On another Rams board that will go nameless, more than a few right-wing wackos have been all too busy demonizing Fauci, trying to turn him into the devil. When this kind of thing gets a big enough audience, it tends to lead to death threats. They should be deeply ashamed of themselves and stop it.

Aside from being right on the issue, pretty much from the start, Fauci actually has no power to implement policy. None. So it’s insane that people are blaming him for anything. He can’t take away the football season, even if he wanted to.

All he can do is advise. That’s it. He has zero control over national, local or state policy. Zero.

Anyway, the above article goes into detail of all kinds of cases where health officials and their families have been run out of their jobs and threatened with death. Trump could put a stop to this instantly. Instead, he’s actually egging it on.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

wv wrote:

I was thinking about Cigarettes. Cigs kill what, half a million Americans. But the Gov can make laws about ‘where’ you can smoke.

I guess the mask-thing is a bit like that. You are free to not-wear-a-mask in your home, etc, but when it will affect others, its different.

Obviously, the folks that have a deep distrust of the system, are worried that this is a slippery slope, and the Gov is coming to get their guns and blah blah.
So much fear. If we’d actually ‘had’ a more honest Gov all these years, people might not be so distrustful nowadays. Ah well.

w
v

Cigarettes — that’s an excellent example. Cuz they kill roughly 400K smokers in America a year, and 40K non-smokers. It’s not just a matter of “Well, I’m going to do what I want with my body,” which I’m fine with. Cigarettes literally kill those around the smoker. If memory serves, the cigarette sitting in the ash tray, burning down, is even more lethal to people in that room than direct intake.

Worldwide, they kill several million, and we exported that death, for profit!! Capitalism did that. Capitalism kills, directly and indirectly, millions and millions of human beings each and every year.

Anyway . . . I bumped into this article today, and it makes me want to weep, and it makes me want to beat the shit out of the people threatening health officials. Both. This country is sick well beyond Covid-19.

Amid threats and political pushback, public health officials are leaving their posts

Oh, man!! Thanks for that video, WV!!

:>)

That’s the beginning for my Ram fandom. Though I think I actually started rooting for them 1966/1967. But the 1967 season sealed the deal, if memory serves.

I also remember playing Strato-matic football with my brother, and I had Willie Ellison on my team. He was big and extremely fast. I think he ran a 9.5 100 yard dash. Can’t remember what happened to his career, exactly, but I think injuries ruined it.

And, yeah. Old Billy Truax, paired with Bob Klein often. Great, great days for the Rams, but something — something just kept them a yard or two short.

As for your questions about why some people pick the GOP. I don’t really know. But, as mentioned in other threads, I think they just have a knack for symbolism, sentimental attachments, trigger words and images, and find “personalities” a hell of lot more easily than the wonky-azz Dems.

A big chunk of America has always been in the anti-intellectual camp, and the GOP knows how to work that strain. They know how to create Us versus Them scenarios at the drop of a hat, too, and that distracts attention from the screwing (of the 99%) both parties do habitually, but that the GOP does far, far more aggressively.

Too complicated to boil down in one post, of course, and you know I’m terrible at “brevity,” but that’s the old college try.

As always, would appreciate your own take as well.

Quick bit of input on the question of what being a leftist means. It’s a wildly diverse bunch, so folks differ. But for me the essentials are radical opposition to inequality, tenacious support for true democracy, which must include the economy, and protecting the environment.

I think it’s safe to say all leftists are egalitarians, to one degree or another — though some might argue with me on that. We may have different visions of how to get there, but I think we all seek an egalitarian society. For me, this rules out the continued existence of capitalism as our economic form. I think it, by nature, design and goals, is in direct conflict with egalitarian structures, methods and results.

It’s complicated, of course. Tons more to it than that. But if I have to keep things short and sweet, I think the above is a good start.

WV,

Looks like a change in plan. Thread consolidation seems nearly impossible at this point. So I’m just gonna leave my thread where it is.

If you want to, however, it might make some sense to add new videos to one of your older threads . . . so we can have a running discussion about The Rising . . . Just a suggestion. Obviously, it goes without saying it’s up to you.

And it doesn’t have to only be The Rising vs. Robinson, though that’s what interests me, personally, the most. Maybe just a collection of their videos???

. . .

Anyway, can’t remember if it was here or in another post, but I think you implied that if the The Rising goes, we lose Ball’s progressive voice. I likely misread you, but I don’t think we need to limit our choices to a coalition of “left populists and right populists” in order for progressive voices to be heard. I’d much rather Ball have her own show, stop working for Trump’s personal friend and supporter, Finkelstein, and end her attempts to form coalitions with what I see as our mortal enemies.

You know the right despises us, and that includes “right-populists.” It’s difficult for them to go more than a day without demonizing leftists. Trump did so at his rally last night, dangerously. It’s already gotten lefties (literally) killed and it will continue to do so. Right-populists are existential threats to all of us, IMO, and the planet.

Again, just my view: But I’d much rather see leftists devote our time and energy in the fight against both the center and the right. It makes zero sense to me to align with the right — any part of it — to go after the center. Not only on ethical, moral, human/civil rights, policy, environmental or economic grounds . . . but because once in power, the right — any part of it — would betray us in a nanosecond.

Hope all is well.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Billy_T.

WV,

What’s your take on the interview?

Quick impressions from me? I had to laugh when Carlson said “No one is talking about that.” No one on the right, maybe. But it’s long been standard fare for left of center economists and social critique. Krugman and Stiglitz, for example. Adjusted, of course, for the various new obstacles facing the young across the generations, and those never end. Marxians have been shouting this stuff from the rooftops even longer. Again, adjusted for each new wave of obstacles . . . and they go deeper from there and zoom out far more.

That’s the norm. Again, where has Carlson been?

Also: Carlson wants his audience to be frightened to death by the specter of “socialism,” and he desperately wants his audience to think “socialism” can only mean Stalinism. He’s also been at the forefront of trying to paint “antifa” as an existential threat to the nation.

Along with his constant racism, deep xenophobia and endless lies . . . um, well, I find his character and his show to be beyond repulsive.

“Tell us what you really think, Billy_T,” you might ask (hoping I’ll stop).

;>)

Again, am interested in your own take.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Billy_T.

Another factor, tied into sales, marketing and “connecting.”

Symbols that trigger those connections. Tapping into sentimental attachments, especially to a “golden age” that never was. Flags, anthems, NASCAR, Wraslin’. Etc. etc. Sentimental triggers. Reducing fears of the present and future via references to the past — again, a past that never was, but is thought to have existed.

Right-wingers are masters at this, all around the globe. They draw voters in via that, distract them to no end, wind them up so they don’t see how they’re being screwed even more by the right-wingers than they ever were by the centrists.

And, of course, it often gets very, very dark. Whipping up hatred toward minorities, especially black and brown people, and women. We leftists can never go that route, not ever, and we won’t, and we should never align with those who do. But we can find other symbols, other points of connection, to draw in voters, and we can find people who have “it.”

That’s how we win.

Zooey wrote:

wv wrote:

Cool.

I prettymuch disagree with most of that. And i submit, the evidence is not just Bernie vs Biden. Thats just one example among hundreds. For starters there’s Bernie vs 99 Senators. These radical-progressive-anarchist-antifa-lead uprisers voted over and over and over for Corporate-Dem-Senators and Corporate-Rep-Senators.
Over and over and over. Its not just about Trump or voting for people that might beat Trump, etc.

If this country really had a large segment of progressive, informed, critical thinkers there would be evidence in the Senate. There aint.

Wanna look at the House of Rep? Whats ‘that’ look like. A smattering of progressives here and there.

So, no, I aint buying it. I think the bewildered herd will be baffled and confused and entertained and self-absorbed again, in a few weeks. And the very small number of committed critical-thinkers will be bashing on, relentlessly, as per usual.

w
v

But this is kind of tricky because people don’t vote for candidates who represent their policy opinions. (And there aren’t many progressives to vote for, and where they do appear on the ballot, the big money machine backs their opponent).

There is a disconnect between the things people want the government to do, and the people for whom they vote. People, as you well know, vote on slogans or whatever. They vote on gut feelings. Or name recognition.

People, by an overwhelming majority, want universal health care. And better pay. And a clean environment. And so on. Why they don’t vote for candidates who will work for those policies is a separate, baffling question. But we have a general idea of why.

So we have all those MAGAs who hate the government because they’ve been screwed, and they vote for a guy who is going to screw them even more, and they love him. There is a disconnect.

But the dissatisfaction is real. Even if people aren’t clear on the “underlying systemic-problem.”

What people need is a more convincing version of Bernie Sanders to lead the way. We need someone bold. Someone who could tell those crowds of people to go on strike. They would do it. And they would win. We’re “this” close to forcing real concessions out of the owners. I think this IS different. But I also think it won’t go anywhere unless somebody harnesses it. And right now, the only person who can is Sanders, and he long ago decided he wouldn’t.

I agree, Zooey. People don’t vote for policies, unfortunately. They vote for “charisma,” at least as perceived. They vote for the people they feel most connected to, for whatever reason.

And this works both ways. It’s why mainstream Dems have always been wrong to believe that “progressives can’t win cuz their policies are too extreme for America.” It goes without saying our policies aren’t “extreme.” But the real point is, again, voters don’t vote on policies anyway. They vote personalities. So . . . as you mentioned . . . find the right people to push a progressive or leftist agenda, and they’ll win.

Sanders really isn’t that guy — nor is Biden, of course. He has some of that “thing” needed. But not enough. And, sad to say it’s a factor, but it is. He’s too old. As is Biden.

And, of course, the disconnect isn’t just before the event. It’s there for a reelections too. It’s there for incumbents.

Trump has done everything in the world for corporate America and the super-rich, and not one damn thing for his “forgotten Americans.” He slashed taxes for himself, his family, the rich and corporations, stacked his cabinet with the most billionaires in American history, and tried to install even more that were denied confirmation. He’s gutted regulations on business, corporations, Finance, made it a hell of a lot easier to screw workers in the workplace and pollute our environment. And his bailouts couldn’t be more lopsided in favor of the super-rich.

His deeds shout out “corporate-lovin’, self-dealin’ sellout,” but his fans don’t see it, and they don’t see this is the pattern across the world for every “right-populist.”

IMO, yes, America would vote for actual leftists if they have the “it” factor, and at least nominal support from a party’s machinery. They routinely vote in right-wingers who aggressively screw them over. To me, it makes zero sense that they’d do that and not vote for people who truly work to improve their quality of life — unlike anyone on the political right.

From Robinson’s piece:

It’s a bad idea to listen to right-wingers who claim to be on the side of “the people.” Usually it turns out they want to crush the people by force. Nathan J. Robinson

All of which is to say: Right-wing populism seems like a terrible ideology that needs to be rejected. I disagree with nearly everything these people believe in. The kind of world they believe in is not one I wish to inhabit. They are in favor of reactionary cultural traditions, militarized borders, bigotry, and rabid nationalism. I am a leftist, meaning that I favor free movement of people and multiculturalism. I am anti-nationalist and anti-militarist. Donald Trump’s ideology seems to me to be monstrous.

I find it peculiar, then, to hear “right populism” and “left populism” discussed as part of the same tendency. Usually when this is done, it is by centrists, who subscribe to the “horseshoe theory” that fascism and socialism have a lot in common. (The idea is that the political spectrum, instead of a line, is horseshoe-shaped, meaning that the ends come together.) This is what led the Center for American Progress and the American Enterprise Institute (a “progressive” and “free market” think tank, respectively) to collaborate on a project about combating “authoritarian populism” from both the “right and left.” Their idea is that Donald Trump, Hugo Chavez, Bernie Sanders, Jair Bolsonaro, etc. can all be understood as part of the same tendency, because they all seek to overthrow “elites” and “the establishment” in the name of “the people” and use the power of the state to create justice.

But this idea is fundamentally wrong, because it fails to acknowledge the massive difference between the Left and the Right, namely that the Right’s brand of populism is a complete and utter swindle that involves scapegoating foreigners for social problems, while left “populism” is generally anti-racist and egalitarian. Right-wing populists do not actually care about “the people”; Trump and Bolsonaro may have pitched themselves as crusaders against “elites,” but neither actually cares about helping anyone but their wealthy cronies. Both want to privatize public assets, which in practice means simply giving away the people’s collective wealth to oligarchs. Both of them have been utterly indifferent to the socially unequal consequences of coronavirus, and both are accelerating their country’s contributions to the climate crisis, which will cause “the people” incredible suffering. Neither has any interest in deepening democracy; their ideal societies are characterized by massive wealth inequality. They are about as “populist” as the Nazis were “socialist,” meaning that it is a convenient label that makes them sound like something they aren’t.

WV,

Is this Round Two, or have I missed any?

;>)

After watching/reading this one, I give it again to Robinson. On points, if not a TKO.

To me, Ball went cheap-shot with the “comparing everyone on the right to Hitler,” which Robinson didn’t do . . . and the “ideological purity” dig, which is what I hear from Dems when I argue for leftist solutions/ideas. Either that or “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” or some such obnoxious variation. She should know better, cuz she’s probably been on the other side of that canard.

I completely agree with Robinson that there is no such thing as “right-populism.” Have always seen that as a classic oxymoron. It just goes against everything they say they stand for. They don’t want proactive, collective action for the greater good, at least not via the public sector, and since they love capitalism, which means they want “competition,” they don’t want it in the private sector, either. Every man for themselves, etc.

For centuries, they’ve supported elites and neck-breaking hierarchies as righteous, God-given or based entirely on “merit.” It’s the “natural order of things” for them. If someone is for taking direct action for the greater good, they’re not a righty. Righties honestly believe this is done via the capitalist system itself — again, “naturally.”

I’m also puzzled by the insistence that we leftists supposedly need to form coalitions with anyone on the right. Why? They’re what we oppose, and always have opposed.

Plus, we’re small. The populist right is small, too, but powerful. It has the backing of billionaires, and the often secret backing of all kinds of corporations. So if we were ever stupid enough to help them gain power, they’d betray us in a nanosecond, with backing, and we’d be worse off than ever before. We’d be helping a Wilders, a Bolsonaro, a Trump gain control, and they’d laugh at us and call us “antifa” and we’d never see the light of day again.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Billy_T.