and we need to catch, prosecute, and punish them. But making it about race ... makes it about race. It is inherently divisive.
However, the "anti-racists" and intersectionalists argue nonsense like how everything wrong is a vestige of slavery and abuse (which it goes without saying were abominable). How any- and everything a black person does wrong is outside of his or her own control, and instead is because of these sins of previous generations.
Not to put too fine a point on it, that's utter bullshit. There are consequences of past actions, yes. But to say that, say, a middle class, college educated black man from a two-parent home is incapable of reasoning through the negative consequences of his potential violence or anarchy because his ancestors suffered at the hands of someone else's, or even at his own legitimate current grievances of racism? That is to remove his agency, to infantilize him, to make him an animal. THAT is racist. For others, including presumably well-meaning white liberals to stand by and applaud, to show fealty out of white guilt? That is condescending, patronizing bullshit.
You can easily find right now new clips of protesters where white protesters are literally kneeling around their black protester comrades, begging forgiveness and apologizing. It's presented as beautiful. It's a fucking abomination. I will shake your hand, I will give you a hug, I will break bread with you, I will befriend you, I will hear you out. But I will not bow to you, nor would I ever expect you to bow to me. Fuck that. You know what else? When I disagree with you, I'll tell you why. I'll argue with you. I may convince you, you may convince me. But you know why I'll do it? Because I respect you as a man (or woman). To show deference to you over your race is not a lot different in the long run than to hate you for your race. Two sides of a coin, both dehumanizing.
We don't need guilty white liberals spouting nonsense about white fragility, about our collective guilt, and we sure as hell don't need them joining in riots and serving as (metaphorical or literal) cannon fodder. We don't need (metaphorical or literal) cannons at all in this. We need mutual respect, dignity. We need conversation, debate, argument. We don't need statistical diversity, or everybody to fall in line and be of the same opinion. We need true pluralism, or for everyone to pursue his or her own interests and talents in an atmosphere of respect and freedom.
So that mostly dealt with the "anti-racism side," and it went on forever. I'll save my thoughts about "anti-fascists" for later. Or I'll sum it up: what a bunch of pathetic drivel spouted by lame (mostly) white kids who want to pretend to be revolutionaries. Liberals and progressives need to quit giving them cover and flirting with them. They are not on your side, liberals. "Liberals get the bullet, too" is literally one of AntiFa's mottos. Whether they're highly organized and trained or in over their heads, they're in the end not a lot different than neo-Nazis and assholes of that ilk. They've decided that "society is wrong, man," and they've decided to fix it on their own terms, unilaterally. Philosophically, ideologically vapid crap that leads to nothing good, ever. See: French Revolution; see: Russian Revolution. Whatever limited sympathies I have for protesters who have been pushed over the edge into violence, I have no such sympathies for people who have been jerking off to the idea and playing at it for sport in some perverse fantasy. I am strongly, strongly anti-authoritarian (e.g, I am a real anti-fascist) ... but I wish the duly appointed authorities of the people of this country would treat these terrorists exactly how they deserve to be treated. Which is rather poorly.
|
|