harsh eye on both candidates

wv wrote:

Um, no. I’m not ‘esteeming’ Obama for displaying ‘grace’ and ‘dignity’.
He’s living about the most privileged life a human being can live.

Have to disagree with that. There’s missing things in how you put that.

For one, so is Trump (living a privileged life). Notice they do it differently.

And besides that’s not what the guy said anyway. What he said was among them his cool-headed grace under enormous pressure and the profound dignity with which he’s endured racism and pointed us beyond it.

As soon as any of us have endured racism maybe we can judge.

There’s one thing when class gets ignored in analysis. It’s another when we can’t give someone credit just because they’ve acquired wealth.

…

Billy_T wrote:

Hypothetical analogy:

I’m a part of an environmental action group that seeks to protect one million acres of wilderness, and seeks an end to all development on public lands, period.

Candidate X in the Dem party suggests we save 100,000 acres, but says nothing about stopping current development on existing public lands. Candidate Y suggests 25,000, also without any word on current public land use. The GOP is unanimous in their desire to open up existing protected wilderness even more to developers, and no GOP candidate is suggesting adding new wilderness protections.

Our group, while saying Candidate X doesn’t go far enough, and why (white papers, press conferences, etc), says Candidate X is preferable to Candidate Y on this matter. The supporters of Candidate Y then launch concerted attacks against our group which include mockery for our supposed “starry-eyed, naive, impractical vision,” and our overzealous attachment to “purity tests.” etc. etc. Candidate Y’s surrogates constantly scold us by saying “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

We don’t, in fact, see the the protection of just 25,000 acres, with no attempt to prevent further exploitation of existing public lands, as anything approaching “the good,” and we admit that our own positions are far from “the perfect,” because they don’t go far enough, protect enough lands or species, and are not integrated enough with an international commitment to the same. We admit that our own requests are driven in part by what we see as “politically possible,” with the right coalition, media, rhetoric, demonstrations, etc. etc.

You’re trying to “debate it.” To me, that won’t work. It’s Rocky and Bullwinkle–that trick never works. All I personally see in this case like many others is you taking your own opinions as true, and therefore trying to convey that truth persuasively.

Problem is I have been in this particular debate, and variations thereof, for probably 45 years. And, so, being a well-meaning but also cranky old bastard, I just shrug at the debate, say let’s be a coalition, and move on. Way I see it most REAL political investments are at an emotional level too deep to be reasoned with. So, when it comes to alliances and coalitions, I like my approach better. We differ, we know we have impasses, we acknowledge that and move forward.

Now how can we be useful (in the best sense) to one another.

Billy_T wrote:

You’re trying to “debate it.” To me, that won’t work. It’s Rocky and Bullwinkle – that trick never works. All I personally see in this case like many others is you taking your own opinions as true, and therefore trying to convey that truth persuasively.

Problem is I have been in this particular debate, and variations thereof, for probably 45 years. And, so, being a well-meaning but also cranky old bastard, I just shrug at the debate, say let’s be a coalition, and move on. Way I see it most REAL political investments are at an emotional level too deep to be reasoned with. So, when it comes to alliances and coalitions, I like my approach better. We differ, we know we have impasses, we acknowledge that and move forward.

Now how can we be useful (in the best sense) to one another.

Well, one way we can be useful is to give each other the benefit of the doubt. Some of the terms you use seem unnecessary to me, and get in the way of that. Like “routine” and “trick” and, again, the original “purity” accusation.

Why use them at all? To me, they cause the “impasse” by changing the subject from the political issues on hand to one where we argue about the accuracy of meta-terms — with those meta-terms being implemented largely as a comment on one’s methods and (perhaps) hidden motivations, rather than the political issues themselves. Indirectly, cutting very close to directly, this makes the discussion about the poster, instead of the subject of national politics.

I’d much prefer talking about the latter.

As in, Can’t we all just get along?

;>)

Just letting you know how I see all such inter-left debates of this kind.

I can not say it but then I will still feel it.

The best bet for you is just don’t take it so personally. I am just saying where I am coming from. The whole thing is about perspective.

And on top of it I always believe that many presumed rational arguments are in fact entirely rhetorical. That won’t change either.

So don’t take this stuff personally since the entire point is just to spell out a perspective. I just gave you a perspective, it;s how I see it.

And so to me this is not useful if it is a discussion about “us” or about my rhetoric or your rhetoric.

The useful stuff is beyond all that, IMO. Like I said before. Now we move on. Everyone accepts everyone else for what they are and just discusses stuff. Fair enough?

…

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

Um, no. I’m not ‘esteeming’ Obama for displaying ‘grace’ and ‘dignity’.
He’s living about the most privileged life a human being can live.

Have to disagree with that. There’s missing things in how you put that.

For one, so is Trump (living a privileged life). Notice they do it differently.

And besides that’s not what the guy said anyway. What he said was among them his cool-headed grace under enormous pressure and the profound dignity with which he’s endured racism and pointed us beyond it.

As soon as any of us have endured racism maybe we can judge.

There’s one thing when class gets ignored in analysis. It’s another when we can’t give someone credit just because they’ve acquired wealth.

…

—————-
Nah, i disagree. What “enormous pressure” is a wealthy President of the USA, under? Enormous pressure is when you aren’t sure you can pay the rent and your kids might get evicted. That is ‘enormous pressure’.

You can ‘esteem’ him all you want – I’ll not.

w
v

In terms of paying or not paying the rent, just different kinds of pressure. One doesn’t negate the other. I am sure if you said to the writer, look poor people struggling to hold on are under pressure too, he would agree. And probably point out that it’s not either/or. Acknowledging one thing doesn’t negate the other thing. In terms of the president, what the writer refers to, of course, is the enormous pressure in being a president–that’s just making decisions in a glass house, with intense scrutiny, and often with enormous consequences. Taken in the abstract, that’s just true. I don’t think wealth negates that.

I wasn’t talking about esteem for Obama, and whether I have it or you don’t. That wasn’t even on my mind. I was talking about sentences and their logic. It went toward what class analysis means. To me, if class analysis is to be effective and sound, two things have to happen. First, it cannot be separated, especially in the USA, from gender and race. The way I understand things, that’s all a big ball of tied together strings. To me it’s equally a flaw when any single one of those things gets ignored. Second, I can’t simply dismiss someone only because they do have wealth. To me, that’s not class analysis, it’s something else.

In terms of Obama himself, I have very mixed feelings, and have since he was first a candidate years ago. My feelings haven’t changed. In terms of my own political ideas and wishes and analysis, he comes up far short. But at the same time I more or less knew that (as you did) when he was first running in the primaries, way back when.

…

zn wrote:

Besides, I;m cranky.

I;ve come to a little conclusion. I can’t mod politics discussions AND participate. So I won’t participate. This year is different—this year, a formerly united left (which is what we had on the original huddle public board) is now divided. That calls for a different kind of moderating. I personally can’t do that and then also jump in with my cranky 2 cents. So I will save my own 2 cents for other topics. I am not complaining btw, just making what I think is the best choice as a mod.

In the real world, I have to deal with enough of that as is. In my social/work world, I am surrounded by both Clinton nazis who don’t get or tolerate dissent, and Sanders nazis who don’t get or tolerate “selling out.” Well a pox on both their houses. In this election, I am both a dissenter and a sell out. Which only means I can’t talk about it with anyone cause they are all diehards. I nod and smile.

nittany ram wrote:

Ooh, a challenge. Let’s see if we can bait zn into participating on this forum…

Oh I will participate in the forum. Just not on election stuff. There are plenty of other topics (example: how a bad movie season influences garden design.)

For example, I am sure to speak up whenever someone flagrantly, with malicious intentions, misreads a post. And I bring hell with me.

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

In the real world, I have to deal with enough of that as is. In my social/work world, I am surrounded by both Clinton nazis who don’t get or tolerate dissent, and Sanders nazis who don’t get or tolerate “selling out.” Well a pox on both their houses. In this election, I am both a dissenter and a sell out. Which only means I can’t talk about it with anyone cause they are all diehards. I nod and smile.

————-
Thats all well and good, but other than W, i cant think of anyone on this
board who would care whether you did the “lesser evil” thing or the “fuck the Duplicats” thing. No-one here has ever called you a sell-out or a dissenter, etc. People have just shared what ‘they’ are gonna do. Thats how ive seen it, anyway. I havent seen anybody trying to ‘persuade’ anybody about how to vote — cept, W. (and we all like W, so even that dont matter)

w
v

I know. I was just getting in some extra-curricular griping. That wasn’t supposed to be a comment on the posters here. I was suggesting that my real-world demeanor was spilling over, and that in recognition of that, I wasn’t going to get into election discussions. I didn’t “blame” that on anyone but me.

wv wrote:

Ok, but i can tell you I bet no-one on this board
thinks you were being all “MOD-heavy” in any way. This aint got
nuthin to do with Mod or Not-Mod.

I get PMS all the time, and I have to take a break from
pol-threads from time to time. So, if you need to take a break for a while, fine,
but there’s no need to make it permanent.

I mean dont take any blood oaths or anything. Dont go
and join the Night Watch.

w
v

I know. I didnt get any vibe that I was seen as mod-heavy. This was all me, responding to me. It didn’t have nuthin to do with what others might think. I was thinking, I am a little edgy when I post on this election stuff…and, that means (in my own eyes) that I am not as effective as a mod, who needs to be more above it all. Matter of degree. This is just how I see it. And I have no issues with the other mods at all. But to me, a mod is Dudley Do-Rright. As an election issue poster I was channeling some Cartman.

So I promise. No Night Watch. No oaths. Just me on a minor little thing, trying to do a minor little version of the right thing.

Though I will post articles about everything. Just not engage in debate. I mean it’s not fair. I always win. So, I should be more restrained.