|
Now that we're in a "factors leading to" paragraph, everybody's reassessing not only American voting habits, but also whatever they thought the ideals of this country were, and it's really interesting to me to see what different people thought those were. I was catching up on a back issue of The New Yorker published a few weeks after the election, and this letter to the editor caught my eye:quote:Throughout the twentieth century, nationalism violently competed with Communism for the mantle of populist empowerment. Liberalism was supposed to be the solution, to give us a framework for adjudicating between the competing visions of the good society. It didn't propose any answers; it just told us how to conduct political discourse - with respect, intellectual compassion, and recognition of common dignity. This time, liberalism lost to nationalism. American voters chose racial and ethnic identity as the center of gravity for political discourse, and political violence. Many others, repelled by the movement, will slide into a radicalized left. I hope that the liberal ideal is not down for the count. But, as in the past, it will not be hope but action - individual and collective - that determines our future. A few things jump out at me here. First off, how unappealing, how out-of-touch and out-of-date is his praise of an ideology that "doesn't propose any answers"? If we learned anything from this election it's that nobody wants that. It doesn't take too deep of a reading to theorize that Trump voters showed us they want answers so badly they'll take them even from a man they know is a liar and a cheat and worse. And "adjudicating between" nationalism and Communism? Yeesh. Not only would both factions be rightly disgusted by that, no moral society can meet in the middle there. I doubt this guy is a political scholar and neither am I, so I'll forgive him for being slightly muddy with the terminology. By "nationalism" I think he means fascism, since of course Communism can be and has been nationalistic. And by Communism let's hope he means socialism, but pretty much every American over 40 who isn't Bernie Sanders uses those interchangeably and doesn't understand the difference. What he mourns about liberalism was the respect, compassion, and recognition of common dignity. All good things, and things worth fighting for. But positioning that as the halfway point between a fascist society and a socialist one, some kind of vaccine against either, is worse than naive. I don't want to rehash Mean Mommy Hillary's failings and imagined failings in here - please don't do that, or spam "Bernie Would Have Won" bullshit, but I think this guy inadvertently points out why liberalism, at least as it exists in modern American politics, is doomed to fail. This is what the young leftists hate about the old liberals. You have to be for something. You can't just wring your hands and go "well, both sides are bad, let's not be too extreme here" and pretend that a molehill of flaws on one side is equal to a mountain on the other. It's okay to be against things. Against fascism, against bigotry, against inequality and oppression. Political groups who fear anger and disruption will always lose to the ones who don't. Republicans win because they don't care who they make mad, because they are for and against things - incoherent and repugnant though they may be. This guy appeals to action in the same breath as he frets over a "radicalized" left. There's a much better letter that talks about the need for action too, by a woman I suspect doesn't waste any time wringing her hands: quote:The lesson I learned from Russia, where I come from, is that, when something goes wrong, people merely "hope" that it will change. They wait, they "heal," and they get back to "business as usual." This is the last thing you want to do! Dictatorships are built on the control of information and the passivity of its citizens. Dictators refuse to allow a voice to those who oppose them. We witnessed it throughout Trump's campaign. We should not "wait and see" or "heal and hope" but instead look for effective and straightforward ways to engage with the political process, en masse. A politically active society is the biggest threat to an authoritarian government. The slate's nearly wiped clean. The older generations are all going to die off from lack of medical care now that ACA is gone. We don't have to listen to milquetoast boomers anymore. So what are we going to do? What's a liberal now?
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:To me, this isn't actually a description of liberalism in its classical form. Classical liberalism (i.e., Locke or Madison) saw the desire for personal security as the fundamental bedrock of a liberal society. It's the threat hanging over our heads that forces us to play nicely, sign onto the social contract, and recognize each other's liberties in other areas. Those dudes saw property rights and markets as an important part of a liberal state and society, but not the most important thing. I think that turn toward "the ideal of the market, as composed of rational agents with total confidence and without doubt" is a much more recent conceptual framework. It's neoliberalism, and only began developing in the 1940s or whatever. I think one big problem with modern liberalism is that those two things have become conflated. Regardless, the letter in the OP was about the modern american understanding of "liberalism" so that's what I hope people will confine themselves to discussing here. He states what he thinks liberalism is, and while I don't think it's a complete definition or necessarily an admirable one, it's certainly a common one and worth examining.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:When it comes to this conversation, are we speaking about the American usage and conceptualization of liberalism or the international understanding? It can be helpful to define this early since the term is often confusing and used as an empty epithet even within the US alone. Read the post right above yours, yo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:Sorry, I was writing it on my phone before yours showed up. I agree that we should probably use that definition of liberalism, but it still feels somewhat vague for my liking. Yeah, as I said I don't think the guy is a political scholar - he probably knows less terminology than the average D&D poster by a good margin. But I really really don't want this thread to become Libertarianism thread #985 or yet another host to the tedious sniping from euro posters about americans using a word differently than they do. Americans co-opted an existing politics word and now use it to describe a different thing than it originally did. That happens in language sometimes and it's okay. If we need to expand on his definition I think just, with as little quibbling and pedantry as possible please, call to mind the typical NPR-totebag-owning white middle-class middle-aged person. They are probably pro-choice but probably not anti-death penalty. They think climate change is real and use their recycling bins but probably don't live off the grid. People living in well-intentioned, shallow-thinking comfort. They don't like the problems conservatism creates in this country, but they shy away from what our letter-writer calls "radical leftism." They want problems to be solved through compromise and polite conversation, and they are uncomfortable with anyone who feels strong emotions about politics, on the left or the right. Basically, imagine the American who would say "I'm as liberal as they come, but..." Can we motivate those people to action, or is their ideology incompatible with real change?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:I think a part of what makes it difficult is that they really don't understand their own ideology very well, to the point that admitting even having one at all is akin to taboo. The "economic conservative, social liberal" canard is less a statement of what they actually believe in terms of policy outcomes or desired society, but rather a projection of an ideal identity that appears to be unique and discerning; they want to appear like their beliefs are put together like a shopping list that they carefully put together by weighing the merits of each idea. They want to look like a smart shopper rather than a slave to branding. It's a form of political atheism where they look upon people who buy in to an existing ideological framework as true-believer dupes that allow dogma to define their worldview for them. The reality is that these self-imagined snowflakes have no idea what many of these political terms even mean, nor how politics and civic society intersect. That shopping/branding thing is a great analogy and I hadn't actually seen it put that way before, thanks. Choosy moms choose liberalism! Crane Fist posted:So... Capitalism would work if it wasn't capitalism, but instead something completely different? I mean... it certainly doesn't work if it's the same
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:option two: civil war, since there is no way on Earth the American ruling class is going down without a fight, and they've got enough lower-class dupes on their side to put up an actual fight (and win, in my opinion, but that remains to be seen).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I feel like it's become popular to take swipes at the idea of "civility". The problem with this is that civility, per se, isn't the problem. There's a difference between civility and spinelessness, IMO. You can be perfectly civil while saying "no I don't agree with you in any way and your ideas are atrocious". The person you say that to will call you uncivil for saying that and use that to discredit you. That's the problem with "civility" as a primary political value.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Eh, no. I'm not saying anything would change in the mechanism of capitalism. Capitalists would still control the means of production and individuals would still gain income by serving capitalists. But capitalists would be restricted from actually using their wealth for themselves. Capitalism only requires that capitalists control the means of production, not that they get to use it for themselves. That part comes from liberalism. You could have a communal capitalist society. We could require capitalists to live like monks and still call our system capitalism. I legit think this is interesting but speculation about alternatives to/modifications of capitalism definitely deserves its own thread. I'd read it!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I think we can safely agree that anyone who wants "civility" as a primary political goal is at best a silly ninny. Agreed, but then we aren't published in the New Yorker, are we.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Where I come from, that's a point of pride. Christ, what an rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:Obama just got slammed! Lol, but do you really think that's true of him? I'm sure he's said it, but presidents say a lot of things, and he had to take unusual care not to seem "militant"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
I know this is a smaller target to aim for and thus trickier to hit, but I really do want to talk about (american-style) liberals, not leftists. I think we have a generational issue here where SA posters mostly know fellow young people, who, if they are into politics at all, tend to hold very strong, rigid opinions and share them freely. But that's not what most older people are like. I want to talk about the group that's huge, but during the election at least, seemed entirely invisible to D&D. Regular non-angry, non-puritiy-testing liberals who punch a straight-D ballot every four years and go home. Happy Hillary voters - there were a lot of them, no matter how impure she seemed to people here. Those people didn't evaporate overnight when the election happened, and I'm really curious where those people are going to go and what they're going to do. They are frightened by leftism and as you guys have rightly pointed out, the left is likely to become more uncompromising, for good and for ill. But we aren't talking about the left, unless it's in the framework of how they can mobilize the liberals. We have a huge chunk of mostly-inert voters that we could make use of, but not if we ignore them and not if we deride them. Ignore the presidential elections for a minute - most people in this country vote by party lines no matter what. We'll never have anybody not funded by the pharmeceutical industry to run for president if we don't build up governors, senators, mayors, city council members, school boards, and for my own personal safety please, DAs and judges. How do we get them to show up in off-year elections, use their old-people wealth and status to put pressure on institutions, to act? How do we radicalize your mom?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
bag em and tag em posted:I think the key here is how do we radicalize someone who is comfortable? The people you are talking about have what they need and at this point a lot of the fighting to be done would be done for other, distant people over there. The GOP is largely consistent of people who are not fighting against some kind of oppression, but for personal gain. More money for me, gently caress you, is often quoted as the mentality. Unmotivated liberals with institutional power can sit around and go "well it would be nice for other people to benefit from progress so i hope they get on that." But they have no personal need to fight for it. Kilroy posted:I might have been one of those voters, actually. I'm not exactly young and was happy to vote for Hillary because, somehow, despite the situation at the state level, I thought it was still right and good to vote for and support centrists because they can win elections and half of what you want is better than nothing. In the aftermath of the election in trying to process what the gently caress just happened I guess I decided on two things: leftists don't actually get close to "half" by electing and supporting centrist Democrats in the first place, and centrist Democrats are actually pretty bad at winning elections. So that's why I said earlier to just advocate socialism going forward because what else is there to do? Now, you might say that since I am talking in terms of compromise in the first place that I'm actually a leftist all along and so I don't count in terms of this discussion. You might be right, but also keep in mind that you probably wouldn't have taken me for a leftist before November. I didn't take myself for one. I like how you think. I had the same reasoning during the election, and while I don't feel burned the way some people do, I'm of course disappointed. Advocating socialism is like, my favorite thing, and I agree that it's the best path forward. Your ideas for changing minds are great and I'm hoping we can expand on those ideas here. Regarding turnout, they're great in presidential elections but not so great in off-year. Pretty much only old republicans show up for off-year, and that's why our country has so many conservative officials at the state and local level. That's something we urgently need to fix.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
il_cornuto posted:I may be biased, but I think Democrats should probably look at what's been happening to Labour in the UK for a living of example of the left trying to take control back from (centre) Liberals - the Liberals are doing everything up to and including sabotaging their own party to stop it happening, and the left are showing their lack of experience actually running things. I absolutely hope that both Labour and the Democrats are eventually able to move solidly left, but in the UK at least the attempt has led to a weakened left and centre and a stronger right so far - and I say that as someone who would love to see Corbyn win. This is my fear for the US too - even if we got a shot at a strong left it might fail due to lack of leadership experience. That's why I go back again and again to the need to focus on victories in small local races. We have to build up leadership talent on a generational scale. I do think there might be an angle of attack there for the complacent liberals I'd like to mobilize. What do spoiled-rear end white people hate? Parking tickets. Noise violations. Ordinances and regulations blocking the stuff they want to do, and not blocking the stuff they don't want other people to do. When you're comfortable nuisances take on the scale of tragedies, and nuisances are exactly what someone can get elected to city council pledging to fight. But we almost have to do this without the existing left's support, because they want headliners. They'd rather have a failed presidential bid than a successfully elected sheriff, even though Joe Arpaio shows exactly how much damage a fascist can do in a position like that. Look at me breaking my own rules. I don't want to bitch about the left in here. I want to brainstorm ways to sneak leftism in under the radar of comfy cozy liberals. And I want you guys to keep saying smart poo poo about the historical context behind all of this, because it's seriously fascinating. Thanks so much to all of you, it means a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It's important to keep in mind that, in a roundabout way, the existence of more radical leftists also lends credibility for the less radical ones. A "the existence of the black panthers makes MLK more palatable" sort of situation. You need both groups to make the relatively more "moderate" version agreeable to more centrist liberals. Yes definitely (look to, say, the way KM and I function in this community  )It would be great if the leftist community recognized that and used that to shape public opinion in purposeful ways. But that just falls back on the age-old problem of how to centrally organize people who by their very nature question authority
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Typo posted:The Black Panthers appeared after the civil rights act was passed, MLK was killed only 2 years after its founding There's an appealing logic to that but it's not true. The presence of reactionaries is an inevitability and not evidence of failure. There is no such thing as a leftist action that doesn't get a reactionary response. The myth that there's a "right" way to effect change that would meet no resistance is toxic and should be dustbinned.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Typo posted:I highly recommend you guys read Nixonland by rick perlstein btw, if there is one precedent for president Trump in living memory it was Richard Nixon Seconding this, I can't recommend that book highly enough. Just... realize it's portable depression, and maybe read it in small doses in between bouts of sunshine and exercise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:The choice was always socialism or barbarism. I will never forget liberal economist Thomas Picketty essentially proving mathmatically that Marx was right and could only offer a technocratic bandaid "solution" in a global wealth tax that will never exist. Liberals need to take the lesson to heart and radicalize themselves or remain chained to a dead ideology. I think we all agree on that, the question is how to help them do that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:My mother inevitably slips into calling protests "riots" by like the third sentence and wept when I told her that I participate in peace marches because "the people who do those things are trouble-makers and they don't care who they kill." Tamping down my  here because it's not like she's unusual. Have you had any success changing her mind on anything political?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Can we maybe not advocate actual literal nazism in here, people?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:I feel the need to point out that the idea of people falling on an ideological spectrum, while occasionally useful, is utter bullshit. Liberalism isn't the halfwaypoint between Nationalism and Communism. It's an independent set of class values, in this case those shared by the professional classes (Middle management, doctors, coders, etc). That's such a great point and one I've never seen put quite so well. I think you articulated what I found so annoying about that guy's letter in the OP readingatwork posted:the Democrats are basically the party of the top %30, and that tribe is much closer to the top %1 than the tribes at the bottom %60. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well it is honest that most of our problems are from people like the Devosses. Also I can make them a perpetual enemy based on how many people have received their money. So their can be a constant hunt for them as "agents". Plus most of that family, and the Kochs would flee. So they can both act as our eternal and external enemies. This is incredibly creepy and inappropriate and not on topic for this thread. Stop.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:The only long term, effective leftist action would be diving this country into Republistan and Democravia. It's appealing to draw corollaries to the Civil War, but I think our current state of affairs is weirder than it was back then. We aren't divided on clean geographic lines, but generational and cultural ones. Not "rural" so much as people who think of themselves as good old-fashion country folk, despite living in the suburbs and driving a 60k pickup truck that's never had anything in the bed. And because it's so generational, really the over-45s vs. the under-45s, I think it's hard to make long-term predictions because we don't really know what the country's going to look like politically when that generation is gone. Even if we could divide into two countries they wouldn't be contiguous. It would be a swiss-cheese conservative state dotted with islands of progressives.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's cities vs everyone else, and all else being equal the cities would win. All else is not equal though: the rurals and suburbans have the apparatus of the nation-state at their disposal, and the cities have... their city governments. If there was an actual civil war the outcome would be some weird 21st century America version of city-states, like maybe a rewrite of the Constitution with cities having a more dominant role as actors in that, instead of the anachronistic union of "states" we have now, which are not in fact states in any real sense at least not anymore. That's if the urban areas prevail, of course, otherwise it's just economic paralysis and social chaos until we're mercy-invaded by the Canadians or the suburban and rural areas forget what they were so pissed off about. I never thought of that before, but you're right, that's really weird. Maybe it's because a lot of colonial americans were people who didn't succeed in the cities of europe and felt alienated by them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
Tribalism is good, it helps us empathize with the abstractions all human beings are outside of the 150 or so our brains are capable of thinking of as individuals. If we didn't have tribalism everyone outside that small village's worth of people our brains can grasp would be no more than animals to us, maybe not even living things at all. Only caring about your nation may not be as good as caring about the whole world but it's a shitload better than only caring about your family.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:i care about humanity and life in general, actually, and its not really that hard Cool you have literally no idea what I'm talking about, then. Read about it sometime, it's interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:ive read it before, its not that interesting, and people read way too much into it. We're all very impressed. If you don't have anything on-topic to say, get out. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 07:54
|
|