We are the Resistance #2

[clairecloutier]

Carry on ...

 

[Cachoo]

I think McConnell totally knew what he was doing. The rules have changed and we liberals haven't accepted it yet. McConnell made Warren look weak. All the bleating we do in the media isn't going to remediate that. Tearing someone down in the media - like liberals are doing to McConnell - is a play under the old rule book. In the current rule book, strength is important.

I think Warren is done. That move finished her as a Democrat party leader.

I think she is just getting started. When McConnell scolded her and then did not follow suit with the men who read the letter he looked so sexist and so foolish and so prejudiced. So Donald thinks he can beat her in 2020. I don't know if she will be the candidate but I do know one thing: When it comes to Donald she does not back down. We saw a whole slate of Republican candidates and Hillary who did not attack the way Elizabeth did. I would suggest, she, more than any other candidates really got under Donald's skin. Who knows who will emerge for the nomination? I don't but I think the Republicans looked weak because they had to find some arcane, rarely used rule to try and shut Elizabeth down and they failed and looked foolish for the attempt. Go Elizabeth.

 

[MacMadame]

@MacMadame So voters do in fact care about how the U.S. will operate on the world stage and about things beyond what affects them personally?? You're talking about the electorate that just elected Donald Trump!

You say that like all votes are exactly the same and all voted for the same reason. Plus, your arguments assume that the majority of the country agrees with Trump somehow even though he lost the popular vote, won the EC by an extremely small margin, and had help from both Comey and Russia.

So... yes, some voters care about how the US looks on the world stage. In fact, some Trump voters tried to convince me that the world thought Obama was weak and didn't respect him and that they'd respect Trump. (I wonder what they think of all the political commentary and cartoons from outside the US depicting him as an utter moron?) So, yes, this is important to at least some voters.

As for the rest of it, I agree that the right has done an excellent job of framing arguments and under-cutting large portions of the population that doesn't agree with them so that their voice is completely discounted in any discussion. Therefore, I think it's extremely important that we don't buy into that narrative ourselves but come up with our own that resonates with people.

Telling people who mostly agree with you that they are the liberal elite and it's all their fault that Trump is in office is neither true nor helpful.

 

[clairecloutier]

Telling people who mostly agree with you that they are the liberal elite and it's all their fault that Trump is in office is neither true nor helpful.

You're mischaracterizing what I said. In any case, I don't really want to, and shouldn't, get into arguments with other Democrats. But OTOH, I do believe that the party's only hope of success lies in rejecting the technocratic, neoliberal, Davos-class philosophical approach that has driven the party over the last 25 years. So I guess I will continue arguing that.

 

[topaz]

Recent article from the Intercept..https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09...cute-vicious-executive-order-on-deportations/

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PREPARES TO EXECUTE “VICIOUS” EXECUTIVE ORDER ON DEPORTATIONS

As the world’s attention was occupied with the chaotic implementation of the travel ban and its dramatic domestic and international impacts, the Trump administration and the Department of Homeland Security has quietly moved forward with elements of the earlier executive orders, according to internal communications obtained by The Intercept.

Trumps orders on border security and public safety in the interior of the U.S. resurrect some of the most controversial immigration enforcement programs of recent years, seek to deputize state and local law enforcement as immigration officials across the country, and threaten major cuts to federal funding for cities that fail to fall in line with the administration’s vision.

Trump has called for the construction of new immigrant detention facilities along the U.S. border with Mexico — including through private contracts — as quickly as possible. Trump has also directed DHS to “allocate all legally available resources to immediately assign asylum officers to immigration detention facilities” for the purpose of conducting so-called credible fear hearings for asylum seekers. According to internal DHS communications obtained by The Intercept, this latter step is already underway.

I am enjoying the fact that folks are "leaking" internal documents.

It always comes back to privatization, cronyism and exploitation for the GOP and top 1%. They're going to take money allocated for other programs and move the money to their buddies in the private sector.

 

[jeffisjeff]

You're mischaracterizing what I said. In any case, I don't really want to, and shouldn't, get into arguments with other Democrats. But OTOH, I do believe that the party's only hope of success lies in rejecting the technocratic, neoliberal, Davos-class philosophical approach that has driven the party over the last 25 years. So I guess I will continue arguing that.

You use the same words to criticize the Democrats that Steve Bannon uses.

“The middle class, the working men and women in the world . . . are just tired of being dictated to by what we call the party of Davos,” Bannon said in a 2014 speech to a conference at the Vatican in a recording obtained by BuzzFeed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.4c343ee87e04

Bannon’s readings tend to have one thing in common: the view that technocrats have put Western civilization on a downward trajectory and that only a shock to the system can reverse its decline. And they tend to have a dark, apocalyptic tone that at times echoes Bannon’s own public remarks over the years—a sense that humanity is at a hinge point in history. His ascendant presence in the West Wing is giving once-obscure intellectuals unexpected influence over the highest echelons of government.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/steve-bannon-books-reading-list-214745

“The central thing that binds [the revolt] all together is a center-right populist movement of really the middle class, the working men and women in the world who are just tired of being dictated to by what we call the party of Davos,” said Bannon, referring to to the Swiss town where the World Economic Forum holds annual gatherings. “A group of … people in New York that feel closer to people in London and in Berlin than they do to people in Kansas and in Colorado, and they have more of this elite mentality that they’re going to dictate to everybody how the world’s going to be run.”

https://thinkprogress.org/the-cente...is-filling-the-vacuum-beb0611dfe94#.cupooy2j0

 

[BlueRidge]

Too many liberals and progressives are thinking within the framing created by the right wing.

If you go back a few years to when Occupy Wall Street blew through, the language it was using was the 1% and the 99%. It was a unifying message. It didn't divide the 99% into cosmopolitans, technocrats, urbanites, intellectuals and elites (or a conflation of all of these) vs working people. That's the rightwing frame that divides people and sets them against one another in ways the right can exploit.

 

[clairecloutier]

@jeffisjeff I guess I'm supposed to be insulted at being compared to Bannon. Just because we may see some of the same trends doesn't mean we reach the same conclusion. LOL.

 

[topaz]

BTW, the words used by @clairecloutier are not necessarily "right wing" framing of semantics to demean progressives. The word technocrats in regards to technocracy which was used way before the modern day conservative/right wing movement. At least about 100 years ago.

Now if Claire had used words like "libtard", "snowflake", "bleeding heart" or "regressive left" or my personal favorite "cucks" ; these would be examples of right wing semantic words. lol

I know I first heard of "Davos" about same time of the Occupy Movement. At first, being a ignorant midwesterner I did not know where Davos was.

 

[snoopy]

I think cucks is used for mainstream republicans.

There are enough working class people who say mainstream politicians don't speak for them that there must be something to it outside of republican talking points. But despite months of hearing it, I am not all that sure what they want. There is kicking out brown people on the right and raising minimum wage on the left. But both of those things seem like band aids at best.

NPR had a story on last night about working class Russians and why they stood by Putin - they wanted to be respected, even if that meant financial hardship. Maybe there is some element of that here too.

 

[topaz]

I think cucks is used for mainstream republicans.

NPR had a story on last night about working class Russians and why they stood by Putin - they wanted to be respected, even if that meant financial hardship. Maybe there is some element of that here too.

I've read articles that use the word cucks to describe anyone the white supremacist movement deems who has been emasculated, i.e liberals.

 

[BittyBug]

It always comes back to privatization, cronyism and exploitation for the GOP and top 1%. They're going to take money allocated for other programs and move the money to their buddies in the private sector.

Yup. They are trying to set up a complete corporate takeover of our country.

 

[jeffisjeff]

@jeffisjeff I guess I'm supposed to be insulted at being compared to Bannon. Just because we may see some of the same trends doesn't mean we reach the same conclusion. LOL.

I never said anything about the conclusions you reach. And, my goal was not to insult. If I wanted to insult, I could use name-calling. Instead, I have just been trying to point out that this repeated name-calling (liberal elites, Davos-class, etc.) is not helpful because these names reinforce stereotypes promoted by the right-wing, of which Bannon is just one example, and are divisive.

 

[manhn]

Vash, I noticed that your favourite chocolates are from See's. Just FYI, they apparently advertise during The Apprentice. Not saying to ban or not, that depends on people's own parameters. For myself, I figure me not watching the show will cause sponsors to leave. And I still watch other nbc shows, like This is Us.

I know, it sucks to hear! As a Canadian, I don't get See's but my cousin always buys me and my dad the chocolate suckers. OMG, love.

 

[aftershocks]

On inauguration day, actress Meghan Markle offered on her blog, TheTig.com, some inspirational quotes by women leaders.

Quotes to live by: http://thetig.com/quotes-to-live-by/

Excerpts:
"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any."
-- Alice Walker

"You may not always have a comfortable life, and you will not always be able to solve all of the world's problems at once, but don't underestimate the importance you can have because history has shown us that courage can be contagious, and hope can take on a life of its own."
-- Michelle Obama

"When we speak we are afraid that our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak."
-- Audre Lorde

 

[dr.frog]

Big, loud, hostile turnout at Jason Chaffetz's town hall in Utah:

http://www.vox.com/2017/2/9/1457239...nt=entry&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
http://www.sltrib.com/news/4896676-155/crowded-chaffetz-town-hall-meeting-gets-underway

Search twitter for #ChaffetzTownHall for more video clips.

Meanwhile, Jerry Nadler from NY has started the process for an impeachment investigation in the House by filing a motion to ask the Department of Justice (and specifically the FBI, I guess) to hand over any relevant information about Trump's finances, dealings with Russia, etc.

http://nadler.house.gov/sites/nadler.house.gov/files/documents/Nadler - Resolution of Inquiry.pdf

It sounds like he is trying to force this to a floor vote so that Republicans who vote against it will have to justify to their constituents why they are trying to squelch investigation. To me it seems rather unlikely to be approved unless Trump does something crazy (well, 10x crazier than usual) before it comes up for a vote, or somebody else finds the smoking gun.

 

[BlueRidge]

I never said anything about the conclusions you reach. And, my goal was not to insult. If I wanted to insult, I could use name-calling. Instead, I have just been trying to point out that this repeated name-calling (liberal elites, Davos-class, etc.) is not helpful because these names reinforce stereotypes promoted by the right-wing, of which Bannon is just one example, and are divisive.

Yes to this, but more. My point is that people are talking from within the framing that got us here in the first place. Now, we could win some battles doing that but if we're going to get somewhere in the long-term and do more than constantly battle back and forth between left and right, its going to require abandoning the old framing that has served the right so well.

No one has figured this out yet and I don't think its something that happens by implementing a strategy. Its more organic.

Right now I feel like what we are seeing at least superficially is just a hardening of divisions. I have no idea how we get beyond this.

 

[jeffisjeff]

Yes to this, but more. My point is that people are talking from within the framing that got us here in the first place. Now, we could win some battles doing that but if we're going to get somewhere in the long-term and do more than constantly battle back and forth between left and right, its going to require abandoning the old framing that has served the right so well.

No one has figured this out yet and I don't think its something that happens by implementing a strategy. Its more organic.

Right now I feel like what we are seeing at least superficially is just a hardening of divisions. I have no idea how we get beyond this.

Well, you are a better person than me. I am not so interested (at the moment) in bridging the divide between left and right. I'd just prefer that the left focus their energies on stopping Trump, and less on fighting each other. If people see stuff wrong with the Democratic party (and I am sure there is plenty), and want to fix it, that is great. But can't we do that with using names and framing that the right wingers like to throw around?

I know some believe that the election results signal that the Democratic party has it ALL WRONG. I am not one of those. I see the victory in the popular vote as a hopeful sign. That is not to say there isn't stuff wrong with the party; sure there is. But right now, I am very scared of Trump's messaging and what it is doing to the values of this country. I'd like to see the Democrats be extremely careful not to adopt anything at all the mirrors what Trump and his people are saying.

 

[clairecloutier]

I never said anything about the conclusions you reach. And, my goal was not to insult. If I wanted to insult, I could use name-calling. Instead, I have just been trying to point out that this repeated name-calling (liberal elites, Davos-class, etc.) is not helpful because these names reinforce stereotypes promoted by the right-wing, of which Bannon is just one example, and are divisive.

I don't wish to be divisive. But the fact is, there ARE serious divisions within the Democratic party about how to move forward: the platform to run on, the message to promote. Wishing this weren't so doesn't make it go away. These mainstream press articles detail what I mean:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/10/house-democratic-retreat-baltimore-trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...c2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.b7e6c978780d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gressives-are-furious/?utm_term=.b2663985fa02

So I'm hardly the only one thinking of these issues and arguing these points. The party must decide on a message and a platform. Just being against Trump is not enough. That allows us to be defined too much in relation to Republicans, we need to stand for something on our own. I recognize there are different arguments on various sides (as these articles duly point out), however it's my own firm belief that a strong progressive platform is the best way to move forward. We have tried centrism, and it hasn't worked. It is out of touch with the times. You can avoid certain flash words if you want, which for reasons that I don't understand seem to be threatening to some people. I can certainly try to avoid that. But the central divisions/issues remain.

(As as an aside--I don't get why people are so bothered by use of terms such as "liberal elite" or "neoliberal" or whatever. Why is it so threatening/divisive to suggest issues with elitist viewpoints? I feel like I'm roughly a member of the liberal elite--college-educated, live on the coast, raised in reasonable safety/comfort, decent income, whatever. Am I upset by criticisms of the liberal elite? No. We have issues. We have not understood other people's lives. I know I haven't at times. Why is the concept of that so threatening and upsetting?? But I digress.)

Yeah I know Hillary won the popular vote and that's great, but in the larger picture, we still lost big-time. We have lost the Presidency, Senate, House, state legislatures, governorships, etc. We need a major course shift. We all have our different ideas about the best way to move forward, and that's fair. I just know where I stand, and it's unlikely to change, and I probably won't be able to stop myself from arguing for it. Man, was I dismayed by the comments from Pelosi and some of the other leadership in those articles. They don't get it--they just don't get it. I feel like they are not fully in touch with what's happening.

 

[jeffisjeff]

As I have said, I understand that many people see problems with the Democratic party, and I am sure there are problems. I am not opposed to fixing these problems, and I have never said that the Democratic party shouldn't be working on a well-defined platform or message. I am just asking why we can't do that without calling each other names that reinforce right-wing stereotypes.

I don't understand how seeing problems with the party in anyway justifies name-calling and derisive labeling of Democrats by Democrats. But if you honestly see absolutely nothing wrong with throwing around terms like liberal elite and Davos-class, and if you really think using these terms is not divisive ( ), then there isn't much point in even debating this.

(Note that I have not focused on the term neoliberal, which you've also used to label Democrats that you disagree with, because I see it as a more political science term with an objective meaning, and thus, while I am sure you meant it in a derogatory manner, it isn't in the same category as liberal elite or Davos-class, which are clearly meant as insults, and which are favored by Trump and his right-wing friends. Technocrat, which is another name you've use to label Democrats you disagree with, is another matter because it doesn't need to be a derogatory term, it can be a word with an objective meaning. However, these days in US politics, it often is used in a derogatory manner.)

 

[BlueRidge]

I feel like I'm roughly a member of the liberal elite--college-educated, live on the coast, raised in reasonable safety/comfort, decent income, whatever. Am I upset by criticisms of the liberal elite? No. We have issues. We have not understood other people's lives. I know I haven't at times.

See this is exactly the kind of framing that I don't think the left should adopt. The notion that the problem for the country is you, jeffisjeff, and me, rather than millionaires and billionaires like DeVos, Mnuchin, and Trump himself, is to me part of how we got where we are. Why did people no better off than you and me ally with the people now led by Steve Bannon? Because you and I didn't understand them and they felt disrespected? I think that's cuckoo, but its been a Fox News/Rush Limbaugh/Republican propaganda strategy for decades now (e.g. the fake War on Christmas for one lesser example).

It also frames our politics in terms of white people: you and me vs. those folks in the heartland who voted for Trump. People of color are not even considered in this frame.

I don't accept that I am part of some stereotyped "elite" that has caused us to come to this point where Trump and Bannon hold the power because I was part of a cultural force that made Trump voters sad because they felt left out.

As for neo-liberalism I agree with jeffisjeff that's a technical term, but in the context of US politics it sounds like it is blaming our problems on Democrats. Which from my experience is pretty much where the people on the left who use the term are coming from. But the language of "neoliberalism" and "Davos" and "technocrats" to me is very stale rhetoric from the Bill Clinton years and it didn't propel the left then and I just don't think it will now.

I do think that the 99%/1% rhetoric of Occupy actually did bring liberals and leftists together and resonated with a lot of less political people.

 

[clairecloutier]

^^ I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. We are just completely not understanding each other, I think.

 

[snoopy]

Eh, I think the Obama comment about clinging to guns and religion is an example of a liberal elite turning people off. I think the comment is true but it assumes people aren't authentic in their beliefs which is going to understandably piss people off. However, if we can ditch the haughtiness, I think liberal elite is a great thing to be and wouldn't run away from the term, but own it. Liberal elite implies a compassionate, educated person. I think it would be a great contrast to Trump's method of governing by hammer and gut. We can make being compassionate and educated good again!

 

[BlueRidge]

^^ I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. We are just completely not understanding each other, I think.

Well if I'm not understanding you, I hope you will explain more where you are coming from.

I don't think we need the word "elite" in our discourse. I think it is vague and doesn't point to the people with actual power who are behind the freaking mess we are in.

Obama's comment was nothing at all until it was grabbed onto and put into an already existing narrative about how "you" (even though "you" actually aren't low income and rural but you just listen to that country station and Rush Limbaugh) are so put upon by the coastal elites, who are anyone who doesn't vote Republican. I'll repeat myself until I'm blue in the face but this is the framing that the right has worked so hard to create through its propaganda organs and which elected Trump in the first place.

Ya ever met anyone rural and southern? Ya ever heard what shit they say about people who live in cities? This is a forever cultural thing. The idea that "we" are so respected and "they" are so trod upon is ridiculous. "We" are a very diverse group of people, many of whom aren't economically privileged at all. Buying into this framing is going to maintain the status quo.

 

[jeffisjeff]

Guns and religion? Really? Wasn't that, like, 2008?

 

[BlueRidge]

It seems to me there are differences in the Democratic Party among those who want a more overtly socialist policy such as single payer and college for everyone (what Bernie advocated) and those who favor more of the Obama approach. I'm not sure why policy disagreements are subsumed under messaging arguments. If the Democrats should more overtly be saying that corporations need to be reigned in and back it up with refusing to take corporate money, none of that needs language about a "liberal elite," does it? I'm not really sure what "liberal technocrats" even means but isn't the point from the left that what is needed is for the Democrats not to raise money from Wall Street and instead to be more anti-corporate?

 

[snoopy]

I think it also pertains to adopting more trade protectionist policies - thus the reference to Davos.

 

[BlueRidge]

I think it also pertains to adopting more trade protectionist policies - thus the reference to Davos.

Yes I was thinking I left that out.

And definitely those who are pro open trade, need to be able to frame that in a way that shows that we can have open trade without it being skewed by the political power of the wealthy and corporations (such as are represented at Davos) to prioritize their interests over the 99%.

 

[Vash01]

Vash, I noticed that your favourite chocolates are from See's. Just FYI, they apparently advertise during The Apprentice. Not saying to ban or not, that depends on people's own parameters. For myself, I figure me not watching the show will cause sponsors to leave. And I still watch other nbc shows, like This is Us.

I know, it sucks to hear! As a Canadian, I don't get See's but my cousin always buys me and my dad the chocolate suckers. OMG, love.

I have never watched the Apprentice, so I should be ok eating Sees Candies. LOL.

 

[jeffisjeff]

It seems to me there are differences in the Democratic Party among those who want a more overtly socialist policy such as single payer and college for everyone (what Bernie advocated) and those who favor more of the Obama approach. I'm not sure why policy disagreements are subsumed under messaging arguments. If the Democrats should more overtly be saying that corporations need to be reigned in and back it up with refusing to take corporate money, none of that needs language about a "liberal elite," does it? I'm not really sure what "liberal technocrats" even means but isn't the point from the left that what is needed is for the Democrats not to raise money from Wall Street and instead to be more anti-corporate?

Yes, this is exactly the point I was wanting to make. We can disagree about platform and policy. We can debate what Democrats should and should not do. But do we need to do so by adopting derogatory labels and names? Do we need to do so by adopting the language the right-wing is using to insult Democrats? Absolutely not.

And definitely those who are pro open trade, need to be able to frame that in a way that shows that we can have open trade without it being skewed by the political power of the wealthy and corporations (such as are represented at Davos) to prioritize their interests over the 99%.

I think the "neoliberal" label is specifically targeted at the pro-open trade Democrats. I agree that the messaging on open trade needs improvement. But I would also argue that opponents of open trade need to take a more nuanced, and dare I say educated (how elitist!), approach to the issue.

If I wanted to be difficult, I could even argue that we need a more technocratic* approach to issues such as trade. We currently have someone without international economic expertise in the White House and that person claims to want to keep US jobs in the US, but he is taking actions that are going to have the opposite effect. For example, his policy towards Mexico is causing a significant depreciation in the peso, which will only make manufacturing in Mexico for sale in the US more profitable.

Trade policy is one area where Sanders and Trump have a lot in common, and is probably one of the reasons that some Democrats are adopting right-wing rhetoric. But trade policy is also one area where I strongly believe both Sanders and Trump have it wrong.

*Here I intend the term technocratic in the objective manner, meaning someone in government with technical and scientific expertise (in international economics in this case), not in the derogatory manner.