Exaggerating The Power of Left Wing Democrats (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    The Other Liberal

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Dec 18, 2020
    Messages
    61
    Reaction score
    47
    Age
    55
    Location
    Lexington Kentucky
    Website
    theotherliberal.blogspot.com
    Offline
    There's a lot of talk about the left wing Democrats. Listen to the media and so called progressives and socialists appear to be taking over the party. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib are viewed as powerful politicians pushing Democrats too far left with proposals like Single Payer Healthcare and the Green New Deal to fight climate change. The pundits on CNN and in print media like The Washington Post warn of rising socialism and left wing progressivism that alienates most voters especially working class whites Democrats need to win Congress and state houses. Moreover the mainstream media wrongly ties Democrats to controversial activists movements like Black Lives Matter and college students activists. The former calls for defunding local police viewed as racists, while the students fuel a repressive cancel culture. Everyone calls for a move to the center. Even Elizabeth Warren a liberal by any standard is too far left. Never mind the Democrats don't officially endorse such things. Not to mention the issues raised by activists are legitimate and complex.

    It doesn't matter that false charges of left wing extremism among Democrats come from conservatives in the GOP. The media that adopts that narrative, and centrist Democrats use it to their political advantage too. Since the 1980s it has contributed to the rise of a centrist establishment that really controls the Democratic Party. It's not that left leaning Democrats are very powerful. They're just vocal and they stand up for their convictions. They draw a powerful contrast with the right wing GOP and centrist Democrats. Vilifying them and exaggerating their influence prevents Democrats from discussing or advancing a liberal agenda. Centrist Democrats and Conservative Republicans are alike in opposing strongly regulated markets, funding, and expanding safety nets especially health care. They don't want to redistribute wealth and income despite a grossly unequal economy that undermines working people either. If there were a strong liberalism within the party leftist concerns and demands could be translated into needed reforms. In many ways that's what the New Deal did. It's far reaching policy reforms eased the effects of the depression. The New Deal also tamed capitalism and created a welfare state that made life more livable for all. All of this preempts left wing excess. However centrists tend to be skeptical of liberal efforts. Like conservatives they're totally against the left.

    What are the results of this politics ? You get a regressive and reactionary Republican Party that doesn't benefit anybody including millions of working class people who vote for them. These people fall for the scare tactics about socialism or prioritize social issues. Yet nothing is done about their material wellbeing. At the same time Democratic Centrism is only a little better. Too often the center is Republican lite. The left isn't relevant despite their pro working class rhetoric, and liberals are not really in the game. We don't even own up to our name or tradition. Most of us wrongly claim to be progressive. Many others liberals are centrists.
     
    I don't think the name Indian was changed due to evolving social norms. I think it was changed due a vocal and influential group of activists, and those are the same activists that are behind a lot of cancel culture. In the context of a team logo, Indian reflects pride and power, not racism nor anything derogatory. If Indian is derogatory, then what about Cowboys, or Vikings, or Patriots, or Buccaneers, or Chiefs, or Raiders or Saints just from the NFL? Or from college, what about the Cajuns, Fighting Irish, Sooners, Rebels, Spartans, Knights, Trojans, and Minutemen? Most people would associate the people associated with those names with pride. We have military aircraft named Apache, Comanche, and people are very proud to fly those aircraft. I know the Indians logo of Chief Wahoo was controversial, but they got rid of the logo. If the logo was the problem, then that could be changed to be something more laudatory of Indians. Just create a logo of a strong Indian, instead of getting rid of the Indian nickname, with input from the Indian community. It wasn't enough for the activists, so Cleveland is bowing to unreasonable social evolution by getting rid of their name. That social evolution is an outgrowth of political correctness, and cancel culture seems to be an evolution of political correctness, all of which largely stems from far left Democrats, and that oversensitive culture will have a backlash. Instead of sensible progressive change, the left is getting associated with people fighting to ostracize anyone that is sensitive. That leftist excess sensitivity is essentially intolerance which is repulsive, and it is similar to the repulsive intolerance of the right. Since cancel culture advocates are left wingers, it is tarnishing all leftists with their ridiculous crusades. Unfortunately, I don't think liberal Democrats are pushing back against the nonsense enough for fear of themselves being cancelled. Trumpers didn't have power in the Republican party 20 years ago, but that group has grown in power. Social media may have accelerated that growth in the Republican party, and it seems like that party could be lost. We may find ourselves with a radical Democratic party as well if this far left intolerance isn't checked.
    Let’s say ‘old school’ PC stops with MeToo-
    What PC changes do you find to be so problematic?

    For Metoo? Is it overreach for women to be hyper vigilant about abuse? Can ‘they’ only express legit concerns if they can guarantee 100% accuracy
    Are you saying that BLM does not have legitimate complaints about the way they are policed, et al?

    Y’all bogeyman ‘PC’ and ‘cancel culture’ bc it’s easier to deal with as broad terms - if it gets to particulars your complaints fall apart
     
    There are a bunch recent changes contributing to “cancel culture”:
    • What a person says is permanent and global due to social media
    • Corporations fire people for speech off the clock
    • In-group vs out-group accepted language and in-group being given greater say in acceptable language
    • Desire to be a melting pot vs claims of cultural appropriation
    • Speed at which language is changing
    I was recently watching a 2000s Law and Order where they regularly used the “r-word” to refer to a mentally challenged person in a factual manner and not offensively. Today, there are yearly HR classes on acceptable language and that is far from acceptable.

    I think the change from “handicapped” to “disabled” to “person with a disability” is good example, that I can post, of quickly changing language. That’s 3 different terms over 30 years with an expectation that people update casual language as easily as an AP style book.
     
    It’s definitely a lot of energy to learn preferred terms. However, I always ask that people respect that I may not always know and I will respect it when you correct me and adjust my language.

    The challenge is just saying “I’m sorry, I didn’t know but I’ll adjust my language” isn’t always adequate. Some people get pretty militant and expect you to know every shift of language or face their ire.
     
    You mean exercising our right to boycott?
    A Decision to boycott is a personal one. Lobbying for another person to be effectively banned is VERY different.

    So, if I don't like a particular artist, I can simply not go to their shows. I could even lobby to persuade OTHER individuals not to go. However, when you lobby the theatre/art-gallery/venue to cancel that artist, you have moved beyond boycotting. You have removed the CHOICE to see that particular artist from other people.

    A better term for cancel-culture would be censorship, and that rarely works for the good !
     
    A Decision to boycott is a personal one. Lobbying for another person to be effectively banned is VERY different.

    So, if I don't like a particular artist, I can simply not go to their shows. I could even lobby to persuade OTHER individuals not to go. However, when you lobby the theatre/art-gallery/venue to cancel that artist, you have moved beyond boycotting. You have removed the CHOICE to see that particular artist from other people.

    A better term for cancel-culture would be censorship, and that rarely works for the good !
    And this is why Birmingham still has segregated buses...oh wait
     
    A Decision to boycott is a personal one. Lobbying for another person to be effectively banned is VERY different.

    So, if I don't like a particular artist, I can simply not go to their shows. I could even lobby to persuade OTHER individuals not to go. However, when you lobby the theatre/art-gallery/venue to cancel that artist, you have moved beyond boycotting. You have removed the CHOICE to see that particular artist from other people.

    A better term for cancel-culture would be censorship, and that rarely works for the good !

    So enough people boycotting a particular artist for a venue to decide it'll hurt their bottom line if they host that artist isn't okay? Isn't that just capitalism? Why don't those other people "counter-cancel" and convince the venue to change their mind?
     
    I absolutely believe it. If you read what I wrote, I wrote that Republicans are already controlled by their extremist wing, while Democrats are controlled by their extremist wing in some parts of the country. The trend is that Democrats are trending similarly to the Republicans. I hope that trend doesn't continue, otherwise we'll have two nationwide parties controlled by their extremists.
    Except that one extremist group is actively leading insurrection and hunting down politicians to kill them, while the other extremist group is trying to get free healthcare and college tuition.

    Only one side says "both sides."
     
    Let’s say ‘old school’ PC stops with MeToo-
    What PC changes do you find to be so problematic?

    For Metoo? Is it overreach for women to be hyper vigilant about abuse? Can ‘they’ only express legit concerns if they can guarantee 100% accuracy
    Are you saying that BLM does not have legitimate complaints about the way they are policed, et al?

    Y’all bogeyman ‘PC’ and ‘cancel culture’ bc it’s easier to deal with as broad terms - if it gets to particulars your complaints fall apart
    I think women haven't been believed enough in the past, but the pendulum has swung too far, and it is wrong to believe women without due process for the men. Everyone should be able to report abuse, but some women lie out of vengeance, especially if they know that it will destroy the man even if it is false.

    I think blacks have historically been mistreated, but the stats in the 2000s don't support that blacks are overpoliced. Similarly to women, people are overreacting to past transgressions. I've posted ad nauseum about that.

    I think some names are offensive, but the left overreacts to anyone who says something is offensive.

    All of these are elements of the creeping nature of the power of the left in the Democratic party. My point is that the more the left overreacts to past transgressions by creating equal and opposite transgressions to remediate, the more they are going to repel moderates. I think some Trumpers are born of this overreaction.
     
    Except that one extremist group is actively leading insurrection and hunting down politicians to kill them, while the other extremist group is trying to get free healthcare and college tuition.

    Only one side says "both sides."
    I never claimed that Democrats are as bad as Republicans. The Republican party is practically lost due to Trump and his violent support now representing a majority of the party. My point has been that Democrats are becoming more extreme as well, but it is a much smaller faction of the party. The Antifa and cancel culture wing is growing, and they are capable of violence themselves.
     
    "Cancel culture" is a nonsense phrase. When someone says they're being canceled, it's typically one of two things - "How dare you hold me accountable for the crap I say" or "Boycott". It's a totally meaningless phrase meant for nothing more than to fire people up when you feel like a victim, but still want to seem tough.

    Writing a venue owner because you don't like an act they put on isn't some new concept, it's just more visible now as opposed to the "I'm gonna write a letter to the station" days.
     
    "Cancel culture" is a nonsense phrase. When someone says they're being canceled, it's typically one of two things - "How dare you hold me accountable for the crap I say" or "Boycott". It's a totally meaningless phrase meant for nothing more than to fire people up when you feel like a victim, but still want to seem tough.

    Writing a venue owner because you don't like an act they put on isn't some new concept, it's just more visible now as opposed to the "I'm gonna write a letter to the station" days.
    Social media makes those boycotts much more powerful. It is like being sued and having to settle due to fear of bad publicity, even if you are innocent.
     
    "Cancel culture" is a nonsense phrase. When someone says they're being canceled, it's typically one of two things - "How dare you hold me accountable for the crap I say" or "Boycott". It's a totally meaningless phrase meant for nothing more than to fire people up when you feel like a victim, but still want to seem tough.

    Writing a venue owner because you don't like an act they put on isn't some new concept, it's just more visible now as opposed to the "I'm gonna write a letter to the station" days.

    Well, I wouldn't dismiss the effect of "cancel culture". Whatever the term used to describe this, there are people who have been wrongly accused and lives affected because of it. So, while I get it, there definitely are some unintended consequences at times.
     
    Well, I wouldn't dismiss the effect of "cancel culture". Whatever the term used to describe this, there are people who have been wrongly accused and lives affected because of it. So, while I get it, there definitely are some unintended consequences at times.

    This is why I say instead of bundling it all together under a single catchphrase umbrella we should be talking about each issue individually. Attacking or defending the cultural movement greatly ignores the individual circumstances of each of these instances.

    Recently I got into an argument with a guy on a Tiger King Meme board on Facebook. Because of where we were it was a fun argument, not an angry one, or so I thought. I did some crazy stuff including taking a pic of him and photoshopping it into a bukkake scene. :ROFLMAO: This dude actually looked at my Facebook profile, got my employer information, selectively screenshot posts, sent it to my HR Director, and said he would post all over the Internet that my company has Directors who are homophobes if they didn't fire me.

    My company just had me delete my posts and told me not to respond to him in any way. I did. However, I'm certainly sympathetic to people who don't see a big deal with what they are doing (it was a private Tiger King meme board!) and maybe step in it a bit or have folks go after their jobs in an unrelated way. We just can't cast a wide net by coming up with a label that treats every incident like it's exactly the same.
     
    This is why I say instead of bundling it all together under a single catchphrase umbrella we should be talking about each issue individually. Attacking or defending the cultural movement greatly ignores the individual circumstances of each of these instances.

    Recently I got into an argument with a guy on a Tiger King Meme board on Facebook. Because of where we were it was a fun argument, not an angry one, or so I thought. I did some crazy stuff including taking a pic of him and photoshopping it into a bukkake scene. :ROFLMAO: This dude actually looked at my Facebook profile, got my employer information, selectively screenshot posts, sent it to my HR Director, and said he would post all over the Internet that my company has Directors who are homophobes if they didn't fire me.

    My company just had me delete my posts and told me not to respond to him in any way. I did. However, I'm certainly sympathetic to people who don't see a big deal with what they are doing (it was a private Tiger King meme board!) and maybe step in it a bit or have folks go after their jobs in an unrelated way. We just can't cast a wide net by coming up with a label that treats every incident like it's exactly the same.

    Well said. Nuance and judging each situation on it's own merits seems a lost art these days.
     
    Not really. We're talking about 'undesirable elements' being cancelled and denied a platform (or a stage). Ring any bells ?
    Trump's assault on democratic norms ring far more bells. Cancel-culture isn't remotely like Nazi Germany. Gross hyperbole does not help what might be an otherwise reasonable position in terms of cancel-culture going too far.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom