Pragmatism

waterfield wrote:

Looking at yesterday’s election results I’m struck by how much both the far left and the far right have in common. Seems to me that we are becoming a country of angry “statement” makers. The Trump supporters are angry and want to make a statement. The Sanders supporters are angry and need to make a statement. Neither give much consideration as to how to get actual “stuff” done. So why are we so angry ? And how can the far right be angry and the far left be angry at the same time? Seems to me that the Republicans are moving further and further and further to the right and the Democrats are moving further and further and further to the left.

At some point in time we need to stop making “statements” and get stuff done. And that’s called pragmatism.

I need a drink.

================================
You always say that, W. Not that there’s anything wrong with that 🙂

Those of us who simply believe in Sanders/Stein’s POLICIES
dont see supporting him/her as “making statements.”

Its real simple — we think Sanders/Stein’s POLICIES
are better for the poor, and the biosphere, than
the Pro-Corporate Candidates.

Anger is a different subject. Are a lot of the Sanders and Stein and Trump folks “angry” ? Sure. A lot are fed up with all kinds of things.

I think you make a mistake conflating the Trump supporters and the Sanders/Stein supporters simply because you see a lot of ‘anger’
in both sides. They seem to be angry about much different
policies and issues, when I talk to both groups…

Personally, just speaking for me, I’m very angry
about three things in a nutshell:
1) Inequality (Ie, poverty and all the myriad ways the poor
are degraded, dehumanized, and destroyed, by corporate power)
2) The destruction of the Biosphere (corporate power)
3) The destruction of meaningful democracy by corporate power. (Citizens United, corporate personhood, media owned by the rich, etc, etc)

The ‘pragmatic’ candidates wont work to change
those three things, in my view.

So, ya know, i respectfully disagree. …there was a time
i would have ‘gone off’ on you, btw, as you know.

I’ve mellowed 🙂

I just ‘sigh’ now.

w
v

• This reply was modified 8 years, 9 months ago by wv.

I have friends who are republicans who no longer speak to their democratic friends because they are “anti america” and I know many of my democratic friends who genuinely believe all republicans are evil.

It has always been this way.

Hasn’t it?

waterfield wrote:

However, you countered that “being in the middle” is in fact an ideology-something you claim I deny. Hence my response. Nevertheless, clearly in sociological terms being pragmatic is not an ideology. And to answer you other question in terms of whether the hatred between republicans and democrats has “always been that way”. Well-not in my world. At least not until the last several years. Maybe our society is simply more vitriolic these days. More callous. More malicious. I don’t know-maybe this is a product of an internet generation where on boards like this you can say anything you want against another w/o fear of being punched in the face. Maybe its reality TV. Who knows-but in such an environment the bully becomes the most popular. Hence you get Trump.

I guess I ran off the subject. I’m tired.

“Being in the middle” IS an ideology. In fact it cannot NOT be. And the idea that it is “pragmatic” is just spin and rhetoric and advertizing. It’s always something we SAY we are. As a rule, what I see from “middlers” is a general acceptance of the status quo, accompanied by the claim that those who advocate change are “on the extreme.” Inventing an “extreme” is part of its self-advertizing…it then paints general acceptance of the status quo as reasonable and practical.

Meanwhile I say I am an absolutely dead-on pragmatist because the policies that attract me are working in the world (they’re just exiled from the USA mainstream) and would have, if implemented, enormously positive effects.

When I say I am a pragmatist, is that rhetoric too? Of course it is. It’s just another way of explaining and defending certain positions.

See, to me, there is no “extreme” left in the USA, except among a tiny minority, and they don’t have candidates. That’s because there’s barely a LEFT in the USA, though there is throughout the developed world and even in south america (though all of those differ from one another). Those of us on the left do not count people like the Chinese communists as “left”—to us those are one-party authoritarians, and to the left, authoritarian is not left. (Sanders btw is more of a progressive than any candidate I have seen run for office in my lifetime.)

Many of the policies I see as reasonable, practical, obvious, sensible have a real basis throughout the developed world, and where implemented, work. But here in the USA they get labelled extreme. I don’t think of them as extreme at all. I just see the USA as tilted so far to the right that ideas like that are just usually just excluded from the mainstream.

Now is me saying all that an example of ideology, a colored lens, a bias in favor of certain policies? Absolutely. It’s no different from any other political position when it comes to that.

BTW it’s a big part of ordinary dominant mainstream thinking to see reform movements as driven by out-of-touch, emotional extremists. It’s one of the ways the mainstream limits the kinds of ideas it circulates, and unlike places in the world where there is actually real genuine political diversity, tends to narrow the range of the conversation.

.

…

“Pragmatic,” to me, is just marketing. It’s a positive-sounding label for basically sticking with the status quo while making baby steps towards progress.

Hillary isn’t “pragmatic.” She’s a sell-out. She will certainly make baby steps in the right direction, like Obama did, but you cannot reasonably expect her to change the way business is done. In banking. In campaign finance. In gerrymandering. In corporate personhood.

In foreign policy, she’s an imperialist. Straightforward, dominate the globe militarily.

I don’t know why Bernie’s platform is impractical. Universal Health Care seems to be pragmatic in every other advanced country, as well as several countries one could not call “advanced.” So is paid maternity leave.

Every single progressive achievement has been “not pragmatic” at some point: abolition, women’s suffrage, civil rights, desegregation, 40-hour work week, everything.

Besides which – and here is the kicker – nobody has yet even bothered to explain why “reaching too far” means that one will end up with less than if one “reaches nearby.” It’s just stated as Fact by Hillary supporters.

We didn’t abolish slavery by reaching for a six-day work week. We didn’t achieve women’s suffrage by pushing to have women’s votes count for 3/5 of a man’s vote. We didn’t get desegregation by asking for African Americans to get 2% of the student population. I am supposed to believe that Hillary is going to make more progress that Sanders? Really?

No fucking way.

Screw Hillary. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for her under any circumstances.

Her victory will only serve to reinforce the Business-as-Usual conduct of this government, and that just is not acceptable to me at all. You can take your Clintons, Obamas, your Gary Harts, and just shove them. I am having none of it.

wv wrote:

waterfield wrote:

Looking at yesterday’s election results I’m struck by how much both the far left and the far right have in common. Seems to me that we are becoming a country of angry “statement” makers. The Trump supporters are angry and want to make a statement. The Sanders supporters are angry and need to make a statement. Neither give much consideration as to how to get actual “stuff” done. So why are we so angry ? And how can the far right be angry and the far left be angry at the same time? Seems to me that the Republicans are moving further and further and further to the right and the Democrats are moving further and further and further to the left.

At some point in time we need to stop making “statements” and get stuff done. And that’s called pragmatism.

I need a drink.

================================
You always say that, W. Not that there’s anything wrong with that

Those of us who simply believe in Sanders/Stein’s POLICIES
dont see supporting him/her as “making statements.”

Its real simple — we think Sanders/Stein’s POLICIES
are better for the poor, and the biosphere, than
the Pro-Corporate Candidates.

Anger is a different subject. Are a lot of the Sanders and Stein and Trump folks “angry” ? Sure. A lot are fed up with all kinds of things.

I think you make a mistake conflating the Trump supporters and the Sanders/Stein supporters simply because you see a lot of ‘anger’
in both sides. They seem to be angry about much different
policies and issues, when I talk to both groups…

Personally, just speaking for me, I’m very angry
about three things in a nutshell:
1) Inequality (Ie, poverty and all the myriad ways the poor
are degraded, dehumanized, and destroyed, by corporate power)
2) The destruction of the Biosphere (corporate power)
3) The destruction of meaningful democracy by corporate power. (Citizens United, corporate personhood, media owned by the rich, etc, etc)

The ‘pragmatic’ candidates wont work to change
those three things, in my view.

So, ya know, i respectfully disagree. …there was a time
i would have ‘gone off’ on you, btw, as you know.

I’ve mellowed

I just ‘sigh’ now.

w
v

I think voters ARE making a statement. Just not in the way W puts it. I think dismissing it as a “statement” comes from a Fixed mindset, rather that a Growth mindset. A Fixed mindset believes that everything is basically the way it is, and there isn’t much one can do about it. A Growth mindset thinks that improvements can be made through dedication and effort.

You know, I read somewhere that Hillary basically said last week that Bernie should drop out … you know, “Thank you for coming,” … so that she could get on with the Real Business of aiming to defeat Trump/Whoever.

It’s just so condescending and entitled. Like, “Molly, will you take the children to the kitchen and give them some tea with honey before putting them to bed, so we adults can carry on with the actual job of governing, please.”

This is more than a “statement.” There is one of them there tidal shifts in the political spectrum going on here, and the Elites in both parties are completely missing what is happening because they are misdiagnosing this as a temper tantrum from the Low Information voters on one side, and Impractical Ideological voters on the other. They are saying out loud that this little statement just needs to be Handled, and order restored. But I think they are underestimating this move. The fault lines of politics may possibly be realigned this year. I think we are moving from cultural issues towards economic issues as the fault line politically.

I think WV pretty much nailed the Sanders supporters’ point of view:

Personally, just speaking for me, I’m very angry
about three things in a nutshell:
1) Inequality (Ie, poverty and all the myriad ways the poor
are degraded, dehumanized, and destroyed, by corporate power)
2) The destruction of the Biosphere (corporate power)
3) The destruction of meaningful democracy by corporate power. (Citizens United, corporate personhood, media owned by the rich, etc, etc)

Furthermore, they believe that neither party is tackling these issues in a serious way. In fact, there is a strong belief that the party system has been completely bought by Wall Street. The Sanders democrats think they get lip service from the Clintons et al.

Now, interestingly, I think the Trump supporters have a lot in common with the Sanders supporters. I think they largely agree with points 1 and 3, though their frame is slightly different.

1) Inequality. They see the same thing The money is going upwards. The jobs are going overseas, or being taken by immigrants. Now, they aren’t against inequality IN PRINCIPLE (i.e. they don’t care that minorities suffer inequality, or that other parts of the world suffer; they care only that THEY suffer inequality). But there is an alignment here. I believe that some Trump supporters could be moved back to the Democrat party of their fathers under the right conditions. (And that those conditions are materializing right now – though I am making no prediction that they will continue to materialize).
2) Well, they don’t care about the environment. What I’d place here is that they are angry about the erosion of their culture by other cultures: gay Mexican Muslims, basically.
3) They wouldn’t cite Citizens United, or corporate personhood, or media owned by the rich – since they probably don’t know anything about these things – but they do recognize that their Republican politicians have been promising them all kinds of cultural victories, and trickled down prosperity, and they see that they have waited 35 years for this, and not only has it not been delivered, their circumstances are worse. They see that Wall Street got bailed out and Middle America didn’t. They see that the game is rigged, and they are being abused not only by foreigners, but by their ostensible leaders.

Now, I THINK that the Trump supporters are growing more ticked off about their jobs/future than they are about gay rights. So you have Trump pulling in 40% of the Republican party, and Sanders pulling close to 50% of the Democrat party, and both factions are discontent with the financial elites. That is important common ground, and represents a LOT of American voters. This isn’t Nader’s 7%. This is MUCH bigger than that, and the mainstream apologists are missing the scope of this “statement.” Note, for example, that Trump is in favor of some kind of universal health care. Trump + Sanders on this issue represents a LOT of support. So if you are telling me progress on this is not practical, and not pragmatic, I tell you that you aren’t paying attention to what is happening. These are not 7% sandcastle movements that are going to get washed away with the inevitable high tide. This is different. And Hillary and Rove and Kristol are imperiled by their blindness. Which is great as far as I’m concerned.

I also am among those who believe that the Republicans are headed to even greater trauma before this thing is over, and that the strange bedfellows within that party may split. You’ve got all those corporatists meeting on that island off of Georgia trying to figure out how they are going to keep the party together, and they so far are not showing signs that they understand what the problem is, so I’m not sure they are going to come up with a plan that will keep their hold on the party.

I just want to say, this is a fantastic thread. Lots of great thoughts and debate.

I’ve enjoyed reading it.

I just wanted to touch on the whole DIVIDED issue in the country today. It’s an extreme division IMO. I can’t remember in my lifetime the right and left being THIS far apart on so many issues. Would Nixon be a Democrat today? Could Reagan get elected by the Republicans today?

I don’t know the answers to that of course.

But I believe that the rise of right wing radio and later Fox News has really been one of, if not THE single biggest driving force in widening the divide. The left has no such equal to that. So the anger from the left to me is a response to the right.

I’m not saying that people did not have prejudices or have hard religious beliefs BEFORE any of that–but the rightwing media machine was able to tie all of it together and to focus the anger. It gave targets names. It explained things for them in ways that helped them define their feelings into a common cause–a common anger and hate.

It pointed out villains and showed where to point the blame for whatever was wrong in their lives.

After awhile some of them didn’t even have to think anymore. They tuned in to hear what Rush had to say–he explained it for them. Did you ever hear Rush frustratingly explain slowly to a listener what the TRUTH was, when it didn’t match HIS truth?

Was it brainwashing? Not quite, perhaps. There had to be some feelings there to start with, of course. If I listened to Rush 24/7 it would do nothing for me. But it was like a therapist or better yet–a hypnotist drawing out what was there and defining it and directing it.

And don’t dare be against that–or think differently lest you risk ridicule. If you think differently you must be confused or a “victim” of the left wing media(a brilliant ghost they created to enable blocking out other information that did not match the narrative exactly). And the radio could be on all day–at home–at work–in the car. It is everywhere.

Rush is ANGRY.

Glen Beck is ANGRY.

Michael Savage is ANGRY.

Sean Hannity is ANGRY.

Why aren’t YOU angry too?

Years and years of this has grown the seeds of anger and hatred. And that needs a target.

Is it the gays?

The Muslims?

The President?

The Communist left?

Something has to be responsible for this.

Only now–with Trump…the snake is eating its own tail. The creators and enablers of this(the politicians who legitimized it all for their benefit)have realized the beast is out of the cage. They loved it when they controlled all of this. Now they aren’t so sure.

The left is angry too–angry at the embrace of corporate power and the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. It’s angry at the betrayal of its leaders who have moved the goalposts of what “left” is or what “progressive” even means.

Somewhere the anger even criss-crosses with the right–on trade for example. But on others it couldn’t be further apart.

So there is a big gap with anger on both ends and a lot of stress in the middle.

The “middle” says no one gets everything they want.

The ends want some things that are the same–others that are very different.

But the problem is that the “middle” hasn’t paid much attention to the basic underlying problem of wealth inequality. People feel that and fear it on both ends. They may say they are addressing this in calculated slow, one-step-at-a-time moves but are they really?

I think it was great they did SOMETHING about healthcare–but people are still falling behind. Many plans went up–way up. Some people were helped and I’m all for that–I’m willing to pay for that. I think it’s a good thing. But it could have been so much better with less pain for everyone. Obama didn’t even try, really–because the corporate writers told him what he could do and not do. He stared negotiating from a position of weakness.

No public option. Period.

The big thing on the left is WHO do you work for?

The feeling is it isn’t the people.

There is a place for pragmatism. There is a place for the “middle” ground. But why is that only for the poor and middle class? Why do the powerful not have to wait in line? Why do their needs come first? Why is it only the poor or middle class told to sit down, shut up and wait your turn?

Is this how it HAS to be?

If they truly wanted to do something “radical” couldn’t they do it?

Do we have to invade every country or set off regime change around the world and deal with the mess that is left in its wake? Is that our only choice? Do we have to throw trillions into the military machine for eternity?

Do we have to allow big banks or wealthy elites to do whatever they want–to gamble however they please and bail them out on the losses? Do we have to give them a tax holiday to bring billions back home?

Do we have to sign terrible trade agreements and wonder when the first one will REALLY start helping average workers at home? I get that trade is part of a geopolitical game on some levels–but at what cost?

These are choices we make.

They aren’t laws of nature.

The anger stems from what people perceive to be bad choices. The revolution is about new choices.

People are tired of being told to sit down and shut up.

We want those in political office to work for US again.

The problem is that “divide”. And that “divide” is what the political class and money powers use to control things. It works FOR them in so many ways. It’s hard to have a revolution in a civil war.

Pragmatism won’t solve that.

Results will solve it. People need to see their lives improve–to feel it.

But I’m not sure the powers that be will ever really encourage unity anymore–it works against them. But it’s also destroying them. They need this in a controlled way–and it’s not something they can control.

Hopefully something positive can emerge, and soon.

But I believe that the rise of right wing radio and later Fox News has really been one of, if not THE single biggest driving force in widening the divide. The left has no such equal to that. So the anger from the left to me is a response to the right.

i agree with this…. Right Wing radio has turned some of my old friends that barely passed HS Civics into political “experts” it’s a mess.

you are correct. this is a great thread….

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

This is the trailer for a documentary “The Brainwashing Of My Dad” I

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3771626/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl

Jen Senko, a documentary filmmaker, looks at the rise of right-wing media through the lens of her WWII vet father who changed from a life-long, nonpolitical Democrat to an angry, right-wing fanatic after his discovery of talk radio on a lengthened commute to work. In trying to understand how this happened, she not only finds this to be a phenomenon, but also uncovers some of the forces behind it: a plan by Roger Ailes under Nixon to create a media for the GOP; the Lewis Powell Memo, urging business leaders to influence institutions of public opinion – especially the universities – the media and the courts; and under Reagan, the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine – all of which helped to change the entire country’s direction and culture, misinformed millions, divided families and even the country itself.

Zooey wrote:

zn wrote:

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

This is the trailer for a documentary “The Brainwashing Of My Dad” I

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3771626/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl

Jen Senko, a documentary filmmaker, looks at the rise of right-wing media through the lens of her WWII vet father who changed from a life-long, nonpolitical Democrat to an angry, right-wing fanatic after his discovery of talk radio on a lengthened commute to work. In trying to understand how this happened, she not only finds this to be a phenomenon, but also uncovers some of the forces behind it: a plan by Roger Ailes under Nixon to create a media for the GOP; the Lewis Powell Memo, urging business leaders to influence institutions of public opinion – especially the universities – the media and the courts; and under Reagan, the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine – all of which helped to change the entire country’s direction and culture, misinformed millions, divided families and even the country itself.

And nothing can get better until them there laws get rewritten, and no way do those laws get rewritten until corporate dollars are removed from our “democracy,” and no way those dollars get removed until sheets of paper no longer have first amendment rights (i.e. are no long legally human).

Agreed