The 45th POTUS - Donald J. Trump

[tragabigzanda]

1. The “othering” you’re referring to is demonstrated by both parties in roughly equal amounts. It’s just that the a republican brand of othering feels inherently more toxic, because it is.

You see how sentence two actually negates or invalidates sentence one, don't you?

Quantity and quality are not the same thing. The quantity of othering between parties is probably about the same. Obviously there's a huge qualitative difference.

I think the "both sides" argument loses credibility when one party is staking its entire ability to survive on voter suppression and dark money.

Kinda hard to speak for any portion of a country that has all but left your archaic values behind when voices are so restricted.

Dark money goes to both parties, and this has been well documented. It *predominantly* and, in the immediate aftermath of Citizens United, went to Republicans, but that's long since changed.

[quoting McP]

It’s more important to attack or vilify others than to govern responsibly. Immigrants, liberals, the media, college professors, children speaking out against gun violence or climate change, stores that ask them to wear a mask for 7 minutes....it all seems to center on finding an other to feel superior to or victimized by. Even in the midst of a pandemic the primary filter is “how am I personally being aggrieved by this situation?”

Maybe there are Republican politicians that buck this trend; maybe you see some in your own experience. But trends don't stop being trends because there are outliers. I'm not arguing that the Republican Party is the only one engaging in hypocrisy; I'm asking what are the core things that bring Republicans to the dance in the first place.

Democrats embody the bold part every bit as much as Republicans.

Your second question is a good one, and far more complicated. The GOP has continued to undergo such a rapid transformation in the last 20 years or so. The W. Bush economics and birth of Fox News gave way to (and created) the Tea Party movement in the blink of an eye, and now that's already turning to Trumpism. If drawing a venn diagram, there would be a serious lack of overlap between the three ideologies. For that, I mostly fault the rightwing media who is willing to pivot on an ideology as long as the viewers keep tuning in.

But as it relates to McP's post -- which is uncharacteristically lacking in nuance -- I don't know how we could every expect our legislators to create nuance, bipartisan legislation if we ourselves are not capable of nuanced dialogue around the issues.

And again, yes, it's much easier to point to these examples of ideological disconnect in the Republican party because they're more blatant and more toxic, but I fundamentally reject any conversation that positions it along the lines of "The GOP has a real identity crisis but the Dems have a clear vision with clear messaging."

[tragabigzanda]

Hence my TL;DR: Support your local journalism. Expecting a state legislator, representing a tiny district, to tow the party line based on national talking points is...absurd. Understand your local issues, what's driving the voters three districts over and the people they elect, and try to tune out some of the national noise.

[digster]

But as it relates to McP's post -- which is uncharacteristically lacking in nuance -- I don't know how we could every expect our legislators to create nuance, bipartisan legislation if we ourselves are not capable of nuanced dialogue around the issues.

And again, yes, it's much easier to point to these examples of ideological disconnect in the Republican party because they're more blatant and more toxic, but I fundamentally reject any conversation that positions it along the lines of "The GOP has a real identity crisis but the Dems have a clear vision with clear messaging."

Again, you seem to feel that the main issue being raised is about GOP hypocrisy; that may be present, but I don't think that's the issue being raised.

I'd actually say the opposite of how you're framing the conversation; by and large, I don't believe Republicans have an identity crisis; I don't think it's hard to pinpoint what drives the most passion in the Republican Party right now.

[elliseamos]

Just ignore that voter suppression point.

And I don't see McP's original post casting things as R vs. D. and rather just an overall question of who are the Rs?

[tragabigzanda]

Just ignore that voter suppression point.

And I don't see McP's original post casting things as R vs. D. and rather just an overall question of who are the Rs?

Ok but who are the Ds? Are they for a robust economy? Jobs? Clean energy? Class protections? Immigration reform? UBI? Medicare for all? A balanced budget (lol) ?

Again, McP's criticism that the GOP lacks a coherent ideology could just as easily be lobbed at the Dems. The banding together of multiple conflicting ideologies within the GOP is obvious, and it's wreaking havoc on our country and our sanity. But it's not like the Dems are a shining example of ideological purity.

[elliseamos]

Just ignore that voter suppression point.

And I don't see McP's original post casting things as R vs. D. and rather just an overall question of who are the Rs?

Ok but who are the Ds? Are they for a robust economy? Jobs? Clean energy? Class protections? Immigration reform? UBI? Medicare for all? A balanced budget (lol) ?

Again, McP's criticism that the GOP lacks a coherent ideology could just as easily be lobbed at the Dems. The banding together of multiple conflicting ideologies within the GOP is obvious, and it's wreaking havoc on our country and our sanity. But it's not like the Dems are a shining example of ideological purity.

I think you're missing the point, or actually furthering the point, that it's about sides/others and nothing more.

In this thread, about this president and the party he represents, it appears they have nothing but the "others" as their message.

[tragabigzanda]

I think it's important to note the Reagan-era roots of the party: Big-tent Republicanism that invited many to the table, and the 11th commandment that no Republican politician shall do harm to another of his own. That ideology has shifted to the "No one shall oppose Trump" ideology, which places the party's broader ideology squarely at his doorstep. And as we all know, there's no real ideology there.

Edit: posted before I saw elliseamos's post, but it works well enough as a response to that.

[Mickey]

1. The “othering” you’re referring to is demonstrated by both parties in roughly equal amounts. It’s just that the a republican brand of othering feels inherently more toxic, because it is.

You see how sentence two actually negates or invalidates sentence one, don't you?

Quantity and quality are not the same thing. The quantity of othering between parties is probably about the same. Obviously there's a huge qualitative difference.

Ok but then how are they both doing the same thing, exactly? It seems more than a little contradictory to say that both parties engage in "othering" to the same amount, but of a different kind--either it's not the same action, then, in which case comparison of amount is meaningless, or it's actually not the same amount. I'm not saying you're wrong but I think there's an indeterminacy here that's probably indicative of a confluence between the actual operation of politics (as a zero-sum contest over resource allocation) and the contemporary spectacle of politics as a coming together over differences of opinion, the latter of which one party is increasing refusing to engage in, even performatively.

[Mickey]

I also don't think you need the foil of an ideologically coherent Democratic Party (which, you're right, does not exist, though I'd also note that very few theorists of ideology believe that the term refers to a coherent set of interlocking ideals, like dogma) in order to argue that the Republican Party, at the very least on a national level, has dropped even the pretense of propositional belief for a primarily affective, resentment-based politic. On this, again, I would really recommend that Robin book (The Reactionary Mind, I believe it's called). And I do think it's important not to abjure the question of national articulation by pivoting to the state-level--certainly all types of people run for state-level office, but they still participate in and therefore validate the national party structure.

[tragabigzanda]

I also don't think you need the foil of an ideologically coherent Democratic Party (which, you're right, does not exist, though I'd also note that very few theorists of ideology believe that the term refers to a coherent set of interlocking ideals, like dogma) in order to argue that the Republican Party, at the very least on a national level, has dropped even the pretense of propositional belief for a primarily affective, resentment-based politic.

100% agree, but McP's post seemed to indicate the GOP is the only party practicing this so-called "primarily affective, resentment-based politic." Dems are generally doing the exact same thing, and while they purport to offer more solutions, they are woefully short on actual offerings.

And I do think it's important not to abjure the question of national articulation by pivoting to the state-level--certainly all types of people run for state-level office, but they still participate in and therefore validate the national party structure.

Hard disagree. In the modern vacuum of local journalism, voters are primarily motivated by national headlines, and will vote a party line for local and state races based on those headlines, despite frequent examples of their local officials challenging the national party platform.

[Mickey]

I also don't think you need the foil of an ideologically coherent Democratic Party (which, you're right, does not exist, though I'd also note that very few theorists of ideology believe that the term refers to a coherent set of interlocking ideals, like dogma) in order to argue that the Republican Party, at the very least on a national level, has dropped even the pretense of propositional belief for a primarily affective, resentment-based politic.

100% agree, but McP's post seemed to indicate the GOP is the only party practicing this so-called "primarily affective, resentment-based politic." Dems are generally doing the exact same thing, and while they purport to offer more solutions, they are woefully short on actual offerings.

I would say that Dem politics are, like all poliitcs, primarily (or at least substantially) affective. I don't know that they are *exactly* the same in terms of the level of resentment, that seems hard to argue.

And I do think it's important not to abjure the question of national articulation by pivoting to the state-level--certainly all types of people run for state-level office, but they still participate in and therefore validate the national party structure.

Hard disagree. In the modern vacuum of local journalism, voters are primarily motivated by national headlines, and will vote a party line for local and state races based on those headlines, despite frequent examples of their local officials challenging the national party platform.

I'm not sure you do disagree? If local voters are primarily motivated by national headlines for down-ballot races (which, agreed!) then it *doesn't* resolve the issue of what the national party looks like to point to the policy proposals of local politicians. They might have conservative principles, but if they're being elected for their nationally-organized branding sometimes despite these principles, of what importance are the principles themselves?

[digster]

100% agree, but McP's post seemed to indicate the GOP is the only party practicing this so-called "primarily affective, resentment-based politic." Dems are generally doing the exact same thing, and while they purport to offer more solutions, they are woefully short on actual offerings.

I'm wondering what the examples are of this. I'm not saying they don't exist, but what is the left's equivalent of what McP cites in what I quoted earlier;

It’s more important to attack or vilify others than to govern responsibly. Immigrants, liberals, the media, college professors, children speaking out against gun violence or climate change, stores that ask them to wear a mask for 7 minutes....it all seems to center on finding an other to feel superior to or victimized by. Even in the midst of a pandemic the primary filter is “how am I personally being aggrieved by this situation?”

The claim I'm making is that there is far less incoherence in the Republican party than we're talking about, but that the unifying concept is a grievance and resentment-based. If Dems are equally based on grievance, than what's their mainstream media? What is the thing by which the left defines itself through its resentment of it?

[Mickey]

Is a shorter and more concrete version of this argument to say that "No more billionaires" is not the same thing, neither in form nor in prevalence, as "No more immigrants"?

[digster]

That would be the easiest analogy, I think, but even disregarding the substantive difference between those two things, I think it'd be hard for anyone to argue that hating the rich, or however you want to phrase it, is at all similar in its prominence on the left compared to resentment of the media, for example, is on the right.

[Mickey]

That would be the easiest analogy, I think, but even disregarding the substantive difference between those two things, I think it'd be hard for anyone to argue that hating the rich, or however you want to phrase it, is at all similar in its prominence on the left compared to resentment of the media, for example, is on the right.

Yes, that's my sense as well. Bernie-style leftist resentment is in-vogue online (good!) but every other Dem candidate in the primary tried to side-step it, do some form of "not all billionaires," etc., whereas almost every mainstream, national GOP politician engages in the unfair-media discourse.

[McParadigm]

Ehh...I don’t love that reading of things, McP. A few nitpicks:

1. The “othering” you’re referring to is demonstrated by both parties in roughly equal amounts. It’s just that the a republican brand of othering feels inherently more toxic, because it is.

Everybody engages in a degree of othering, even centrists. It's a human condition. Democrats are certainly guilty of it. What I'm talking about is letting the othering be the guiding principle of your actions and of your perceptions. I'm talking about abandoning long held beliefs the moment they limit your ability to attack or deflect a specific other.

2. Family values have only been dropped insofar as the party is supportive of a president who doesn’t demonstrate those values in his private life; and of course the whole family separation thing, which is both an actual travesty, and something that many conservatives can swallow because they think the ends justify the means (and shame on them all). But the socially conservative agenda is very much alive and well, as I suspect we’ll see with broad challenges to abortion at the state level.

What you're saying here is that even if they spend decades adopting and championing a values system, declaring it as one of the primary foundations of their identity, they are in fact willing to reject it in the name of the right outcome (such as harming immigrants or owning the libs, both "others"). Which is an argument that it is not, in fact, their values system. Hence my question of: what IS their values system? What values have not yet been demonstrably revokable in the name of harming an other?

Two follow-up questions on this:

1. What deeply held personal values, carried over a period of decades and applied directly to your political AND personal life, do you feel you would be MOST prepared to dispose of in favor of a leader that accomplishes outcomes you find satisfactory?

2. What type of comparative scenario or character do you believe would cause left-leaning voters to similarly abandon a long-entrenched belief? Something policy-informing, but not itself policy, like...caring for the poor?

3. Protecting private enterprise is again alive and well, the difference being that they’re willing to look the other way when Trump’s attacking an enterprise that threatens their agenda.

Same as above. This sentence is exactly my point. It's not "alive and well" if it's only "alive and well unless a private enterprise is not behaving in a way that is advantageous to us." That's an authoritarian view, not a private enterprise protection one.

But they would argue that his specific attacks, like this latest against Twitter, are the actions of a man dedicated to upholding 1A.

1. Do you believe that Republican voters generally consider a private company policing its own platform to be a first amendment violation? Like, is that a consistent attitude that they have carried and/or will carry into the future?

2. Do you think Republicans would consider President Joe Biden threatening to "shut down" Twitter for providing a fact checking link a constitutional violation?

3. Do you think Democrats would consider President Joe Biden threatening to "shut down" Twitter for providing a fact checking link all well and good?

4. Deficit reduction is a tough one to parse out right now, given the unprecedented pandemic. I agree that before the pandemic, they seemed to be fine with Trump running a massive deficit, but I suspect that every Republican member of Congress is actively taking the temperature on their constituents to see what sort of appetite they have for a deficit vs efforts to shore up the economy.

As long as we agree that they didn't have any problem with running up the deficit under President Trump, but did before him and will after him.

I’m not saying the hypocrisy of the right isn’t blatantly obvious. It is, and it’s mostly predicated on 1) the othering you’ve mentioned, and 2) the right-wing media messaging on extremely narrow readings of the constitution and the Bible.

But there’s similar behavior on the left. Far-left Dems want a green energy sector, yet they want to create jobs. You’re going to need a pretty detailed plan for that one to move votes.

On the surface, this seems to me to be a preposterous comparison. I have a tremendous respect for you, so I'd like to hear more and figure out what I'm missing, but..."Democrats say they want to transform the energy sector in a way that will produce huge change needs and require a massive public undertaking, yet they say they want to create jobs" seems....not like an example of Democrats abandoning key principles in exchange for harming an other? Or even a contradiction in policy, to be honest.

They want individualized education opportunities on the per-student level, yet they want free college for all. Holy shit, that is a NOBLE cause but I’ll be damned if I know how it could ever come to pass.

I still don't really understand what the word "yet" is doing in these sentences. The first want negates the moral code of the second in some way?

What’s been lost by both parties is not any sort of ideology or vision; those things are always going to evolve with the times. What HAS been lost is any ability to compromise, and while I mostly blame Mitch McConnell for that, there’s enough residual blame to go around.

I guess that's why all those conservative judge confirmations were slow walked by Democrats in order to prevent Republicans from filling too many spots, instead of fast tracked via negotiation.

[Mickey]

For what it's worth, my primary gripe with the Democratic Party is that they are not nearly oppositional enough.

[McParadigm]

Hey, here’s Rush reassuring his audience today that the president doesn’t actually believe all these conspiracy theories he promotes....he just baselessly tortures people who lost a loved one because doing so upsets an “other” who deserve it...moralizing leftists, in this case.

[doug rr]

[Rob]

Hey, here’s Rush reassuring his audience today that the president doesn’t actually believe all these conspiracy theories he promotes....he just baselessly tortures people who lost a loved one because doing so upsets an “other” who deserve it...moralizing leftists, in this case.

Feel like this relates to what you guys have been talking about the last page or two.

Which I think is partly in reference to this: