1Cecrow
Welcoming predictions, speculations and scenarios by which the United States may (or may never) resolve the political divide it currently faces along party lines, as it is highlighted at present and exacerbated by the Trump presidency.
Speaking as a foreigner (Canadian) what has concerned me is the seriousness of this rift within our neighbour to the south, and the increasing unlikelihood of its ever being resolved. Nightmare scenarios like civil war or a parallel with the fall of the Roman Empire may be far off as yet, but that is where the compass points if the divide only increments to a logical end. There is, at least, a bridling cold war already in American politics.
Can we have this topic focus on how Democrats and Republicans might come to better understand one another's positions? What are the primary factors holding them apart? What lies at the root of the split? What might turn this around? Let's make all suppositions and explore them: Trump is not re-elected or sees out his second term; or the next president (in 2020 or 2024) is Democrat; or again a Republican; etc.
To throw some initial thoughts out there:
- is there still any possibility of a middle-of-the-road candidate? Either an independent (unlikely) or a leader from either party that the opposite does not find entirely objectionable? In legendary Rome, irrevocably split by party lines, one party elected the next ruler for all of them from among the population of the other. This wouldn't fly under the American constitution, but can there be a virtual equivalent? Perhaps (ironically) it would take another celebrity candidate?
- are two political parties enough for a democracy to heal under current conditions?
- external threats can sometimes create internal cohesion. Could an environmental crisis ever play this role (and how bad would it need to get)? Or would it take a foreign power? Would another incident like 9-11 pull all Americans together, or only reduce the bickering temporarily? Or will all external "threats" now be reacted to along political lines, as immigration appears to be?
- to what extent has religion been a factor? Urban versus rural perspectives? Perceptions of political corruption? Foreign interference in American politics? What will address the factors you believe play a role?
Speaking as a foreigner (Canadian) what has concerned me is the seriousness of this rift within our neighbour to the south, and the increasing unlikelihood of its ever being resolved. Nightmare scenarios like civil war or a parallel with the fall of the Roman Empire may be far off as yet, but that is where the compass points if the divide only increments to a logical end. There is, at least, a bridling cold war already in American politics.
Can we have this topic focus on how Democrats and Republicans might come to better understand one another's positions? What are the primary factors holding them apart? What lies at the root of the split? What might turn this around? Let's make all suppositions and explore them: Trump is not re-elected or sees out his second term; or the next president (in 2020 or 2024) is Democrat; or again a Republican; etc.
To throw some initial thoughts out there:
- is there still any possibility of a middle-of-the-road candidate? Either an independent (unlikely) or a leader from either party that the opposite does not find entirely objectionable? In legendary Rome, irrevocably split by party lines, one party elected the next ruler for all of them from among the population of the other. This wouldn't fly under the American constitution, but can there be a virtual equivalent? Perhaps (ironically) it would take another celebrity candidate?
- are two political parties enough for a democracy to heal under current conditions?
- external threats can sometimes create internal cohesion. Could an environmental crisis ever play this role (and how bad would it need to get)? Or would it take a foreign power? Would another incident like 9-11 pull all Americans together, or only reduce the bickering temporarily? Or will all external "threats" now be reacted to along political lines, as immigration appears to be?
- to what extent has religion been a factor? Urban versus rural perspectives? Perceptions of political corruption? Foreign interference in American politics? What will address the factors you believe play a role?
2Cecrow
I'd assume first that communication is at the heart of the issue, and challenges in understanding one another's position. Perhaps if there wasn't someone so polarizing in office, that would go the longest way toward a fix. Could *anyone* occupy that office now and not be polarizing, is something to wonder given the current state of affairs, but hopefully someone less objectionable to one side would be a step in the right direction.
3LolaWalser
I'm trying to think of something to say but from my POV there are so many dubious and false premises up there I don't know where to start. :)
Let's see... anything, anything...
It's not about "Republicans and Democrats don't understand each other"--in fact, a big part of the problem is that the two parties "understand" each other only too well, i.e. there is hardly a difference in their principles.
Both are pro-capitalist, anti-labour, culturally jingoistic (Amerika über alles, "best" country and all that tripe)--for the longest time and particularly in evidence since Clinton, the differences were mostly those of degrees, not issues.
It's not "misunderstanding" or lack of "communication" that ruined this harmony but the rift that truly matters--that of growing economic inequality. THAT's the abyss that needs filling.
It's not just that more people are getting poor, but that new forms of poverty are emerging (e.g. has a job; no housing; has THREE jobs; can't make ends meet etc.) and precariousness entering lives even of the relatively well-off.
The Trumpists, like all fascists, address this misery and fear by finding scapegoats abroad and in the foreign and domestic poor and underdogs.
As the only other candidate for power and suposedly "in opposition" to the GOP, the Democrats should address the structural problems that feed the growing inequality. But they don't, probably won't, maybe can't--given who they are etc.
Let's see... anything, anything...
It's not about "Republicans and Democrats don't understand each other"--in fact, a big part of the problem is that the two parties "understand" each other only too well, i.e. there is hardly a difference in their principles.
Both are pro-capitalist, anti-labour, culturally jingoistic (Amerika über alles, "best" country and all that tripe)--for the longest time and particularly in evidence since Clinton, the differences were mostly those of degrees, not issues.
It's not "misunderstanding" or lack of "communication" that ruined this harmony but the rift that truly matters--that of growing economic inequality. THAT's the abyss that needs filling.
It's not just that more people are getting poor, but that new forms of poverty are emerging (e.g. has a job; no housing; has THREE jobs; can't make ends meet etc.) and precariousness entering lives even of the relatively well-off.
The Trumpists, like all fascists, address this misery and fear by finding scapegoats abroad and in the foreign and domestic poor and underdogs.
As the only other candidate for power and suposedly "in opposition" to the GOP, the Democrats should address the structural problems that feed the growing inequality. But they don't, probably won't, maybe can't--given who they are etc.
4Cecrow
>3 LolaWalser:, thank you for highlighting an issue that didn't occur to me among many others I tossed around: the rich-poor divide.
What you've portrayed is the political rift as a false, manufactured dichotomy where a divided population is an advantage to both parties, who each have reason not to want a united population that demands action on income parity. In that scenario, each party is misdirecting the underlying angst in different ways that has caused the political rift to emerge. A party led by Trump that finds new and/or unusual scapegoats; and an opposing party that plays down the issue in a more time-honoured typical politicians fashion, ringing the 'threatened democracy' alarm bell among others to drown out the actual problems people want solved.
Does it fit with what we're seeing, though? I believe the American economy has been on the upswing lately, while federal workers are receiving an enormous pay raise rather than the threatened freeze. At least some of that is a result of government action. Is the economic picture being neglected? Are private property values recovering at all since 2008?
(source for the pay raise news: https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/us-federal-employees-likely-to-get-biggest... )
What you've portrayed is the political rift as a false, manufactured dichotomy where a divided population is an advantage to both parties, who each have reason not to want a united population that demands action on income parity. In that scenario, each party is misdirecting the underlying angst in different ways that has caused the political rift to emerge. A party led by Trump that finds new and/or unusual scapegoats; and an opposing party that plays down the issue in a more time-honoured typical politicians fashion, ringing the 'threatened democracy' alarm bell among others to drown out the actual problems people want solved.
Does it fit with what we're seeing, though? I believe the American economy has been on the upswing lately, while federal workers are receiving an enormous pay raise rather than the threatened freeze. At least some of that is a result of government action. Is the economic picture being neglected? Are private property values recovering at all since 2008?
(source for the pay raise news: https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/us-federal-employees-likely-to-get-biggest... )
5LolaWalser
Whose private property values? Not the poor sods screwed out of their last dime in 2008. And Trump has been good for the rich, that we know. For the not-rich, the news are increasingly not-good--debt is increasing, almost half of it student debt, payments for health insurance are taking larger chunks of people's income, homelessness is on the rise, job security practically doesn't exist--there are dozens of social factors converging to create misery for an ever-increasing number of people. The headlines trumpet low unemployment--but more than half of jobs are shitty underpaid, no-benefits work. Women are falling out of the workforce--not the upperclass ladies abandoning 6-figure salaries to devote more time to their golden children and "self-care", but poor women whose jobs are made redundant or doable by AI.
It's rather bizarre to talk about a great economy when the US health indicators and life expectancy are going down, way below not just other "developed countries" but even some "undeveloped", when the public education is in shambles, as is public infrastructure in general.
In short, the population of the poor and those vulnerable to falling into poverty is growing, and Trumpism is helping to entrench the mechanisms that create it.
In a moment of time the situation may not appear dire (at least to those not then suffering), but the greater worry is the trend. With Trumpism, we see this heading toward zero labour power, increased vulnerability for the already discriminated-against (African-Americans, women, the disabled, the poor), greater jeopardy instead of support for the fight against environmental catastrophe, greater risk of open white supremacist activity.
It's rather bizarre to talk about a great economy when the US health indicators and life expectancy are going down, way below not just other "developed countries" but even some "undeveloped", when the public education is in shambles, as is public infrastructure in general.
In short, the population of the poor and those vulnerable to falling into poverty is growing, and Trumpism is helping to entrench the mechanisms that create it.
In a moment of time the situation may not appear dire (at least to those not then suffering), but the greater worry is the trend. With Trumpism, we see this heading toward zero labour power, increased vulnerability for the already discriminated-against (African-Americans, women, the disabled, the poor), greater jeopardy instead of support for the fight against environmental catastrophe, greater risk of open white supremacist activity.
6Cecrow
Then things must get worse before they get better? And by worse we may mean, the voting population realizing neither party is putting forward a plan and the first of the two that does, that can put forward a vision to address it (e.g. as FDR won hearts with "The New Deal") will find a new edge that maybe everyone can begin to unite behind.
7Molly3028
As long as GOP wing-nut radio and TV hosts can make millions
(hundreds of millions) dividing Americans, things are NOT going to
change for the better.
(hundreds of millions) dividing Americans, things are NOT going to
change for the better.
8Cecrow
There's definitely a strong recursive element in "audience wants to hear X, lets feed into that to attract viewers, feeding into it increases X". This, over and above people with a political stake or a personal agenda using their soapbox to sell their brand.
It is the audience taste for it that ultimately changes trends like this, rather than any soapbox being surrendered. The audience - read, voting public - will most be swayed (distracted?) by things that impact them directly: economic factors as already mentioned, natural disasters, alarming or offensive foreign affairs, etc. Fascinations do eventually change, and the spokespersons attempting to direct the tide must change their focus/message as well or be washed away.
It is the audience taste for it that ultimately changes trends like this, rather than any soapbox being surrendered. The audience - read, voting public - will most be swayed (distracted?) by things that impact them directly: economic factors as already mentioned, natural disasters, alarming or offensive foreign affairs, etc. Fascinations do eventually change, and the spokespersons attempting to direct the tide must change their focus/message as well or be washed away.
9JGL53
If Democrats win the Presidency and both houses of congress from now on, then things will begin to get better. Otherwise we will all be condemned to slip and slide in never-ending republican shit.
It comes down to votes, not thoughts and prayers.
It comes down to votes, not thoughts and prayers.
10proximity1
__________________________
... is there still any possibility of a middle-of-the-road candidate?
Yes.
Either an independent (unlikely) or a leader from either party that the opposite does not find entirely objectionable?
But you conflate party-leaders with electoral candidates and, while these might be found in the same person or people, they needn't necessarily be.
Possible. Yes. Likely? Not at all. Leaders get to lead by pandering to the mass of the party faithful. In current circumstances, that means that the leaders who cede the least about the opposition party are the most favored, most popular.
In legendary Rome, irrevocably split by party lines, one party elected the next ruler for all of them from among the population of the other. This wouldn't fly under the American constitution, but can there be a virtual equivalent? Perhaps (ironically) it would take another celebrity candidate?
Not that I can see, no. Nor do I understand why this should be desirable.
are two political parties enough for a democracy to heal under current conditions?
Yes. The United States are not a parliamentary system of government. No matter how many parties there are, they'll all be dominated by organized wealth under current laws.
- external threats can sometimes create internal cohesion. Could an environmental crisis ever play this role (and how bad would it need to get)?
Of course. But, involving natural resources as it does (air, water, land, food, etc.) it is more likely to create deadly rivalry since, with scarce vital resources, you have the classic conditions for people to compete for their own survival at the expense of others.
(and how bad would it need to get)?
We'll know that when we get there.
Or would it take a foreign power? Would another incident like 9-11 pull all Americans together, or only reduce the bickering temporarily?
the Sept. 11, 2001 Pentagon/ N.Y.C. World Trade Center attacks neither brought everyone together nor reduced the bickering.
Or will all external "threats" now be reacted to along political lines, as immigration appears to be?
Why shouldn't they "be reacted to along political lines"? They're political matters, after all.
- to what extent has religion been a factor?
Not very important.
Urban versus rural perspectives?
Important. But now, what?
Perceptions of political corruption?
Important, of course. Since political corruption is one of the few things which otherwise divided people agree is a serious problem. Unfortunately, they disagree over what constitutes corruption and who are most to blame for it--seeing their political opposition as the major seat of the worst. In short, each side wants to eliminate the other's corrupt people and practices but leave its own alone.
Foreign interference in American politics?
Not important as a genuine, real factor. Very important as a foolishly imagined piece of hobgoblin nonsense and an excuse and a handy whipping-boy, scape-goat issue.
What will address the factors you believe play a role?
A better starting place for such a discussion as this.
For example, one must ask what exactly is meant by "the divide in U.S. politics"? and by "healing" it?
Healthy democratic systems (not that the U.S. are one) are normally divided over divisive issues.
One must examine what is dividing Americans and why and only then get to whether or not this is "healthy" or not and whether its susceptible to being "healed."
One key thing lacking is some minimal mutual respect for and from one's political adversaries as potentially reasonable people, as fellow-citizens, as potential voters, etc. Without that, it's very hard to see how things are going to improve, let alone "heal."
11Limelite
The root of division in the US is "our original sin" and the fallout from it. The fact is racism and its fellow traveler, bigotry (ethnic, religious, sexual orientation), are where America splits into two camps. Trumpists are FOR, Democrsts and most Independents are AGAINST.
Trump has highlighted and underscored this fact by successfully exploiting it from the earliest days of his campaign. Of course, he exploited it long before, setting the stage for his candidacy, with his Obama birther conspiracy advocacy and promotion.
His campaign rhetoric, his insulting name calling from the WH to the Twitterverse, and his dog-whistling to the overwhelmingly white crowd at his rallies have been unceasing. His advocacy and promotion of racist policies while in office extends to his cabinet hires -- Stephen Miller, documented supporter of white nationalism, being the prime example. His tightest coherent block of base support is white evangelicals who enthusiastically support the treatment of immigrants from Latin America who are being caged, their children ripped from them and spirited secretly to undisclosed destinations -- and caged, and refused basic humane medical treatment, like flu shots. That's A-OK with certain cultist Christians
Reported hate crimes tracked by the FBI rose 17% the year he took office; white power groups scrambled out from under their rocks like never before to spout blatant Nazi memes, demonstrating on public streets while gun-toting. Though, Neo-Nazi James Field used his car to murder innocent counter-protestor, Heather Heyer. Reported anti-Jewish hate crimes rose by 37% in 2017. Anti-Latino/Hispanic crime rose more than 24%, and anti-Native American crimes by nearly 63%. Anti-Muslim crime rose by 10%. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/13/18091646/fbi-hate-crimes-2017
Faux News fans will remain on the wrong side of history and the persistence of the political division in our country because they are largely the media fan base responsible for the hate crimes spikes reported by the FBI, the ADL, and the Southern Poverty Law Center -- the three main watchdogs over the Enemies Within. They are the ones who avidly retweet Trump. They are the ones who swallow and rise to Russian propaganda bait. They are the ones who serve as Trump groupies at his rallies. They are the ones who prefer Trump's lies to facts and truth.
And they are the ones who cling to their automatic rifles, commit the mass murders at shopping centers, Jewish synagogues, and African-American churches. In an average year, 10,300 hate crimes are committed in the USA involve a firearm. https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Disarm-Hate-HATE-CRIMES...
If guns don't kill people, then it is the hate-filled gun owners who do. And if you paid attention to all I wrote above, those criminals are white Trump supporters, right wing bigots, and self-proclaimed "Christians" who are apparently armed for the End Times who make up America's largest numbers of perps.
Trump has highlighted and underscored this fact by successfully exploiting it from the earliest days of his campaign. Of course, he exploited it long before, setting the stage for his candidacy, with his Obama birther conspiracy advocacy and promotion.
His campaign rhetoric, his insulting name calling from the WH to the Twitterverse, and his dog-whistling to the overwhelmingly white crowd at his rallies have been unceasing. His advocacy and promotion of racist policies while in office extends to his cabinet hires -- Stephen Miller, documented supporter of white nationalism, being the prime example. His tightest coherent block of base support is white evangelicals who enthusiastically support the treatment of immigrants from Latin America who are being caged, their children ripped from them and spirited secretly to undisclosed destinations -- and caged, and refused basic humane medical treatment, like flu shots. That's A-OK with certain cultist Christians
Reported hate crimes tracked by the FBI rose 17% the year he took office; white power groups scrambled out from under their rocks like never before to spout blatant Nazi memes, demonstrating on public streets while gun-toting. Though, Neo-Nazi James Field used his car to murder innocent counter-protestor, Heather Heyer. Reported anti-Jewish hate crimes rose by 37% in 2017. Anti-Latino/Hispanic crime rose more than 24%, and anti-Native American crimes by nearly 63%. Anti-Muslim crime rose by 10%. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/13/18091646/fbi-hate-crimes-2017
While some observers have explained Trump’s success as a result of economic anxiety, the data demonstrate that anti-immigrant sentiment, racism, and sexism are much more strongly related to support for Trump. -- Political Science Quarterly study. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/polq.12737 (pay for view)According to Brookings Institute
He (Trump) did especially well with white people who express sexist views about women and who deny racism exists.Further,
FBI data show that since Trump’s election there has been an anomalous spike in hate crimes concentrated in counties where Trump won by larger margins. It was the second-largest uptick in hate crimes in the 25 years for which data are available, second only to the spike after September 11, 2001. Though hate crimes are typically most frequent in the summer, in 2016 they peaked in the fourth quarter (October-December). This new, higher rate of hate crimes continued throughout 2017.https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/08/14/trump-and-racism-what-do-the-da...
Another study, based on data collected by the Anti-Defamation League, shows that counties that hosted a Trump campaign rally in 2016 saw hate crime rates more than double compared to similar counties that did not host a rally.That is the divide in America, and that is the divide Republicans in Congress and right wing media types are cultivating with their adherence to Russian propaganda, conspiracy theories, character denigration and assassination, and outright lies. In perfect relection of Trump's daily speech and tweets.
Faux News fans will remain on the wrong side of history and the persistence of the political division in our country because they are largely the media fan base responsible for the hate crimes spikes reported by the FBI, the ADL, and the Southern Poverty Law Center -- the three main watchdogs over the Enemies Within. They are the ones who avidly retweet Trump. They are the ones who swallow and rise to Russian propaganda bait. They are the ones who serve as Trump groupies at his rallies. They are the ones who prefer Trump's lies to facts and truth.
And they are the ones who cling to their automatic rifles, commit the mass murders at shopping centers, Jewish synagogues, and African-American churches. In an average year, 10,300 hate crimes are committed in the USA involve a firearm. https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Disarm-Hate-HATE-CRIMES...
If guns don't kill people, then it is the hate-filled gun owners who do. And if you paid attention to all I wrote above, those criminals are white Trump supporters, right wing bigots, and self-proclaimed "Christians" who are apparently armed for the End Times who make up America's largest numbers of perps.
12proximity1
As though "liberals"--however you care to define them--aren't at least as intolerant, "judgmental", condemning, bigoted, prone to "hate" and "racist" as just about everyone else.
I recently listened to three Labour party supporters talking among themselves about their party's recent defeat. Though almost certainly Londoners, at least one, a party activist and formal member, had been canvassing door-to-door in northern English towns and cities in the weeks before the vote. The following picture drawn for me was of the people and their political views encountered in that door-to-door canvassing.
According to this person, Labour's loss was largely due to--that is, was the fault of--"Northerners" who wanted no more immigration to Britain. These voters favored "Brexit" because, I was told, they were racists and xenophobes--they hated foreigners in general and particularly didn't like anyone dark-skinned and who came from beyond northern Europe-- read: non-whites, Muslems, Arabs in general, Asians, Africans: not welcome. According to the thesis advanced, there was one and only one possible explanation for this point of view: these people were racists and bigots, intolerant of any groups unlike their own. These were the morally and intellectually "left-behind". While society had progressed, had evolved into higher and more enlightened and morally-advanced thinking, these voters had remained in the politically-incorrect Dark Ages.
No one could possibly simply believe, without malicious prejudice, hatred and racist bigotry that there could and should be a limit somewhere to the number of immigrants beyond which life in Britain was changed for the significantly worse--to the deteriment of British traditional culture, the English language or other factors of the sort and that perhaps that limit has been found. Racists!--people who think such things!
Britain, I was told, in lecturing tones, had both a legal and a moral obligation to admit each and every person arriving from Syria and claiming refugee status. There was not and should not be any upward limit on the numbers of such people. Unless they were admitted, housed, caered for, fed, and made room for in schools, Britain would be disgraced as a nation of racists and xenophobes. Indeed, according to the Labour activist, it was clear that there should be no controls of any kind on the free entry and exit of any and all people, whatever their national origin or other characteristics.
The conversation did not last fifteen minutes before I was told that, based on views I'd expressed or to which I'd seemed to lend some sympathy, I was very dangerously close to qualifying, in these people's views, as a racist, bigot and xenophobe. Those terms also apply to anyone and everyone who, like the Northerners of England, disagreed with the views on open immigration of these three Labour supporters.
These three white, over-Forty, English-born people, ready to welcome unconditionally, indiscriminately and without limit, people from the four corners of the Earth to enter and settle in England, couldn't put up with me and my probing questions-- put calmly and politely to them in the search for understanding of their views-- for more than fifteen minutes before they angrily got up and left.
To the question: Why is it Britain's and British people's responsibility to welcome to Britain as refugees for permanent residence virtually any and all Syrians without limits or conditions?
Asked that, they angrily accused me of having intruded on their conversation--held in a public place and at a table which I shared--a conversation into which I had first politely asked and received their permission to enter. I did not, of course, promise in advance to agree with everything they said or thought.
And, here, apparently, was the key problem for these enlightened and world-welcoming Labour party voters who were, it is true, grieving over their recent defeat in the general election.
I recently listened to three Labour party supporters talking among themselves about their party's recent defeat. Though almost certainly Londoners, at least one, a party activist and formal member, had been canvassing door-to-door in northern English towns and cities in the weeks before the vote. The following picture drawn for me was of the people and their political views encountered in that door-to-door canvassing.
According to this person, Labour's loss was largely due to--that is, was the fault of--"Northerners" who wanted no more immigration to Britain. These voters favored "Brexit" because, I was told, they were racists and xenophobes--they hated foreigners in general and particularly didn't like anyone dark-skinned and who came from beyond northern Europe-- read: non-whites, Muslems, Arabs in general, Asians, Africans: not welcome. According to the thesis advanced, there was one and only one possible explanation for this point of view: these people were racists and bigots, intolerant of any groups unlike their own. These were the morally and intellectually "left-behind". While society had progressed, had evolved into higher and more enlightened and morally-advanced thinking, these voters had remained in the politically-incorrect Dark Ages.
No one could possibly simply believe, without malicious prejudice, hatred and racist bigotry that there could and should be a limit somewhere to the number of immigrants beyond which life in Britain was changed for the significantly worse--to the deteriment of British traditional culture, the English language or other factors of the sort and that perhaps that limit has been found. Racists!--people who think such things!
Britain, I was told, in lecturing tones, had both a legal and a moral obligation to admit each and every person arriving from Syria and claiming refugee status. There was not and should not be any upward limit on the numbers of such people. Unless they were admitted, housed, caered for, fed, and made room for in schools, Britain would be disgraced as a nation of racists and xenophobes. Indeed, according to the Labour activist, it was clear that there should be no controls of any kind on the free entry and exit of any and all people, whatever their national origin or other characteristics.
The conversation did not last fifteen minutes before I was told that, based on views I'd expressed or to which I'd seemed to lend some sympathy, I was very dangerously close to qualifying, in these people's views, as a racist, bigot and xenophobe. Those terms also apply to anyone and everyone who, like the Northerners of England, disagreed with the views on open immigration of these three Labour supporters.
These three white, over-Forty, English-born people, ready to welcome unconditionally, indiscriminately and without limit, people from the four corners of the Earth to enter and settle in England, couldn't put up with me and my probing questions-- put calmly and politely to them in the search for understanding of their views-- for more than fifteen minutes before they angrily got up and left.
To the question: Why is it Britain's and British people's responsibility to welcome to Britain as refugees for permanent residence virtually any and all Syrians without limits or conditions?
Asked that, they angrily accused me of having intruded on their conversation--held in a public place and at a table which I shared--a conversation into which I had first politely asked and received their permission to enter. I did not, of course, promise in advance to agree with everything they said or thought.
And, here, apparently, was the key problem for these enlightened and world-welcoming Labour party voters who were, it is true, grieving over their recent defeat in the general election.
13John5918
>12 proximity1: that there could and should be a limit somewhere to the number of immigrants beyond which life in Britain was changed for the significantly worse--to the deteriment of British traditional culture, the English language or other factors of the sort and that perhaps that limit has been found
That whole narrative about life in Britain being changed (from what?) to being worse, to the detriment of traditional culture, language, etc is a false narrative viewed through rose-tinted spectacles and with little if any factual basis. It's harking back to a supposed past which never really existed, and failing to see the vibrancy of the current cultural and linguistic situation.
I say this as a white, over sixty, English-born person. One of the most interesting times of my life was the two years I spent living and working in Southall, west London, which even forty years ago was a centre of Indian and Caribbean lifestyles and cultures, which only added to the "traditional" British culture (whatever that is) and certainly made it significantly better rather than worse.
That whole narrative about life in Britain being changed (from what?) to being worse, to the detriment of traditional culture, language, etc is a false narrative viewed through rose-tinted spectacles and with little if any factual basis. It's harking back to a supposed past which never really existed, and failing to see the vibrancy of the current cultural and linguistic situation.
I say this as a white, over sixty, English-born person. One of the most interesting times of my life was the two years I spent living and working in Southall, west London, which even forty years ago was a centre of Indian and Caribbean lifestyles and cultures, which only added to the "traditional" British culture (whatever that is) and certainly made it significantly better rather than worse.
14LolaWalser
>11 Limelite:
Over the recent decade+ we have seen both parties change in ways that make for some significant differences, those that you mention.
The trouble is that while the Republicans have gone over to the dark side en masse, the Democrats still seem unwilling to recognise the implications of that or the fact that their base demographics are changing.
The GOP is 100% the party of the old(er) white men and their handmaidens. The Democrats still can't believe, it seems, that they themselves are not that anymore.
Over the recent decade+ we have seen both parties change in ways that make for some significant differences, those that you mention.
The trouble is that while the Republicans have gone over to the dark side en masse, the Democrats still seem unwilling to recognise the implications of that or the fact that their base demographics are changing.
The GOP is 100% the party of the old(er) white men and their handmaidens. The Democrats still can't believe, it seems, that they themselves are not that anymore.
15proximity1
This guy just took the top spot on my
"Absolutely Essential (Regular) Reading" list:
JOEL KOTKIN, Contributing Editor, City Journal
https://www.city-journal.org/contributor/joel-kotkin_107
17Cecrow
>15 proximity1:, I liked reading his article from last August on the identity crisis
https://www.city-journal.org/nationalism
Unfortunately, while he is correct that a reunited identity is ideally the goal (and the subject of this topic), it presupposes a model of shared values, which is where the current trouble lies.
https://www.city-journal.org/nationalism
Unfortunately, while he is correct that a reunited identity is ideally the goal (and the subject of this topic), it presupposes a model of shared values, which is where the current trouble lies.
18proximity1
>17 Cecrow:
"presupposes a model of shared values, which is where the current trouble lies."
True, of course, from the most strictly practical point of view--not, of course, that such practicalities are dismissable. On the contrary, they're paramount in importance.
Still, it's not Joel Kotkin's fault if that matter and nearly everything else in a working democratic order must, of necessity, presuppose at least something of a model of shared values.
This condition, in at least a minimal form and fashion, had long been met and supplied. If it's lacking today--and has been for some time now--well, then that's the problem of all of us to face and try to overcome, isn't it?
Kotkin's brief wasn't to work out in every minute detail how we do all that. It was to point out what's happened, how and why and what it means for us today and in the future. And he's done a fairly decent job of starting or more than starting on that in his latest essay/commentary (https://www.city-journal.org/tribalism-racialism) where he discusses important aspects of not only how we came to be in this mess but, even more important, why what we continue to do is contributing to keeping us from getting ourselves out of it.
19Cecrow
>18 proximity1:, I'm not sure I agree with all the points he makes, and/or the language he makes them in; but I don't need to, to agree that the two sides will get no where by using too-easy slander terms for each other's positions and viewpoints. Attaching a derisive label to someone's contrary opinion is far more likely to make them dig in than to re-evaluate.
I'm concerned by the evidence that, increasingly, each side believe their own case is so plain - so common sense - and the other's is so non-sensical, there is increasingly less listening and understanding going on. Dismissive labels are a symptom of that, and express a lack of interest in opening dialogue.
But that only leads me back to my original post, I suppose: wondering where the willingness to enter into that dialogue will come from, when bickering is so much easier.
I'm concerned by the evidence that, increasingly, each side believe their own case is so plain - so common sense - and the other's is so non-sensical, there is increasingly less listening and understanding going on. Dismissive labels are a symptom of that, and express a lack of interest in opening dialogue.
But that only leads me back to my original post, I suppose: wondering where the willingness to enter into that dialogue will come from, when bickering is so much easier.
20LolaWalser
>17 Cecrow:
I find that article to be dreck. Including the loving comments from right-wing white men--a bit of a giveaway, that. Pro tip: anyone who moans about "political correctness" more than about the problem the so-called political correctness is addressing, is likely an unregenerate asshole.
The US is foundationally a white supremacist country built on genocide and slavery. Structurally, socially, politically, culturally, in every imaginable way it still bears the imprint of that history, and still follows the trend of that history--like a missile set on course centuries ago. For example, the existence and function of the electoral college which in recent history repeatedly gave victories to Republican candidates despite their losing the popular vote: that is a direct result of the trend, of the wish of the founders of the US to keep power in the hands of white men. African Americans are still in a very real way only "three fifths of a person" for voting purposes--even less, when we take in account the vast suppression of black vote by abuse of the criminal law, gerrymandering, and all the rest.
The mythical "American identity" that has been supposedly lost sure as hell wasn't something extended to ALL people in the US, ever. I think you'll find it's ever been only the male WASP who somehow embodied "American identity".
So no wonder THAT ideal is looking a bit moth-eaten in the 21st century. But before looking for something to replace it, one ought to ask WHY would one need to conceptualise a singular "American identity" in the first place. What's on offer is telling.
"National character" (I won't dignifiy that "civic nationalism" bullshit with comment) is pernicious tripe straight out of the 18th/19th centuries, when all the ideas of today's fascist ideologies were being born. It's a stick that the clique in power uses to beat minorities and the disenfranchised with.
Americans, a large swathe of them anyway, already use such a stick against those it calls un-American.
It's no coincidence that this stick is a favourite toy of the right and that a right-winger would look to weaponise it further: against the rest of the world.
Are the catastrophes of the global warming and the perennial threat of nuclear war not monumental enough to cure everyone of the notion that there is any corner on earth where "we" can set up a front against "them"?
"American" is already all that one needs for designating "American identity". The right-wingers better worry about their identity as human beings.
I find that article to be dreck. Including the loving comments from right-wing white men--a bit of a giveaway, that. Pro tip: anyone who moans about "political correctness" more than about the problem the so-called political correctness is addressing, is likely an unregenerate asshole.
The US is foundationally a white supremacist country built on genocide and slavery. Structurally, socially, politically, culturally, in every imaginable way it still bears the imprint of that history, and still follows the trend of that history--like a missile set on course centuries ago. For example, the existence and function of the electoral college which in recent history repeatedly gave victories to Republican candidates despite their losing the popular vote: that is a direct result of the trend, of the wish of the founders of the US to keep power in the hands of white men. African Americans are still in a very real way only "three fifths of a person" for voting purposes--even less, when we take in account the vast suppression of black vote by abuse of the criminal law, gerrymandering, and all the rest.
The mythical "American identity" that has been supposedly lost sure as hell wasn't something extended to ALL people in the US, ever. I think you'll find it's ever been only the male WASP who somehow embodied "American identity".
So no wonder THAT ideal is looking a bit moth-eaten in the 21st century. But before looking for something to replace it, one ought to ask WHY would one need to conceptualise a singular "American identity" in the first place. What's on offer is telling.
"National character" (I won't dignifiy that "civic nationalism" bullshit with comment) is pernicious tripe straight out of the 18th/19th centuries, when all the ideas of today's fascist ideologies were being born. It's a stick that the clique in power uses to beat minorities and the disenfranchised with.
Americans, a large swathe of them anyway, already use such a stick against those it calls un-American.
It's no coincidence that this stick is a favourite toy of the right and that a right-winger would look to weaponise it further: against the rest of the world.
Are the catastrophes of the global warming and the perennial threat of nuclear war not monumental enough to cure everyone of the notion that there is any corner on earth where "we" can set up a front against "them"?
"American" is already all that one needs for designating "American identity". The right-wingers better worry about their identity as human beings.
21lriley
The present day POTUS in any case is always making the case of the worthy vs. the unworthy and the worthy are pretty much white people--particularly white evangelicals and rich people while at the same time trying to play on the resentments of working class whites. His hatred of Obama--who was not a very good POTUS IMO by the way is a case in point. The birther shit hardly masks his racism but he's followed it up time and again as POTUS with his Muslim bans--his continual attacks against Hispanics and refugees---his continual demeaning of women and his biases against the LGBTQ community. They are among the unworthy. Anyone with a clue understands that the United States is representative of more than just white people and that a society that works to exclude works against the common good. As long as we have people like the present day jerk in the white house there is no common good that's going to happen. Lola rightly points out that we're a nation that was built on the back of slavery and the ramifications of slavery are still here today and is at least in large part why black people tend to be a lot less wealthier than white people. It's not controversial--it's a well established fact and when you have a large part of your population that continues to assert its privilege and dominance over those who are different and refuses again and again to share the wealth you're going to have problems....and what's to be nice about?
24Limelite
Americans who rage against political correctness are the most xenophobic — and most likely to vote Trump.
Is "Chinese Virus" contemptible racism? Yes. Is it a dog whistle to Trump supporters? Yes. Is "Covid-19" contemptible racism? No. Is it a dog whistle to Trump supporters? Yes, it's become the Trumpist faction's euphemistic political incorrectness for "elite liberals" (only use that phrase).
Trump has made the first step in the conservative obsession with redefining words that appeal to the prejudices of their base. From Trump insisting on misnaming a disease to focus attention on anti-Asian sentiment, he and his supporters will now pivot to accusing anyone who refuses to use his pejorative term of being anti-American.
Expect the right wing trolls to advertise that only liberals prefer defending the Chinese but won't defend Americans. Those who want to misname a disease in order to denigrate a race will create a fog of self-righteousness to defend their bigotry. This enables the xenophobic to take the next step and broad-brush condemn people who maintain using the factual name, Covid-19, as being beneath contempt as well.
That part of the jingoistic campaign has started.
Our best protection against an epidemic from the xenophobic racist element that supports Trump and his brand of bigotry is probably the same things that we do to protect ourselves from the virus, SARS-CoV-2, that causes the disease,Covid-19. Quarantine and lock-down.
For the data that supports the argument see:
https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/heres-the-data-that-proves-americans-who-rage-a...
Is "Chinese Virus" contemptible racism? Yes. Is it a dog whistle to Trump supporters? Yes. Is "Covid-19" contemptible racism? No. Is it a dog whistle to Trump supporters? Yes, it's become the Trumpist faction's euphemistic political incorrectness for "elite liberals" (only use that phrase).
Trump has made the first step in the conservative obsession with redefining words that appeal to the prejudices of their base. From Trump insisting on misnaming a disease to focus attention on anti-Asian sentiment, he and his supporters will now pivot to accusing anyone who refuses to use his pejorative term of being anti-American.
Expect the right wing trolls to advertise that only liberals prefer defending the Chinese but won't defend Americans. Those who want to misname a disease in order to denigrate a race will create a fog of self-righteousness to defend their bigotry. This enables the xenophobic to take the next step and broad-brush condemn people who maintain using the factual name, Covid-19, as being beneath contempt as well.
That part of the jingoistic campaign has started.
Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton stated, “Anyone who complains that it’s racist or xenophobic to call this virus the Chinese coronavirus or the Wuhan virus is a politically correct fool, and they ought not to be listened to about anything.”The third strategem is to put the racist remark into the megaphone of wing nut media. in only a matter of days, following Cotton's irrational accusation this happened.
Bill O’Reilly told Glenn Beck: “The worst thing in this pandemic virus outside of the actual illness itself of course is the political sic correct media still, still peddling garbage that hurts the American people.” Quoting an ABC News reporter, O’Reilly said in a whiny, mocking voice, “A lot of people think it’s racist if you call it the Chinese Virus. …It’s sickening.”Of course, what is truly sickening is the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It's also deadly. Trying to turn an actual "enemy of the people" into an existential invention of an enemy is peddling the garbage that really hurts the American people. And threatens to prove deadly.
Our best protection against an epidemic from the xenophobic racist element that supports Trump and his brand of bigotry is probably the same things that we do to protect ourselves from the virus, SARS-CoV-2, that causes the disease,Covid-19. Quarantine and lock-down.
For the data that supports the argument see:
https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/heres-the-data-that-proves-americans-who-rage-a...
25John5918
>42 John5918: "elite liberals"
Interesting term in that it draws attention away from the fact that there may well be an "elite" political establishment, but that it encompasses all parties and none, not just "liberals".
Interesting term in that it draws attention away from the fact that there may well be an "elite" political establishment, but that it encompasses all parties and none, not just "liberals".
26madpoet
Well, if a pandemic like the current one doesn't heal the divide in US politics, I don't think anything will.
27proximity1
>26 madpoet:
this expectation of some sort of "healing the 'divide' in U.S. politics" is perverse and ill-conceived. "Politics" constitute the formal and informal continuous struggle by opposing viewpoints about the ways and means by which power and resources are distributed and ends to which they are applied.
In this respect, then, of course nothing is going to heal the "divide".
Politics implies divisions in power relations and how they ought to be managed. Even the most totalitarian regimes cannot avoid or "heal" these--and they have the power to liquidate their opponents whenever and wherever these are found.
28LolaWalser
I'm still saying that the very concept of "healing the divide" in politics is nonsensical. People have different politics for a reason; opposite arguments can't be reconciled, for a reason. The most one could reasonably hope for is achieving compromises that enable the whole social shebang to amble on more or less tolerably for the majority of the public.
That's not healing the divide, but navigating it.
That's not healing the divide, but navigating it.
29RickHarsch
>26 madpoet: I assume that your use of 'heal the divide' is a shortcut and that your conception of the matter is much more complex, so I am looking at the main--to me--point of your post. And I think it could be said in innumerable ways, such as, instead of heal the divide, bring back a residue of sanity, or balance, or in some way or another get the brains back on top over the manipulable guts, or something like that. Yes, I agree, if this crisis does not bring the US back to some semblance of its better days (and as a very far left US born feller, I am yet hoping for a return to late 60s, early 70s minus Vietnam and oligarchy ascendant), when the nation, so to speak, awoke to ecological concerns and had a progressive tax structure and some brakes of accumulaton of wealth...
And back to 'heal the divide': that could well mean redirect hatreds, resolve misconceptions. Yes, of course, there are divisions, but I would argue that the US during my lifetime has never been in such a state approaching a divide between two sides, and an aggressive one at that.
>28 LolaWalser: I agree it is nonsensical, but that's largely because of the way it has been used to obfuscate, to pretend various problems are really just a matter of different points of view and not existential. That understanding of heal the divide perpetuates division, and to put a concrete example to it, has led to the farcical reality that the US has such a horrific health care circumstance. There is nothing united about the country in regard to its health care.
And back to 'heal the divide': that could well mean redirect hatreds, resolve misconceptions. Yes, of course, there are divisions, but I would argue that the US during my lifetime has never been in such a state approaching a divide between two sides, and an aggressive one at that.
>28 LolaWalser: I agree it is nonsensical, but that's largely because of the way it has been used to obfuscate, to pretend various problems are really just a matter of different points of view and not existential. That understanding of heal the divide perpetuates division, and to put a concrete example to it, has led to the farcical reality that the US has such a horrific health care circumstance. There is nothing united about the country in regard to its health care.
30LolaWalser
>29 RickHarsch:
Exactly--this is pure rhetoric, and it serves to pave the way to dismissing the dissenters as unreasonable and extremist.
Exactly--this is pure rhetoric, and it serves to pave the way to dismissing the dissenters as unreasonable and extremist.
31sashame
things could only "heal" in us politics if we see the end of party politics, and mb even electoral politics, as we know it
32LolaWalser
Tyranny is an option for Trumpo and his cohorts for sure.
33Molly3028
The divide it not going to heal as long as Murdoch's FOX News
gives hate-filled whack jobs like Judge Jeanine and Mark Levin
weekend shows to entertain their viewers. This is on top of their
weekday 8 to 11 p.m. hate-filled lineup. FOX may as well include
a spot for Alex Jones while they are at it.
gives hate-filled whack jobs like Judge Jeanine and Mark Levin
weekend shows to entertain their viewers. This is on top of their
weekday 8 to 11 p.m. hate-filled lineup. FOX may as well include
a spot for Alex Jones while they are at it.
34RickHarsch
>33 Molly3028: I would say that the real problem is that people watch and believe that shit. I hope I am wrong, but I have come across this statistic, maybe here on LT somewhere: Trumps has a 60% approval rating for his handling of the crisis. That suggests that people don't get what he does and that people who could be making sure the general population understands the harm he does are not willing to make sure they know. (I watch press representative sit quietly while Trump tells them they are terrible reporters? Why is the media so weak that they allow this to go on? Every such attack should lead to a walk-out and a 24 hour news blackout or Trump's name.)
35librorumamans
>34 RickHarsch: . . . somewhere: Trumps has a 60% approval rating for his handling of the crisis.
see "Trump is more popular than ever, but there's more to the story" on CBC.
see "Trump is more popular than ever, but there's more to the story" on CBC.
36RickHarsch
Thanks, Libroru. some of that I knew, leader in time of crisis and all...yet still--if only those near him when he speaks would directly contradict his bullshit, if media folk would stop cowering, if...Reagan would have lost, if...if they had respected Cuba's right to self-determination...if they would have respected the aboriginal people...
37proximity1
( from American Greatness )
By Victor Davis Hanson • April 5, 2020
"As the coronavirus outbreak begins to reach its zenith, it remains unclear whether the measures taken to stem its tide will prove sufficient, insufficient, or an overreaction. What is certain, however, is that a number of individuals and entities have behaved shamefully and demonstrated no capacity for leadership or usefulness in this moment.
"Nancy Pelosi: Gone are the mythologies that Nancy Pelosi was a pragmatic liberal voice of reason among the otherwise polarizing American Left, honed after years of paying her dues to the Democratic Party, as the mother of five dutifully ascended the party’s cursus honorum.
"It does not matter whether her political and ethical decline was a result of her deep pathological hatred of Donald Trump. Who cares that her paranoia arose over the so-called 'Squad' that might align with socialist Bernie Sanders to mesmerize Democrats to march over the cliff into McGovern-like oblivion? All concede that very few octogenarians have the stamina and clarity to put in the 16-hour work-days and transcontinental travel required by a Speaker of the House.
"Instead, all that matters is that for a nation in extremis she is now puerile, even unhinged—and increasingly dangerous.
"In retrospect, the public will remember how in fear and confusion she reversed course to spearhead impeachment, outsourced the task in the House of Representatives to its most incompetent and perfidious members—Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—and wasted weeks of the country’s precious energy and time as it was on the cusp of an epidemic.
“Pelosi then quickly weaponized the viral crisis in hopes that COVID-19 could do what Robert Mueller’s dream team and impeachment had not done—destroy the administration of Donald Trump before the November 2020 election. Only such an obsession explains why any sober politico would damn Trump as culpable in January for ignoring the viral dangers, while nearly a month after his necessary and controversial travel ban of January 31—that stopped perhaps 7,000 Chinese citizens entering California per day, some on direct flights from Wuhan—she was doing a photo-op tour to urge the public to get out and shop in San Francisco’s crowded Chinatown: 'That’s what we’re trying to do today is to say everything is fine here.'
“Such a crazy juxtaposition is not just politics or hypocrisy—it’s insanity. The night before an impeached Trump was acquitted in the Senate, and five days after Trump had controversially stopped incoming Chinese visitors, Pelosi tore up his State of the Union address before a national television audience, a level of spiteful vitriol not seen in the U.S. Congress since the years leading up to the Civil War."
… …
and
By Matt Taibbi • 06 April, 2020
... "From now on, my online writing will be published on Substack. This is my full-time job now. ...
... "Reporting and arguing blame used to be two separate activities, but journalists in the Trump era are trained to narrativize everything, with the consequence that we’ve drifted away from complex issues and toward saleable, simplistic, sports-like controversies. Heading into the Covid-19 disaster, we argued about Bernie Bros, Lev Parnas, Russian Facebook ads, and a host of other things that don’t seem all that important now. I was guilty of this, too.
"The media business as constructed is expert at mass-generating binary streams of hot takes and talking points, and selling ads to a public engaged by them. It’s great business: cable profits have soared. But it’s a lousy system for getting to the bottom of difficult subjects, and boy do we have a lot of those to deal with all of the sudden." ...
_________________________
(subscriber-shared by permission of the author)
38Molly3028
Today, it appears that a large number of American citizens prefer
to be no-info/low info individuals. They prefer to rely on the ideas
they conjure up in their own minds. There is not going to be any
meeting-of-the-minds under this type of destructive behavior.
to be no-info/low info individuals. They prefer to rely on the ideas
they conjure up in their own minds. There is not going to be any
meeting-of-the-minds under this type of destructive behavior.
39Limelite
Why it is that as long as Trump is in the White House, there will never be unity. As long as there is a cult of deliberate irrational delusion, the unity that comes from a mutual acceptance of the rationality of reality is impossible.
Science: You have not said China virus. (Trump frequently calls the cause of the spreading illness known as coronavirus disease 2019 a “China virus” or a “Chinese virus.”)"Unity without verity is no better than conspiracy.” – John Trapp
Dr. Anthony Fauci: Ever.
Q: And you never will, will you?
A: No.
40Cecrow
Out of nowhere I watched the Netflix documentary "The Social Dilemma", which may startlingly address where at least part of the divide came from, how it's been made worse, and why it can't easily be resolved. I'm not a strong believer in simple answers, but social media as a phenomenon, and its effects, are complex and widespread.
41proximity1
Sam Harris, the author and podcast-er (See http://samharris.org (" neuroscientist, philosopher, New York Times best-selling author, host of the Making Sense podcast, and creator of the Waking Up App" )) has also recently been plugging and talking about this film.
No easy answers here. Too bad. In our stupid times there's a great premium on the search for, belief in and insistence on easy answers. I suspect that "The Social Dilemma" raises points and issues which strongly challenge those.
42John5918
The toxic polarisation of our politics can be reversed, but it will take humility (Guardian)
Joe Biden’s approach is likely to include listening and cooperation. Politicians – and citizens – should emulate it...
43proximity1
You can forget all about your hypocritical concerns for "healing divides" now.
There'll be none of that for the foreseeable future. Such talk of "Healing" now is more sinister and insincere bullshit.
44Molly3028
There isn't any "fix" in sight. In the Internet age life-long con men and cult
personalities are going to reign supreme. There is a most likely a Trump
wannabe out there already staging his rise to power. Hitler was a once in a
century phenomenon. There are going to be a parade of Trump-like figures
leading the GOP during this century.
personalities are going to reign supreme. There is a most likely a Trump
wannabe out there already staging his rise to power. Hitler was a once in a
century phenomenon. There are going to be a parade of Trump-like figures
leading the GOP during this century.
45Cecrow
On the one side: "This one speaks filth but I'm sure it's all true" and "The other speaks wonderfully but I'm sure it's all false".
On the other side: "This one speaks filth and I can't believe anyone listens to that" and "The other one speaks wonderfully and gives me hope."
Is it as simple as pessimistic world view (everyone's a con, some are just more honest about it, however horrible it sounds) vs optimistic world view (some people sincerely try to make a real difference, I'm not just naive)? I'm not personally ready to be permanently despairing, hopefully not ever.
I at least think it's certain that what people want to believe is a factor. I wouldn't want to believe that the most I have to hope for is a president who can do a better job conning other people than getting conned, and at the sacrifice of everything else.
On the other side: "This one speaks filth and I can't believe anyone listens to that" and "The other one speaks wonderfully and gives me hope."
Is it as simple as pessimistic world view (everyone's a con, some are just more honest about it, however horrible it sounds) vs optimistic world view (some people sincerely try to make a real difference, I'm not just naive)? I'm not personally ready to be permanently despairing, hopefully not ever.
I at least think it's certain that what people want to believe is a factor. I wouldn't want to believe that the most I have to hope for is a president who can do a better job conning other people than getting conned, and at the sacrifice of everything else.
