 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | First I'll say it's kind of beneath you to throw around the alt-right smear, it's just a dog whistle. If you really feel the need to call someone a Nazi then own it. |
I don't see "alt-right" as an insult, necessarily, just a neutral (and, in many cases, self-designated) descriptor. Nazis and other overt white supremacists are a small subset of that, but I don't use the terms interchangeably and do think the alt-right is a broader phenomenon (and the Trump voter base is broader still). I do think we need a label for what Trump's politics represents, though, which is a clear shift away from the old socially conservative / economic right ideology of Thatcher, Howard and Bush, and toward something that sits across the spectrum economically, that is less overtly religious, that is more isolationist, and that is more focused on modern identity-politics struggles (indeed, some may even say is fundamentally identitarian in nature). I understand your politics are a bit more complex, and also draw from libertarian ideas, etc.; but if someone like Skids isn't alt-right, then the term doesn't mean anything.
| Wokko wrote: | Trump bullies the bully. People on the right of politics from the moderate Conservative, to the Libertarian to the Neo Con to the Nationalists have spent years hiding their opinions while the left loudly proclaim theirs all over the place. Tired of condescension, brow beating, yelling, doxing and outright violence the Right retreated. Apart from the odd brave soul like Andrew Bolt (assaulted for his views, sent constant death threats) and the like the media went left, schools and university went hard left and politics did too (Turnbull was further to the left than Rudd and he was meant to be a Conservative).
Suddenly up pop this guy who calls the left out, he bullies these pricks right back and people loved it. He's a mediocre politician, is far more liberal than his supporters but the groups who have been smugly patronizing them for years are in a meltdown. Everything he says has the same people who would get you fired, shout at you in a restaurant track you down online and tell your friends and family you're a Nazi crying into their soy lattes. |
I think that's a spot-on analysis of the thinking of Trump supporters, but I think it's interesting to compare the perceptions therein to reality. For instance, the ostensibly oppressed Bolt has had a plum column in the country's most popular newspaper (one that he was once the editor-in-chief of) for around twenty years, has appeared in TV in various capacities, and has had the ear of a range of prime ministers and industry figures over that time. Compare that to, say, Yassmin Abdel-Magied, who appeared on a few ABC panel shows for a couple of years before jetting off overseas after being used as a punching bag by News Corp too many times. Who has had more cultural influence, really? Who is in the bigger position of power? How many prime ministers and CEOs has she had dinner with? Much of the rest of what you say here similarly skews the power dynamics, underestimating the right's sway over society and overestimating the left's.
I do think there's a grain of truth here, though, and one that not many people on either side of the political spectrum acknowledge: power exists along different vectors, and is concentrated in different areas. So it's probably true that, in the arts and entertainment sector, anyone with views to the right of Richard Di Natale risks becoming a pariah, while politics and popular news media remain dominated by the right. (While you may be right about Turnbull's personal politics vis-a-vis Rudd's, the fact is that he ran a staunchly right-wing government dominated by figures like Dutton and Morrison. There was nothing left-wing about it.) I don't think either of those imbalances are healthy, and I do see how the former lends weight to narratives about left-wing elites and browbeaten ordinary folk being looked down upon by inner-city middle-class social liberals, even though all the while the right's elites have been holding the purse strings and dictating social policy.
Seeing your enemies vanquished is satisfying. I get that. I would love to see Trump, Morrison, Johnson and co. taken down a notch too and have to leave office with their tails between their legs. But does any of that oneupmanship, or competitive barracking, or bullying the bullies, or bullying the bullies who bully the bullies, actually make society a better place? I suspect it really doesn't, and instead only plays into the concept of politics as a pantomime in which actual ideas come a distant second to booing the bad guys (whoever they happen to be).
I'd like to propose a more constructive way forward: a politics founded on assumed dignity and respect for all members of society, where disagreements over economics and society – which are important, and do need to be wrestled with vigorously – don't lead to exclusions or sectarianism. I'd like to see more coalitions that go across the political spectrum; nearly any two ideologies will have points of agreement and shared interests, and anything that's actually worth fighting for needs as much community support as it can get (and that's only going to be possible if people are interacting in good faith to begin with): that's politics at its best. Basically, I want to see more recognition that all of these people we engage with in online spaces are our neighbours, our work colleagues, our relatives and all of the other flesh-and-blood people we interact with on a daily basis, and that all have a stake in society's success. Less tribalism and more humanism, I say!
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Lovely thoughts, good luck with that.
Tribalism is, to an extent, humanity. When you have large number of people as passionate, if not more so, about their political party than their football team (including many here) it will take the kind of leadership we've rarely seen before to achieve that.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The House has voted to impeach (imagine my shock).
2 Dems voted Nay
Tulsi Gabbard voted "Present"
Everyone else went on party lines. 2/3 of the Senate must now vote guilty to remove Trump from office. Considering the party line vote in the House this is 0 chance.
Making impeachment political is so, so stupid. There'll be a time when a Dem president is facing a Republican house and Senate and the Republicans will want payback. Like changing Supreme court nominations from 2/3 to simple majority this will come back and bite the Democrats in the arse.
On the second article 3 Dems voted Nay, Tulsi Gabbard joined the Nays. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
beat me to it, no way it passes!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
There's a reasonable amount of partisan nonsense being driveled abroad. It is, of course, true that a "majority oppose impeachment and removal of Trump". The "minority" who support it is, as we write, about 46% of the US population.
The real question, though, in a political sense is not whether people support or impose impeachment but what all of this means for their overall view of the presidency of Trump.
By comparison with the Clinton impeachment process, Clinton's approval rating never fell below 56% throughout the period between 17 January 1998 (when he first denied certain things) and 12 February 1999 (when the Senate voted to reject impeachment) and when the House voted to impeach him, his approval rating actually shot up 10% (from 61% to 71%).
By contrast, at present, Trump's important numbers are not much different from what they've ever been:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Thus, he's almost exactly as disapproved and approved as he was 12 months ago.
And his polling against Biden doesn't look great, for what that is worth: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
Here's a sensible analysis of the figures: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-house-has-impeached-president-trump-heres-what-we-learned/ |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Trumps approval rating won't really fluctuate unless he does something that disenfranchises his supporter base, and even then they're unlikely to vote Democrat, more likely to just not vote.
There's not a lot of swinging voters when it comes to Trump.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I’m not in the business of arguing whether it should or shouldn’t. I’m just observing that it hasn’t. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | I’m not in the business of arguing whether it should or shouldn’t. I’m just observing that it hasn’t. |
Then we're in the same business except I was observing why it wont.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| So, we both agree that, despite Jezza’s post, Trump’s approval isn’t rising? It feels a little like you’re taking issue with things I’m saying on matters that have not much at all to do with the point of my post. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You are good, but you assume responding is taking issue. I'm not arguing against your point, simply adding a qualifier.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Fair enough. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
