- This topic has 80 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Seems to me that there is more vitriolic hatred toward Hillary from those on the left than for that idiot Trump. I don’t get it. I understand disagreements over her policies. That’s natural. But I don’t get what to me borders on personal malice. I’ve seen it here and I’ve seen it with friends who call themselves “progressives”.
Something else I don’t get. For those on the far right and those on the far left there is more contempt for those in the middle than those with polar opposite views and policies. Maybe it’s as simple as anarchists -either right or left-don’t really care for non-anarchists. When did “moderate” become such a filthy word?
I recently had an interesting set of experiences online, regarding the Clinton/Sanders food fight. It shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did. And just when I thought I had gotten some idea about the lay of the land, I was surprised again.
I left two sites because they seemed completely intolerant when it came to Sanders supporters. There wasn’t any middle ground. You were either a Clinton supporter, or you were some deranged “Bernie bro,” basically automatically thought of as sexist and racist and always rude to everyone else.
I found another site that seemed, at least at first, to be far more welcoming to we leftists. But, bit by bit, I discovered this place was basically just the flipside of the previous two. If you weren’t howling at the moon angry with Clinton, 24/7, you were some secret ringer for her. And if you responded by talking about leftist ideals, you were supposedly making all of that up.
Fear, suspicion and paranoia beset all three sites. Snap judgments, massive assumptions and a complete inability to read beset both.
I thought the Clinton supporters on the first two sites were crazy, the way they described “Bernie bros.” But the third site made their descriptions a bit closer to reality. Any general claim about the far right’s racism and xenophobia almost instantly caused a ruckus and howls of protest. Even the mildest criticism of Trump was all but forbidden. Again, this really surprised me.
Anyway, to make a long story short: I think some of the most passionate Sanders supporters online are right-wingers, including ex-Ron Paul supporters, and people who really like Trump too. Leftists and liberals as well, of course. And they’re likely the majority by a good margin. But I think his most vocal fans online are often righties.
It’s a very strange mix — the folks whom Hillary has pissed off to no end.
By way of contrast . . . I think the leftists here have it pretty much spot on. Big contrast with those other sites.
Also, a qualification: It goes without saying that my descriptions above aren’t meant to be definitive — or claim that. They’re just anecdotal, and just my own experience — so far.
I disagree with Hillary on just about every issue with the exception of women’s reproductive rights. However that’s not why I dislike her. I dislike her because she’s duplicitous. She tries to show a progressive face to the public while supporting conservative agendas. She is anything but progressive. She simply can’t be trusted.
I would never vote for Trump. The guy is a racist bore but at least with him he’s not hiding anything. What you see is what you get. Strange as it may sound that makes him more trustworthy than Hillary. So if I seem ‘harder’ on Hillary, I guess that’s why.
How does that work exactly? How do Bernie and Trump supporters get thrown in the same boat? And how do leftists become ‘extremists’ ? And how does a closet-neocon like Hillary become a “non-extremist” to the mass-media ?
Good questions.
I think it’s pretty much who controls the narrative. Sometimes, just a matter of who has the numbers in their favor. But, yeah. From my POV, “leftists” are the sane, rational, logical folks, and centrists, the center-right and especially the far right are the crazies, in general. Again, in general. Like, Single Payer to me is just a “duh” kind of thing. Not “extreme” in the slightest, though it was portrayed that way by some.
Bart Ehrman wrote a really good book on early Christianity, Lost Christianities. In it he talks about the way various factions took control of the Christian narrative, booted out others who thought differently, and sometimes were themselves booted out in turn. The folks who ended up writing the history (and putting together the canon) called all of the losers everything from “extremists” to heretics. And that was when they were being really nice. And, he points out, most of those losers were lost to history, so we never got the chance to hear their side of the story. Not prior to their losing, or in response to their banishment. They were basically erased from history.
It’s a very strange mix — the folks whom Hillary has pissed off to no end.
————–
One of the interesting/exasperating problems is the label “extremist”
Like, for Waterfield, and other “mainstream-centrists” the leftists are ‘extremists’. And so are the Trump supporters. Both, equally “extreme”.
I mean that IS the ‘mainstream’ view. The corporate-network-view. The CNN view, the ABC view, the NBC view, the NPR view, the NY Times view, the mass-corporate-media-view.
How does that work exactly? How do Bernie and Trump supporters get thrown in the same boat? And how do leftists become ‘extremists’ ? And how does a closet-neocon like Hillary become a “non-extremist” to the mass-media ?
Its all quite strange.
w
vWell-I don’t know if I’ve ever called leftists “extremists”. I’ve said there is the far right and the far left. I’ve called the “left” “progressives” but I doubt I’ve ever used the language “extremists”. I have however called crazy right wingers extremists. And I mean that in a dangerous way.
Another thing: I’ve never claimed “moderates” have the “truth” and the only truth as some have accused me. OTOH there are plenty here who appear to have cornered the market on “truth”. Zack is right. On this board for me to convince people that a centrist philosophy is the real truth would be like selling ice cream in an artic storm. All I’m trying to say is that is just me-it’s how I’m built. If this little fraternity here can’t accept that-so be it.
As far as “liking” a presidential candidate. I don’t recall much of Truman but I read he was not a very likable person, neither was Churchill for that matter or Roosevelt. Johnson was not a trustworthy man either -but all of these men showed toughness, courage, intelligence, and were strong leaders. I respect them all.
Question for the progressives here: Of all the presidents this country has had which ones would you support today if they were running. Not candidates but actual presidents!
As far Hillary being a neo-con or even supported by neo-cons I look at those who during Bush administration got us into these wars. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rice, Perle, Feith, etc. I have never heard or read any compliments from these people for Clinton. Lots of despicable assertions but never anything that would leave one to believe she is part of that camp. The vote for war in Iraq. Sure – in retrospect she and most of Congress wishes that could be a do-over. But not the neo-cons that I listed. The would do the same and more over again.
And yes I expect my Secretary of State to be aggressive in protecting the interests of this country and its citizens. That’s part of the damn job.
We can all cherry pick.
Apparently.
Why do you take criticism of Hillary so personally? You actually seem to get invested emotionally, as if critiques of HC were attacks on you. Or that’s the sense I get.
Gulf War and Desert Storm: Bernie voted against the joint resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 1991, calling for economic sanctions and other diplomatic means to address the conflict instead.
Iraq War and Operation Iraqi Freedom: Bernie voted against the joint resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 2002, and voted against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Why do you take criticism of Hillary so personally? You actually seem to get invested emotionally, as if critiques of HC were attacks on you. Or that’s the sense I get.
That’s a valid criticism . It’s a fault I have and wish I didn’t.
Okay fair enough.
Have some pie.
Why do you take criticism of Hillary so personally? You actually seem to get invested emotionally, as if critiques of HC were attacks on you. Or that’s the sense I get.
That’s a valid criticism . It’s a fault I have and wish I didn’t.
Okay fair enough.
Have some pie.
—————-
Is that a capitalist pie or a socialist pie? Or a moderate pie?Because i only eat socialist pies.
w
vI suppose when it comes to politics and religion we all become “dogmatic”. Nevertheless, I genuinely believe that those on the “left” and those on the “right” tend to follow what has been called a process of “group think”. Meaning there is a far greater consensus on political issues than one might find in a group of so called centrists. At it’s worst there can be the “let me know what my group thinks of this so I can be consistent and won’t ruffle the feathers of those I know”. By definition a “moderate” or “centrist” does not have a “group” to measure his views on issues. I suspect when it comes to abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control, etc there is far more divergence among moderates than you would find on the “left” and the “right”, especially as one approaches the polar ends of both these bodies.
As far as “socialism” goes-your right it’s far more complicated than what we give it. Growing up in the 50s words like “communism”, “socialism” were dirty words that few of us knew anything about other than these were the bad guys. Today with globalization we see bits and pieces of socialism everywhere including here in the U.S. The word doesn’t carry with it the stigma it once did-although talking to some of my friends my age you wouldn’t know that.
My problem with it is the ideology not the end game. To me the weakness in the system is in the “planners”. A collectivist planned economy means there must be central planners. And the only way that will work is if there is total commitment to the “plan”. And how does that exactly work in a society of free people. What do you do with the dissenters or those who are not on the same page? Who will choose the planners and what plans take priority when there are competing legitimate interests? Who will make these decisions. And those dissenters cannot get in the way if the system is to work. Would there be debate or would that be look upon as subversion? Would dissenters be eliminated? (not an entirely shocking expectation) Somewhere I read that collectivism and individualism are political oil and water.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
