Dancing With the Dems

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28949
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by thoreau »

The aggrieved factions are similarly aggrieved because they were on the receiving ends of similarly bad miscalculations--just in opposite directions. One got treated like an over-indulged child, and the other was constantly snubbed.

You civilize children by asking them what they want (once they reach a certain age) and then having a dialogue about what is and isn't feasible. You tell the kid who wants a bigger allowance that they have to work for it and point out that spending more on certain things requires either more work or cutting into something else. You tell the kid who wants his cultural notions indulged that if you impose the rules that he wants then he'll need to exercise some self-restraint as well, and that you can only go so far before you start stepping on the toes of people who also have rights.

But we didn't get either of those conversations. The kid who wanted the allowance was repeatedly told "Yeah, whatever" while mommy and daddy threw money at the Pentagon and bailed out the irresponsible in-law working at the bank. (Yes, I know, you say that was a populist move, but the beneficiaries were never shown the ways it benefited them. They were told to shut up and accept what's good for them. A smarter populist would have, you know, told the people getting shit what they were getting. Repeatedly.) The kid who wanted his cultural notions indulged was told for decades that he's the only real member of the family and everyone else is bad and lying.

And the responsible middle kid who worked to hold things together is getting pretty frazzled too. They'd kind of like to check the other two kids into the hospital and keep them drugged, but the over-indulged kid has all the guns and the snubbed activist kid might nationalize the hospital and run the place into the ground.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 28263
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Warren »

Shem wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 10:36
JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 10:11
In a sense. Alt right makes the same case - this is what you get when you don't give dumb insular white dudes a place at the cultural table.

As with the alt right, I can't help but notice that the reason they had no place at the table is they say a lot of dumb things. I'm left with this sense that what is missing is not engagement in the sense we pretend those dumb things are not dumb, but rather we got lax in shaming them into silence.
You're talking as if both parties treat their activist base the same way. They don't. The GOP has been feeding their particular alt-right monster under the table for at least three decades now. That's what Fox News is for. The alt-right isn't demanding a seat at the table because they're being ignored; they're demanding it because one of the coalitions is now built on their ideology. The consensus you miss was built on letting the GOP harness those votes without looking too closely at the implications of the ideology they were using to do it. Or considering what would happen when they realized it was all fake. And at this point, the damage is done.
The Dems are exactly the same point for point.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 14246
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Eric the .5b »

Shem wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 10:04
JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 00:13
The world was a better place when the activist wing was ignored.
That's how you wind up with an Overton Window so far to the right that Congress has serious policy discussions about whether locking children in cages is the right thing to do.
Those weren't serious policy discussions any more than Reds charging into a secure hearing (that half of them could have simply attended) was serious anything.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28949
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by thoreau »

Warren wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 14:14
Shem wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 10:36
JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 10:11
In a sense. Alt right makes the same case - this is what you get when you don't give dumb insular white dudes a place at the cultural table.

As with the alt right, I can't help but notice that the reason they had no place at the table is they say a lot of dumb things. I'm left with this sense that what is missing is not engagement in the sense we pretend those dumb things are not dumb, but rather we got lax in shaming them into silence.
You're talking as if both parties treat their activist base the same way. They don't. The GOP has been feeding their particular alt-right monster under the table for at least three decades now. That's what Fox News is for. The alt-right isn't demanding a seat at the table because they're being ignored; they're demanding it because one of the coalitions is now built on their ideology. The consensus you miss was built on letting the GOP harness those votes without looking too closely at the implications of the ideology they were using to do it. Or considering what would happen when they realized it was all fake. And at this point, the damage is done.
The Dems are exactly the same point for point.
"Both sides exactly the same" is becoming the new gryllularity.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 14246
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Eric the .5b »

I want less harm done to broad liberalism. I'm not going to pretend the activist left doesn't want to destroy it as much as the modern right. But at the very least, they want to destroy it in different ways, they'll be starting off fresh rather than having been in power, and they might even make token repairs to some of the right-wing damage.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24773
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by JasonL »

The kid who wanted his cultural notions indulged was told for decades that he's the only real member of the family and everyone else is bad and lying.
I think this is wrong. He was told he was the real deal by Rush Limbaugh maybe, but I think you are incorrectly assessing the dismissiveness of the centrist right coalition toward the noises those people wanted to hear. My take on the right is that there were emergent celebrities who gained influence among the alt right precisely because they weren't being heard by paleos, neos, or even religious right coalition members who had the power. The trumpian right is not conservative in a traditional sense. They like hearing the stories Bannon tells - that the powerful are organized in cabals to keep them down and it's time to revolt against the tyranny of people who speak in complete sentences and can do math and such things.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28949
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by thoreau »

In 2008 the VP nominee talked about being in "Real America."

As to people who know math, the GOP has been selling fantasy-based fiscal policy (tax less, spend more on the military, cut the NPR budget) since at least 1980.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24773
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by JasonL »

My overall concern with trumpism is that I think there are elements of the left looking on in admiration rather than horror at what has been done. The connecting thread is something like "how can we people who feel things strongly but sound astonishingly stupid or nasty when we give voice to our emotions get our hands on the levers of power," and the answer is "OMG trumpism is how that works."

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24773
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by JasonL »

thoreau wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:00
In 2008 the VP nominee talked about being in "Real America."

As to people who know math, the GOP has been selling fantasy-based fiscal policy (tax less, spend more on the military, cut the NPR budget) since at least 1980.
I'm more talking about the alt right view of the centrists, globalists and etc. As in the formulation of winning a trade war.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6862
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by fyodor »

JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:04
My overall concern with trumpism is that I think there are elements of the left looking on in admiration rather than horror at what has been done. The connecting thread is something like "how can we people who feel things strongly but sound astonishingly stupid or nasty when we give voice to our emotions get our hands on the levers of power," and the answer is "OMG trumpism is how that works."
If that were true, you'd see more success of candidates with no political experience. You're connecting dots that aren't related. The enthusiasm for progressive candidates is a combination of good old universal wishful thinking with the almost success of Bernie 2016 and very understandable frustration with their party's mainstream as embodied by the travesty of Hilary C. and the distance in time of the cautionary tales of the USSR and George McGovern.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24773
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by JasonL »

fyodor wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 17:07
JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:04
My overall concern with trumpism is that I think there are elements of the left looking on in admiration rather than horror at what has been done. The connecting thread is something like "how can we people who feel things strongly but sound astonishingly stupid or nasty when we give voice to our emotions get our hands on the levers of power," and the answer is "OMG trumpism is how that works."
If that were true, you'd see more success of candidates with no political experience. You're connecting dots that aren't related. The enthusiasm for progressive candidates is a combination of good old universal wishful thinking with the almost success of Bernie 2016 and very understandable frustration with their party's mainstream as embodied by the travesty of Hilary C. and the distance in time of the cautionary tales of the USSR and George McGovern.
My thesis doesn't require success. It requires the stupid wing to be enough of a thing to matter. That may just mean torpedoing moderates in this election followed by "learning" from the right about how to do populist dumbassery in the next go round. I think the donkey coalition is a work in progress and what I see are parallels between the rise of right populism and the how the activist left sees things right now.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19331
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Disdain for Clinton was always strong enough that any opponent for the nomination who had hung in there would probably have given her a run for her money. Webb, Chafee, and Lessig withdrew prior to the February 1, 2016 Iowa caucuses and O'Malley dropped out after finishing a distant third in Iowa. Yeah, maybe none of them would have won in New Hampshire, but Sanders' supposed viability as a national candidate is predicated on his run in 2016, which isn't nearly as useful a predictor as if he had done as well against Biden or anyone else without Clinton's high negatives.

The thing that keeps most non-pols from running is money. If you're a billionaire, fine, you can finance your own campaign at least in its early stages, but if you don't even have grass-roots / favorite son name recognition and support, there's always a lifer champing at the bit to run who's going to get the nod ahead of you unless you're offering yourself up as a sacrificial lamb in an election you can't possibly win.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6862
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by fyodor »

JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 17:11
fyodor wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 17:07
JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:04
My overall concern with trumpism is that I think there are elements of the left looking on in admiration rather than horror at what has been done. The connecting thread is something like "how can we people who feel things strongly but sound astonishingly stupid or nasty when we give voice to our emotions get our hands on the levers of power," and the answer is "OMG trumpism is how that works."

If that were true, you'd see more success of candidates with no political experience. You're connecting dots that aren't related. The enthusiasm for progressive candidates is a combination of good old universal wishful thinking with the almost success of Bernie 2016 and very understandable frustration with their party's mainstream as embodied by the travesty of Hilary C. and the distance in time of the cautionary tales of the USSR and George McGovern.
My thesis doesn't require success. It requires the stupid wing to be enough of a thing to matter. That may just mean torpedoing moderates in this election followed by "learning" from the right about how to do populist dumbassery in the next go round. I think the donkey coalition is a work in progress and what I see are parallels between the rise of right populism and the how the activist left sees things right now.
Matters/success? Sanders and Warren matter because of their (okay, relative?) success. We're both talking about the torpedoing of moderates but I think the evidence of your analysis for why is lacking. My evidence? Well besides my familiarity with the subjects, which of course provides too many data points to try to repeat, I think my analysis is more Occam's Razor friendly. YMMV
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6862
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by fyodor »

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 17:21
Disdain for Clinton was always strong enough that any opponent for the nomination who had hung in there would probably have given her a run for her money. Webb, Chafee, and Lessig withdrew prior to the February 1, 2016 Iowa caucuses and O'Malley dropped out after finishing a distant third in Iowa. Yeah, maybe none of them would have won in New Hampshire, but Sanders' supposed viability as a national candidate is predicated on his run in 2016, which isn't nearly as useful a predictor as if he had done as well against Biden or anyone else without Clinton's high negatives.
Very possibly. But of course I'm talking about what they think, not what is correct.

[The thing that keeps most non-pols from running is money. If you're a billionaire, fine, you can finance your own campaign at least in its early stages, but if you don't even have grass-roots / favorite son name recognition and support, there's always a lifer champing at the bit to run who's going to get the nod ahead of you unless you're offering yourself up as a sacrificial lamb in an election you can't possibly win.
Maybe. But there are other ways to gain name recognition and have money. Of course that leads to the thought that maybe Jason would have his proof if only Oprah had decided to run...... 😶
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28949
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by thoreau »

JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:05
thoreau wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:00
In 2008 the VP nominee talked about being in "Real America."

As to people who know math, the GOP has been selling fantasy-based fiscal policy (tax less, spend more on the military, cut the NPR budget) since at least 1980.
I'm more talking about the alt right view of the centrists, globalists and etc. As in the formulation of winning a trade war.
There are certainly ways in which Trump has taken things farther than the GOP had previously gone. But don't kid yourself, Trump is the next step in something that has been building for a while.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24773
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by JasonL »

thoreau wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 17:50
JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:05
thoreau wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 15:00
In 2008 the VP nominee talked about being in "Real America."

As to people who know math, the GOP has been selling fantasy-based fiscal policy (tax less, spend more on the military, cut the NPR budget) since at least 1980.
I'm more talking about the alt right view of the centrists, globalists and etc. As in the formulation of winning a trade war.
There are certainly ways in which Trump has taken things farther than the GOP had previously gone. But don't kid yourself, Trump is the next step in something that has been building for a while.
I know you think this. I think it is of a different character. I think the evidence for that is the Bannonite anger at "establishment" elephants and that that anger along with media animus for empowering the globalists is the motive force behind the whole thing. I find the attempts to connect the dots between GWB and Trump and I think Shem goes back to Reagan or Goldwater if not Lincoln - I find these things unconvincing. The alt right is reacting to a perceived lack of power in the right wing. These are not neocons, as far removed from Rumsfeld as they are from Obama and much closer to Bernie than to either of those. It's right populism which is not super different from versions of left populism. As fyodor would say, ymmv.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 28263
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Warren »

FFS Trumpism isn't really a thing. Trump is a populist. That means he's very much not of the establishment. Populists are thrown up overnight and they disappear just as quickly. What could Trump possibly leave behind in the way of a faction in the GOP? Anti-immigration certainly, but I think the list ends there. Anti-globalism and tariffs are economic drags and will be seen as such. The one lasting thing he's going to leave behind is a plethora of liberal judges, but of course that wasn't his doing.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19331
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Most Republican politicians, even those who rose under the first Tea Party successes and certainly those who were once foot-soldiers in the Moral Majority, are part of "the swamp" and, Trump aside, would like to remain so.

As for Republican and Democratic populism, the demographics may differ but I've said all along that the self-image of put-upon and disenfranchised hard workin' 'Mericans that prompts both Trump and Sanders supporters is pretty much otherwise the same.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24773
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by JasonL »

Warren wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 19:41
FFS Trumpism isn't really a thing. Trump is a populist. That means he's very much not of the establishment. Populists are thrown up overnight and they disappear just as quickly. What could Trump possibly leave behind in the way of a faction in the GOP? Anti-immigration certainly, but I think the list ends there. Anti-globalism and tariffs are economic drags and will be seen as such. The one lasting thing he's going to leave behind is a plethora of liberal judges, but of course that wasn't his doing.
You believe populism to be temporary. I'm not so sure that's true. It may be the best way to motivate bases. Trumpism is the approach of the guy. I don't see why another following that approach by developing celebrity among the base couldn't just keep throwing those grenades. It could be done on the left as well.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 28263
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Warren »

JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 19:49
Warren wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 19:41
FFS Trumpism isn't really a thing. Trump is a populist. That means he's very much not of the establishment. Populists are thrown up overnight and they disappear just as quickly. What could Trump possibly leave behind in the way of a faction in the GOP? Anti-immigration certainly, but I think the list ends there. Anti-globalism and tariffs are economic drags and will be seen as such. The one lasting thing he's going to leave behind is a plethora of liberal judges, but of course that wasn't his doing.
You believe populism to be temporary. I'm not so sure that's true. It may be the best way to motivate bases. Trumpism is the approach of the guy. I don't see why another following that approach by developing celebrity among the base couldn't just keep throwing those grenades. It could be done on the left as well.
I don't think grenade throwing is sustainable. The support base that flocks to it will at some point become disillusioned and will quickly abandon it.
What I can't say is what will follow. I think this would be a great time for someone to build credibility as a "serious" leader. The Butt may well be doing that. When the wind changes, he could be in a position to claim the helm. "I was here before it was cool".
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16460
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Aresen »

Warren wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 20:26
I don't think grenade throwing is sustainable. The support base that flocks to it will at some point become disillusioned and will quickly abandon it.
Anti-immigrant and anti-trade populism goes at least as far back as the Know-Nothing Party of the 1800s. FFS, Ross Perot torpedoed Bush the Elder on that in 1992.
What I can't say is what will follow. I think this would be a great time for someone to build credibility as a "serious" leader. The Butt may well be doing that. When the wind changes, he could be in a position to claim the helm. "I was here before it was cool".
Or he could become the Democrat Harold Stassen.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 28263
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Warren »

Aresen wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 20:56
Anti-immigrant and anti-trade populism goes at least as far back as the Know-Nothing Party of the 1800s. FFS, Ross Perot torpedoed Bush the Elder on that in 1992.
It goes back to the beginning of human speech if not further. And unfortunately it doesn't seem to be going away. Even so, while I think the US can sustain an anti-immigrant policy predisposition for at least another generation, I don't think anti-trade is a winning position past the next economic downturn, due no later than next October. ;)
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7850
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Shem »

Warren wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 14:14
Shem wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 10:36
JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 10:11
In a sense. Alt right makes the same case - this is what you get when you don't give dumb insular white dudes a place at the cultural table.

As with the alt right, I can't help but notice that the reason they had no place at the table is they say a lot of dumb things. I'm left with this sense that what is missing is not engagement in the sense we pretend those dumb things are not dumb, but rather we got lax in shaming them into silence.
You're talking as if both parties treat their activist base the same way. They don't. The GOP has been feeding their particular alt-right monster under the table for at least three decades now. That's what Fox News is for. The alt-right isn't demanding a seat at the table because they're being ignored; they're demanding it because one of the coalitions is now built on their ideology. The consensus you miss was built on letting the GOP harness those votes without looking too closely at the implications of the ideology they were using to do it. Or considering what would happen when they realized it was all fake. And at this point, the damage is done.
The Dems are exactly the same point for point.
When moderate Democrats spend their time hemming and hawing about Medicare for all in the face of Bernie Sanders the way moderate Republicans hemmed and hawed about the border wall in the face of Trump, I'll entertain the idea that "both sides are exactly as bad as each other" is anything other than cynical BS.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7850
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Shem »

JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 14:55
The kid who wanted his cultural notions indulged was told for decades that he's the only real member of the family and everyone else is bad and lying.
I think this is wrong. He was told he was the real deal by Rush Limbaugh maybe, but I think you are incorrectly assessing the dismissiveness of the centrist right coalition toward the noises those people wanted to hear. My take on the right is that there were emergent celebrities who gained influence among the alt right precisely because they weren't being heard by paleos, neos, or even religious right coalition members who had the power. The trumpian right is not conservative in a traditional sense. They like hearing the stories Bannon tells - that the powerful are organized in cabals to keep them down and it's time to revolt against the tyranny of people who speak in complete sentences and can do math and such things.
It's not that they weren't being heard; it's that they were being lied to. When Buckley wanted to cast out the fringe, he kicked them out of his magazine and stopped interacting with them. The stuff he said in cocktail parties and think tank symposia comported with what was in his magazine. Modern conservatives run down Bannonites in the journals only academics read, but they still go on Tucker Carlson. They still put them in the National Review. Everyone knows the repudiatons are full of crap. The Bannonites are simply calling them on it, and the moderates and neocons are doing the only thing they can; fall in line.
JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 19:20
I find the attempts to connect the dots between GWB and Trump and I think Shem goes back to Reagan or Goldwater if not Lincoln - I find these things unconvincing.
Goldwater was unquestionably not of the current, Bannonite Conservatism. Reagan, on the other hand...

I still don't know how anyone can read the Welfare Queen speech and not come away seeing it as three racist dogwhistles wearing a trenchcoat trying to impersonate a real argument.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 28263
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Warren »

Shem wrote:
18 Dec 2019, 01:29
Warren wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 14:14
Shem wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 10:36
JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2019, 10:11
In a sense. Alt right makes the same case - this is what you get when you don't give dumb insular white dudes a place at the cultural table.

As with the alt right, I can't help but notice that the reason they had no place at the table is they say a lot of dumb things. I'm left with this sense that what is missing is not engagement in the sense we pretend those dumb things are not dumb, but rather we got lax in shaming them into silence.
You're talking as if both parties treat their activist base the same way. They don't. The GOP has been feeding their particular alt-right monster under the table for at least three decades now. That's what Fox News is for. The alt-right isn't demanding a seat at the table because they're being ignored; they're demanding it because one of the coalitions is now built on their ideology. The consensus you miss was built on letting the GOP harness those votes without looking too closely at the implications of the ideology they were using to do it. Or considering what would happen when they realized it was all fake. And at this point, the damage is done.
The Dems are exactly the same point for point.
When moderate Democrats spend their time hemming and hawing about Medicare for all in the face of Bernie Sanders the way moderate Republicans hemmed and hawed about the border wall in the face of Trump, I'll entertain the idea that "both sides are exactly as bad as each other" is anything other than cynical BS.
Just as soon as we get a Democrat President, like clockwork.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

Post Reply