updated–Round Three? Robinson’s rebuttal to the rebuttal to the . . .

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House updated–Round Three? Robinson’s rebuttal to the rebuttal to the . . .

Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 42 (of 42 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #117216
    wv
    Participant

    To me, leftists self-evidently are closer in ideals, principles, world-view and policies to the Dems than the GOP. Not close, but closer. There’s at least a fighting chance to click here and there with them on Big Ticket items. I don’t see that happening with righties, beyond lip service, or beyond their heavily funded attempts to get us to just give up, stay home, and indirectly help the GOP win more elections.

    =================

    Oh sure, i think Nathan/BT are totally right on the point about working with the Dems more than the ‘populist right.’ Basically, i agree with 90 percent of what Nathan wrote, but i just dont agree with his final specific narrow conclusion — I dont think the show The Rising is harming the Left. I dont think we can know whether it is, or isn’t. Especially in the long term. For example it might lead to Krystal being in the Senate someday. It might lead to lots of young people becoming leftist activists and leftist candidates down the road.
    Etc. We cant know what ripples the show may make.

    The real problem to ‘me’ is not The Rising. The real problem is there are so few places real leftism is being promoted in an interesting and entertaining way in the media. How many talking heads do we have out there who are as good as Krystal Ball? Do you think old geezers like Noam or Richard Wolfe can do what Krystal Ball can?

    I know Sagaar is the enemy. I dont listen to him 🙂

    w
    v

    #117217
    wv
    Participant

    PS — just an aside — …it took me a while to kinda figure the show out. For the longest time I just assumed Sagaar was a leftist like Krystal. My youtube feeds almost always just had Krystal Ball talking and Sagaar just sitting there. And I’ve never seen a vid where they ‘debate.’ So, i just assumed for the longest time he was agreeing with everything she was saying. I ‘still’ dont know much about what kind of Trumpie he is. I just never paid much attention to him.

    w
    v

    #117219
    Zooey
    Participant

    PS — just an aside — …it took me a while to kinda figure the show out. For the longest time I just assumed Sagaar was a leftist like Krystal. My youtube feeds almost always just had Krystal Ball talking and Sagaar just sitting there. And I’ve never seen a vid where they ‘debate.’ So, i just assumed for the longest time he was agreeing with everything she was saying. I ‘still’ dont know much about what kind of Trumpie he is. I just never paid much attention to him.

    w
    v

    That fooled me for a while, too. He’s a not really a Trumpie, as far as I can tell. He’s a right wing populist, so he “gets” the Trump appeal, but he isn’t in it for the racism. He was in it, I think, for “drain the swamp” and “NAFTA sucks.” He is conservative economically. Kinda sides with Law and Order. Lower taxes. But is not pro-corporate dominance and government unaccountability and spying on people and stuff. I think.

    #117223
    wv
    Participant

    <
    That fooled me for a while, too. He’s a not really a Trumpie, as far as I can tell. He’s a right wing populist, so he “gets” the Trump appeal, but he isn’t in it for the racism. He was in it, I think, for “drain the swamp” and “NAFTA sucks.” He is conservative economically. Kinda sides with Law and Order. Lower taxes. But is not pro-corporate dominance and government unaccountability and spying on people and stuff. I think.

    ==============

    The other day, I heard him say something, where the gist of it was “Trump doesnt have professionals around him who will do what Trump really wants to do.”
    He was basically saying its not Trumps fault, he is under the spell of the corporatists around him. (Reminded me of an enabling parent who sez “My kid is a good kid, he just hangs out with the wrong crowd and they lead him astray”)

    Uh huh.

    w
    v

    #117261
    Cal
    Participant

    Robinson isn’t talking about Trump voters, when he talks about the supposed “populist right,” and he doesn’t try to “define” those voters. He’s talking about those in power, which includes Trump, and the fraud they consistently perpetrate on those voters. Compare, for instance, Trump’s deeds to his rhetoric and the fraud is beyond obvious. Compare his deeds to virtually any president in the last 100 years (or more), and no one comes close to his deadly and destructive actions, or his lies.

    No–Robinson starts by talking about the voters & Ball and Enjeti’s attempt to talk to these voters. Take a look at the beginning of the article:

    There is a populist movement, they [Ball & Enjeti] write, as seen in “working class uprisings across the globe, from Donald Trump’s election [to] Bernie Sanders’ campaign.”

    Reading the book, I found the idea of “left populism” and “right populism” being a unified “working class politics” to be deeply troubling. After all, once you get past abstractions like “families are the future,” what is “right” populism? Who are the right-wing populists? Well, they tend to be authoritarian nationalists who say the word “workers” a lot but are actually deeply xenophobic and militaristic. Are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders part of the same movement?

    Robinson, then shifts to Tucker, Trump, and Hawley to dismiss the idea of trying to talk to the populist Right voters so that the US moves away from corporate Dem & Rep positions.

    Robinson’s assertion seems to be that Tucker & Trump are representatives these voters have specifically chosen and look how terrible those two are. There can never be any significant work done between Bernie voters and the Trump voters because those voters have chosen repulsive leaders to represent them.

    Robinson is probably right–It’s hard to see our leaders in DC start working for actually smart and good policies because voters have almost zero ability to choose capable leaders.

    But, the failure is also a failure of the press. I find Robinson’s argument more “sound and fury” than anything insightful and helpful. If you want to talk about right wing populism and say anything interesting in 2020, you should at least use Thomas Frank who has written about this stuff, for what, 20 years?

    Part of the failure to move toward better policies is the Left’s failure. Bernie has failed to talk effectively to anyone outside his own camp. A year ago, Bernie did a Fox Town Hall and ended up advocating for the right to vote for people in jail.

    Think about that, the leader of the Left goes on Fox and advocates a fringe position that regular Fox News Americans will laugh at and just dismiss. Going on Fox to talk sense to those voters is a good idea, but you have to sell your ideas and make appealing arguments.

    Another example, remember Bernie’s appearance on 60 Minutes when he ended up defending his interest in Cuban communism by praising Cuban literacy? That was a super easy question to respond to. Bernie flat out failed.

    Of course, most of the responsibility for our current situation belongs to the people who watch Fox and continue to vote for republicans. Robinson is right to be annoyed by Ball’s attempt to talk to these voters. But where will be if these people don’t come to their senses?

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by Cal.
    #117265
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Cal,

    We just see this differently. Even the quote you posted strikes me as a direct focus on “right-populist” leaders, those in power, not the average Joe or Jane. The context of his writings furthers that interpretation, because he keeps emphasizing how the movement is a fraud BECAUSE of how those leaders screw over their own base. In no place do I read him advocating for any kind of shunning or ignoring everyday folk. He’s even in favor of direct debate with those leaders. His thing is that it’s absurd to think we need those leaders or should try to form coalitions with right-wingers in power.

    In power is the key here for Robinson and most leftists, including me.

    Also, Sanders isn’t “the leader of the left.” He’s the lone independent lefty in DC. But I think it’s safe to say most leftists — again, including me — don’t see him as pushing nearly far enough for radical egalitarian and inclusive change.

    As to Cuba. His points were valid, though it will go on deaf ears, given the absurd amount of demonizing Americans have received about that tiny little island we’ve crucified for generations. They actually do have superior programs in some areas, like health care and some educational programs. The United States doesn’t have to — nor should it — embrace the Castro regime in order to learn from things they do better than we do . . . and that can be said for nations all over the world. This or that area, issue, method, strategy, etc. Again, we don’t have to embrace any sort of wholesale ideology from others, but we can take best practices from other parts of the world when they do better on this or that than we do. And, frankly, especially from the 1970s on, there is very, very little we do better than the rest of the world, beyond starting wars, generating more and more inequality, and destroy the environment. We have a ton to learn from others all over the globe.

    #117289
    wv
    Participant

    Part of the failure to move toward better policies is the Left’s failure. Bernie has failed to talk effectively to anyone outside his own camp. A year ago, Bernie did a Fox Town Hall and ended up advocating for the right to vote for people in jail.

    Think about that, the leader of the Left goes on Fox and advocates a fringe position that regular Fox News Americans will laugh at and just dismiss. Going on Fox to talk sense to those voters is a good idea, but you have to sell your ideas and make appealing arguments.

    Another example, remember Bernie’s appearance on 60 Minutes when he ended up defending his interest in Cuban communism by praising Cuban literacy? That was a super easy question to respond to. Bernie flat out failed.

    ================

    Thats been a common criticism of Bernie (Saagar and Krystal both stated that as well)

    I disagree though. I think Bernie’s Ads were brilliant. I think he ran a brilliant campaign. And he had some amazing african-american talent on his team, out front. He stayed on message, and pounded away at simple, important policies.

    I dont think it was Bernie’s failure at all. I think he did great, for a Leftist running for Prez.

    I blame the Nation, not Bernie. The system has dummed down the Right, and dummed down the middle and dummed down the fake-left.

    I think Bernie actually exceeded expectations.

    I dont blame Bernie for the voters being idiots. 🙂

    w
    v

    #117580
    wv
    Participant

    #117823
    wv
    Participant

    #117857
    wv
    Participant

    Populist Right article.

    “New Right” Leaders Are Co-opting Progressive Language to Mislead Voters
    link:https://truthout.org/articles/new-right-leaders-are-co-opting-progressive-language-to-mislead-voters/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=8b631f41-8133-4021-bde4-54bef5e2436c

    “…..At least a handful of journalists and progressive commentators have taken this anti-elitist posturing quite seriously. However, in reality, it is grossly misleading. Far from pioneering a democratic political transformation — or, really, any political transformation — the leaders of the “new populist right” are refurbishing the very conservative and elite order they claim to oppose.

    The elitism of this group — who I will, for brevity’s sake, simply call the new right — can be easy to miss. In addition to opposing the empowerment of financiers, they frequently imitate the rhetoric of well-known progressive leaders, including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Media figures like Tucker Carlson and Saagar Enjeti speak in sweeping and often vitriolic terms about “the exploitation of Americans” and “neoliberals in Washington.” Even the faction’s most mainstream members engage in this imitation. For example, in a speech touted by new right intellectuals, Sen. Marco Rubio spoke eloquently about American capitalism’s betrayal of the “common good” and business’s “obligations” toward workers.

    Yet, if you push beyond the rhetoric and focus on what the new right actually proposes, the truth becomes clear: their agenda is, at its core, mostly a revamped version of the one that has dominated conservative politics for the last 40 years. The cultural or social side of this agenda is, of course, by their own admission, similar to what the mainstream right has long embraced. If anything, it is perhaps more extreme. Many of them, for instance, support further tightening already conservative and draconian immigration controls and eliminating almost all abortion rights.

    More to the point, even the new right’s apparently unorthodox and progressive-leaning economic agenda is broadly similar to that of mainstream conservatives. For example, they typically oppose universal entitlements like Medicare for All and favor creating a welfare state centered on tax credits and work promotion — a standard conservative position. In addition, their support for the labor movement is tepid at best; and, in many cases, they have opposed it, campaigning for right-to-work legislation and contesting increases to the minimum wage. Their one major difference with mainstream conservatives is, of course, that they advocate redistributing wealth away from affluent financiers and toward domestic industrial expansion. They go to significant lengths to construe this stance as proof of their greater allegiance to workers. Yet, in the absence of support for universal entitlements and a strong labor movement, all it really indicates is their greater allegiance to American industrial, rather than financial, economic elites.

    Lacking any truly groundbreaking positions, the new right’s revamped conservatism has no more capacity to transform and democratize U.S. politics than the “free market” conservatism they criticize. For starters, as others have already pointed out, their claim to respect the values of the “American middle” is laughable. By any reasonable measure, their cultural stances disregard most Americans’ core beliefs in favor of propping up a fringe minority. Record-high majorities support many of the ideals and policies they oppose, including abortion rights, the legalization of marijuana, legal immigration and affirmative action. In contrast, only a radical few back the positions advocated by leaders on the new right, such as banning abortion or reducing legal immigration.

    Furthermore, contrary to their proclamations….see link…

    #117863
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Populist Right article.

    “New Right” Leaders Are Co-opting Progressive Language to Mislead Voters

    Good article, WV.

    To beat a dead horse, I’m just baffled that any lefty pundit ever fell for this bullshit. How many times does Lucy have to pull the football away from Charlie Brown before folks learn?

    The right has rebranded itself a thousand times through the centuries, and its core beliefs, agenda, methods, goals stay intact. It has to rebrand, cuz folks eventually wake up to its odious con. Then it puts on new clothes, gaslights the populace again, is eventually found out, and rebrands again.

    Its ferocious opposition to egalitarian, democratic societies never changes. A tad bit around the edges? Yeah. New clothes for the wolves? Yeah. But nothing important is ever altered, and it mostly just gets worse.

    Words are wind. Deeds are what matter. The right can’t point to any deeds, ever, not evah, that have improved quality of life for the masses. Quite the opposite. And they’re actually aggressively proud to be anti-science, anti-environment, anti-democracy, etc. etc.

    Groundhog day. We need to stop this shit.

    #117865
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Am in the middle of a good book on the Inquisition, God’s Jury, by Cullen Murphy.

    Follow its story and you’re following “the right.” Same as it ever was.

    ____

    If I can be GM of “the left” for a moment, this is what I’d do:

    Oppose the entire right, without exception, with the highest sense of urgency, courage and intensity. Do whatever we can, legally, non-violently, to unseat them from all levers of power. Do that first. Then go after “the center.”

    To me, it’s a huge mistake to attack “the center” first, and it’s absolutely insane, IMO, to seek some coalition with the right to make those attacks. This only strengthens the right, and they’re never going to share power. Not gonna happen.

    Legally, non-violently wipe out the right, and we transform “the center” into the new conservatives. Then we focus our opposition on them. That’s what I’d do if I were the leftist Les Snead.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by Billy_T.
Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 42 (of 42 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.