|
I sort of concerns me how readily willing progressives are to adopt the rhetoric of fascists, to be honest. "Fake news" was originally used to talk about stuff like Facebook meme forwards and Breitbart, and was co-opted by the Bannon crowd to delegitimize traditional news.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, you don't have to sell this to me. I just think that we underestimate this part of the problem of selling left-wing policy to Americans. Systemic ignorance of how the system works means that all too many people legitimately believe that we cannot afford to have nice things done by the government, or that things done by the government are strictly inferior, and overcoming decades of that kind of propaganda in the limited time we find ourselves with is a monumental task. i don't think this is impossible. the systemic ignorance comes from no push back against the message that "government sucks." the dems will not push back against the idea that the free market solves all problems so there is no discourse because the ruling classes are in consensus. i think plenty of people on both sides are seeing the free market failing them. part of trumps appeal on the campaign trail was that he was going to fight the free market by bringing jobs back, however honest he was being about it. bernie was and still is incredibly popular, by some accounts the most popular/trusted politician in the country and he's managed to come out of complete obscurity and convince millions of people about the truth of his message.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:
Yes I am the one living in a bubble because I suggest people like to vote for a party they can assign some sort of idea to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, you don't have to sell this to me. I just think that we underestimate this part of the problem of selling left-wing policy to Americans. Systemic ignorance of how the system works means that all too many people legitimately believe that we cannot afford to have nice things done by the government, or that things done by the government are strictly inferior, and overcoming decades of that kind of propaganda in the limited time we find ourselves with is a monumental task. I don't think it takes a deep understanding of much of anything to sell "We want to give you healthcare for free. We're going to do this by taxing the CEO of your company, who is a total piece of poo poo that you hate."
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Why do you think that Republicans imposed ideology on people rather than crafting their policies to appeal to people's existing ideologies? because the new deal was popular and its rhetoric lasted for decades. it wasn't until the 70s when conservatives started funding their own ideological think tanks to validate their ideology that the new deal began to crack and a new ideology took hold. like the purposeful and direct intervention of conservative intellectualism is well documented and its success was both rapid and almost total. in the 70s the conservatives fought back with ideology backed by intellectuals and in 80 reagan won on a radical new platform. we are still feeling the effects of that today. that ideology was created and served to the public.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yes I am the one living in a bubble because I suggest people like to vote for a party they can assign some sort of idea to. You're living in a bubble because you generalize your beliefs to hundreds of millions of people without any comprehension that you are doing so. Dr. Fishopolis posted:I don't think it takes a deep understanding of much of anything to sell "We want to give you healthcare for free. We're going to do this by taxing the CEO of your company, who is a total piece of poo poo that you hate." But this breaks down when you consider how many people don't hate the CEO of their company, but instead focus their ire on people who are more educated than they are or who are above them in the corporate hierarchy but aren't their direct bosses or who are paid more than they are but aren't management. So you've gotta create hatred for CEOs or the bosses and potentially counter their hatred of coworkers. RaySmuckles posted:because the new deal was popular and its rhetoric lasted for decades. it wasn't until the 70s when conservatives started funding their own ideological think tanks to validate their ideology that the new deal began to crack and a new ideology took hold. This is pretty historically ignorant and more or less pretends that everyone was just peachy keen about feminism, the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-war movement, etc. etc. until the 70s when Republicans just overpowered everyone with ideology. It also presumes that this ideology wasn't sold to people through playing off of pre-existing ideology, and conservatism literally loving disappeared between 1933 and 1976. Brainiac Five fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I sort of concerns me how readily willing progressives are to adopt the rhetoric of fascists, to be honest. Is it not unamerican to oppose people dying in the streets? Brainiac Five posted:You're living in a bubble because you generalize your beliefs to hundreds of millions of people without any comprehension that you are doing so. Its hilarious you claim this of me. Then you proceed to do the exact thing. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Well how about you present some sort of constructive idea instead of leaning back and sniping at people? All we've heard from you is why you think leftism is doomed to fail. Do you have a plan you'd rather try? I don't think leftism is doomed to fail. I think you just have to get past the inane bullshit of thinking that everyone should agree with you 100% and that you're not always going to get what you. I think the idea that "if only we run a hard left true leftist who holds their mouth the right way, we'll win" is silly. I think we have to look at creating a broad, inclusive platform that welcomes discourse and debate and that we can do that while offering a program of broadly progressive social change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I don't think it takes a deep understanding of much of anything to sell "We want to give you healthcare for free. We're going to do this by taxing the CEO of your company, who is a total piece of poo poo that you hate." It doesn't take a deep understanding, but I'm skeptical that such a message is actually ideal. Americans in general do not appreciate "handouts" or "free things" from the government, another relic of neoliberal propaganda but a reality all the same. Personally, if I were running for office, I'd sell it on the comparison to the fire department - i.e. healthcare should be a government service the same as the fire department, because it would be uncool if the fire department let your house burn down because you can't pay, and it is uncool that insurance companies let you die because you can't pay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:But this breaks down when you consider how many people don't hate the CEO of their company, but instead focus their ire on people who are more educated than they are or who are above them in the corporate hierarchy but aren't their direct bosses or who are paid more than they are but aren't management. So you've gotta create hatred for CEOs or the bosses and potentially counter their hatred of coworkers. i think you're highly exaggerating the validity of this comparison. like, i think these two positions are worlds apart. you'll find plenty of hatred at CEOs and Wall St Execs from the bases of both parties. its an actually bipartisan sentiment. the whole "they hate their co-workers just as much if not more" thing is a total bullshit red-herring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I don't think it takes a deep understanding of much of anything to sell "We want to give you healthcare for free. We're going to do this by taxing the CEO of your company, who is a total piece of poo poo that you hate." The problem is there's a whole lot of Americans who want to some day be that CEO, so they think about in those terms. So instead of making it about how the CEO is a terrible person you should hate (they are), how can we talk about it in ways that make them actually understand why it's a good policy on its own merits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:because the new deal was popular and its rhetoric lasted for decades. it wasn't until the 70s when conservatives started funding their own ideological think tanks to validate their ideology that the new deal began to crack and a new ideology took hold. This is, pardon the pun, an immense whitewashing of how this part of history went down. The New Deal coalition was built by Northern and Southern Democrats on the implicit understanding that the New Deal was only for white America. The New Deal coalition was broken when Northern Democrats pushed through desegregation policies and Southern Democrats and white suburbanites in the North and Midwest massively flipped Republican, both in response to desegregation and LBJ's disastrous tenure handling the Vietnam War. Conservatives didn't just magically convince the white working class that dismantling their unions and labor standards would make their lives better. They convinced them to vote against integration, and then back-sold them on the neoliberalism after it was all said and done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i think you're highly exaggerating the validity of this comparison. like, i think these two positions are worlds apart. This doesn't contradict what I've said, but now you're insisting that Republicans are actually secret communists and holy lmfao.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The problem is there's a whole lot of Americans who want to some day be that CEO, so they think about in those terms. So instead of making it about how the CEO is a terrible person you should hate (they are), how can we talk about it in ways that make them actually understand why it's a good policy on its own merits. A lot also want to be movie stars. Does that mean we shouldn't attack movie stars ever?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Its hilarious you claim this of me. Then you proceed to do the exact thing. Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were still in the third grade. Let the adults talk, kid, OK? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:A lot also want to be movie stars. Does that mean we shouldn't attack movie stars ever? What.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It doesn't take a deep understanding, but I'm skeptical that such a message is actually ideal. Americans in general do not appreciate "handouts" or "free things" from the government, another relic of neoliberal propaganda but a reality all the same. Both Sanders and Warren seem to be having a lot of success with this basic line of thinking. How would you improve the message?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think we have to look at creating a broad, inclusive platform that welcomes discourse and debate and that we can do that while offering a program of broadly progressive social change. Do you really think this a sales pitch that will win people over to the Democratic party?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Both Sanders and Warren seem to be having a lot of success with this basic line of thinking. How would you improve the message? Besides what I already said, I would keep emphasizing the predatory and malicious nature of insurance companies, because who the gently caress likes their insurance company? Rather than "we want to give you free healthcare," it's "we believe that a non-profit government system to provide healthcare would not screw as many people over as insurance companies do, because insurance companies are literally evil."
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It doesn't take a deep understanding, but I'm skeptical that such a message is actually ideal. Americans in general do not appreciate "handouts" or "free things" from the government, another relic of neoliberal propaganda but a reality all the same. i don't think you have to sell it as a handout or free stuff argument at all just sell it like this: show people all the ways rich people benefit from the government more than regular people and then say "they should pay their fair share for all that special treatment." people will agree with you. Lightning Knight posted:This is, pardon the pun, an immense whitewashing of how this part of history went down. The New Deal coalition was built by Northern and Southern Democrats on the implicit understanding that the New Deal was only for white America. The New Deal coalition was broken when Northern Democrats pushed through desegregation policies and Southern Democrats and white suburbanites in the North and Midwest massively flipped Republican, both in response to desegregation and LBJ's disastrous tenure handling the Vietnam War. you're right that there is more to it than just the economic messaging, but i think its equally disingenuous to sell it as a total back-sell. there were multiple conservative movements going on, one of which was the economic conservative movement. there's a famous letter that was written that is considered the blue-print for creating a conservative intellectual movement via the use of think tanks and other things that was specifically economically toned and had nothing to do with race or segregation. i tried googling it, but i couldn't find it, so that is legit on me. but to paint the rise of modern conservatism in just ONE way or another is highly disingenuous from both of us. they're both pieces to the puzzle, but both equally existed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Do you really think this a sales pitch that will win people over to the Democratic party? I think it can be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:What. People may want to be a ceo, but they don't want to be the one who heads a insurance company everyone hates insurance. People may want to be movie stars but they don't want to be an rear end in a top hat like Sean Penn or Sheen. If you villanize the right person people will not care if its a position they may one day want. Also the only discourse you want your policy to create is the discourse that leads to them wanting your policy. Directed discourse. Or Central discourse let's just say. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Do you really think this a sales pitch that will win people over to the Democratic party? Do you think the idea of "providing a voice to the voiceless" is a totally unappealing one?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:People may want to be a ceo, but they don't want to be the one who heads a insurance company everyone hates insurance. People may want to be movie stars but they don't want to be an rear end in a top hat like Sean Penn or Sheen. If you villanize the right person people will not care if its a position they may one day want. You're conflating the two ideas and how they play in people's heads entirely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i don't think you have to sell it as a handout or free stuff argument at all That sounds more plausible. As to the history of the conservative movement, oh I absolutely agree that there was an intellectual and ideological redefinition of conservatism into reactionary neoliberal regressive politics, but the meat of the movement - the energy and drive that delivered Nixon and Reagan crushing victories against their challengers and set the stage for Republican congressional control in the '90s - was based on racial backlash and animosity and the redefinition of such in economic terms: the Southern Strategy. It's not that it was all racism, but rather that they tapped into racist sentiment to further their agenda of systematically dismantling the American government and left. The thing is, that racism isn't a thing they created, it existed independently of the actions of the economists and think-tanks. Or to put it another way, to portray the rise of neoliberalism in the '70s as a top-down event that was driven purely by elites is a massive misreading of history, in my opinion. The regular, average person, for better or for worse, had a lot of collective impact on how things shook out at as well, and many of the same problems that caused it then are still around today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think it can be. Okay, let's say I'm an auto claims adjuster in Kenosha. I'm not really political, but the Republican running for office says he's going to lower my taxes. The Democrat on the other hand, promises to create a broad, inclusive platform that welcomes discourse and debate and that we can do that while offering a program of broadly progressive social change. Which one should I go for?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This doesn't contradict what I've said, but now you're insisting that Republicans are actually secret communists and holy lmfao. "lmfao" not at all. people just want poo poo to be fair. they want to feel like they're being treated fairly. right now its transparently obvious that the upper class is getting a much better deal. this isn't a secret or communism. it just goes to show you have no idea about what it is that the conservative base actually thinks. many people think deregulation is keeping small businesses down and that regulation only serves to help prop up major corporations. the republicans think the democrats are corrupt and protecting big money just as much as we think the republicans are doing the same. ire toward the upperclass is universal at the moment, but no one is able to unify the people under an ideology to address it. namely because the republicans are saying they will while doing the opposite while the democrats refuse to address the modern failures of capitalism. nancy palosi herself said "we are capitalists" and then went on to blame all the modern problems of wealth inequality on the last 16 years (hint, when mark blyth has an excellent bit, i think during his "rise of global trumpism" lecture where he describes the radical economic shift that took place during the 70s when the capital classes regained power and the economy was changed to help them instead of the masses RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Okay, let's say I'm an auto claims adjuster in Kenosha. I'm not really political, but the Republican running for office says he's going to lower my taxes. The Democrat on the other hand, promises to create a broad, inclusive platform that welcomes discourse and debate and that we can do that while offering a program of broadly progressive social change. You're framing the question in a dumb way. Republican: "I want to lower your taxes." Democrat: "I want to be able to provide you with universal healthcare so you can spend your money on other stuff."
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You're conflating the two ideas and how they play in people's heads entirely. Can you deny that anyone except someone who is getting their degree in Rick Insurance and Financial Services, wants to be a ceo of a insurance comapny. You know what everyone hates? Filling out insurance forms? They'd be happy to show it to the insurance companies. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You're framing the question in a dumb way. Yeah that is not about discourse that is saying. "I'll give you something that you want. " Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Okay, let's say I'm an auto claims adjuster in Kenosha. I'm not really political, but the Republican running for office says he's going to lower my taxes. The Democrat on the other hand, promises to create a broad, inclusive platform that welcomes discourse and debate and that we can do that while offering a program of broadly progressive social change. i dont think we have to literally use that statement as a campaign slogan
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Can you deny that anyone except someone who is getting their degree in Rick Insurance and Financial Services, wants to be a ceo of a insurance comapny. You know what everyone hates? Filling out insurance forms? They'd be happy to show it to the insurance companies. You're not understanding the point of how Americans view themselves. The point is that a whole bunch of middle class white people see themselves as being either better off than they are, or aspirationally see themselves as one day being, rich enough to be a republican.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:That sounds more plausible. ok, i'll try to dig up more stuff about it tomorrow. i don't totally disagree with you and thank you for your informative posts. its obviously a complicated subject and actual discussion about it definitely beneficial. i may forget, but i'll try to dig up that memo/letter thing and some more evidence to back my position, but not tonight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You're not understanding the point of how Americans view themselves. The point is that a whole bunch of middle class white people see themselves as being either better off than they are, or aspirationally see themselves as one day being, rich enough to be a republican. Actually I do. I know alot who hate doing insurance as much as they hate their taxes. So I want to give them a way to express their frustration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah that is not about discourse that is saying. "I'll give you something that you want. " The discourse is, how do we actually get to UHC. Crowsbeak posted:Actually I do. I know alot who hate doing insurance as much as they hate their taxes. So I want to give them a way to express their frustration. Dude, you're getting bogged down in a dumb detail and missing the bigger point. White people don't completely and reflexively want to, Eat The Rich, writ large, because they want to some day be the rich.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Do you think the idea of "providing a voice to the voiceless" is a totally unappealing one? Given the choice between a Republican elevator pitch and a bullshit nebulous platitude like that, I'm going straight ticket red out of sheer boredom. Tell me the Democrats are going to give me the option of a healthcare plan that doesn't suck, and make my boss stop loving me out of my overtime, and keep the Republicans from deporting the lady who sells me fruit at the farmer's market, and I'll think about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You're not understanding the point of how Americans view themselves. The point is that a whole bunch of middle class white people see themselves as being either better off than they are, or aspirationally see themselves as one day being, rich enough to be a republican. i think this view is fading though. cost of living is sky rocketing and people are becoming aware that wages have been stagnant for decades. i think you'll find people more interested in resetting the system so they can have a shot at that millionaire dream. keep in mind, the slogan that just won the election was "make america great again" that implies a sort of reset
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:mark blyth has an excellent bit, i think during his "rise of global trumpism" lecture where he describes the radical economic shift that took place during the 70s when the capital classes regained power and the economy was changed to help them instead of the masses I realize that Mark Blyth is often cited on these forums, and for good reason, and I've watched quite a few of his lectures and read his book, and while I agree with his conclusion on Global Trumpism - a movement spurred by a reaction to loss of status and wealth in the West by the formerly (relative to history) wealthy middle class against neoliberal economics being piggybacked on by fascists and xenophobes as a powergrab, fueled by decades of propaganda against immigrants, the poor, and minorities - I actually disagree with parts of his premise, because I think he heavily buys into Great Man historical theory and the idea that the "elites" and rich and powerful are the ones who drive history and the rest of us are merely subject to their whims - in essence, that voters and citizens have no agency, and that we are where we are because some rich people in a backroom decided that's where we belong. I think this is a massively disingenuous way to frame history, and I think that he massively underestimates the power that racial and gender animosity have informed the rise of right-wing populism. Part of this is because frankly, he's a rich white dude. In one of his more recent lectures he said something to the effect of "you know the National Front wouldn't be so bad if not for the racism" and I was literally astonished because he wasn't joking, and that's a preposterously stupid supposition. This feeds back into my previous argument, but I think basically that his conclusion is broadly sound, he skips steps getting there and taking his theory of history purely at face value opens you up to missing key parts of why we are where we are relative to the intersection of race and class.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:"lmfao" not at all. Ire towards the upper class is not universal. Plenty of people in the conservative base will sincerely automatically assume most rich people got that way fairly and only single out bad apples, usually a mixture of minorities, people in "bad" professions, and people in their personal line of work. There's not a systematic approach. Dr. Fishopolis posted:Given the choice between a Republican elevator pitch and a bullshit nebulous platitude like that, I'm going straight ticket red out of sheer boredom. Okay, so you're a terrible person. Once again, I don't think you belong in the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i think this view is fading though. cost of living is sky rocketing and people are becoming aware that wages have been stagnant for decades. Right but it wasn't, Make America Great Again By Eating The Rich. It was Make America Great Again By Punishing Non-Whites. They're not running a platform of growing the welfare state. They ran on a explicit platform of undoing the welfare state and giving huge loving tax breaks to rich people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The discourse is, how do we actually get to UHC. Did I say eat the rich? I said ?"Hey you guys know how much you hate signing up for insurance we'll i'll make it go away. Oh that rear end in a top hat saying he'll be ruined, yeah he's the rear end in a top hat who made you do all the paperwork, wouldn't it be funny if you could make that poo poo head pay?". Also Effetoronica when did we say we were in any way aiming our discourse at conservatives? Happy to update you, what with your low reading comprehension skills in all. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Right but it wasn't, Make America Great Again By Eating The Rich. It was Make America Great Again By Punishing Non-Whites. Not at rallies. His platform was get rid of illegls. Bring Jobs back by getting rid of trade policies like NAFTA, and ho he would protect SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. No one pays attention to the GOP platform. THey pay attention to what Trump said at the rallies. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:47
|
|