groundskeeper willie
New member
That's, uh, not a good thing for the people in power to be throwing out there as a possibilityCarltonTheBear said:
Idiocracy
- Thread starter Highlander
- Start date
L K
Active member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
Eh, I think a larger problem is that the Republicans voted to allow a relaxation on the obligation for the press to allow accuracy in their reporting. Fox News has been the worst proprieter of fake talking points and lying dressed up as news. CNN/NBC/CBS aren't immune to it either and certainly they play up sensationalism but I think we see far worse from the Republican destabilizing policies promoting this stuff.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/jeff-flake-transcript-senate-speech.html
An excellent speech by Jeff Flake the Republican Senator from Arizona today.
An excellent speech by Jeff Flake the Republican Senator from Arizona today.
Kin
New member
I think there are nice sentiments expressed in that speech but it's kind of tough not to read that speech as "I was more or less ok with the coarsening of the political landscape when it negatively affected a Democratic President's long agreed upon ability to appoint judicial nominees or a far more qualified Democratic candidate's ability to win the Presidency but now it's affecting my ability to be re-elected so I've decided to quit before I'm tossed on my ear".
L K
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Pretty much this. Flake was viewed as a guy highly unlikely to win re-election and funds were being pulled away from him for a re-election campaign. He was getting pushed out by the GOP so he publically turned on the party but will continue to vote for them. Just that Maverick John McCain. Hell talk a game and then vote party line 90% of the time.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
While I agree with what you guys are saying, I think it's important to draw a distinction between Flake and those who still subscribe to the values of Trumpism.
I don't agree with any of Flakes politics per se, but I think he's right in that the nature of the discourse in the country needs to become more civilized. I don't have a problem with someone espousing traditional Republican values, we can at least debate those. I do have a problem with the hate that has become normal.
They are behaving like they are in the midst of a civil war in Washington, they need to be able to look across the aisle and see their countrymen and not the enemy.
From the left, I think it's important to not just turn our back on anyone who tries to break from the lunacy of the Trump GOP. There will be time to debate policy and to hold to account when the runaway train has been stopped.
I understand the urge to tell Flake to go forth and multiply, but when your hair is on fire, you don't say no to help because you don't like the color of shirt the guy with the fire extinguisher is wearing.
I don't agree with any of Flakes politics per se, but I think he's right in that the nature of the discourse in the country needs to become more civilized. I don't have a problem with someone espousing traditional Republican values, we can at least debate those. I do have a problem with the hate that has become normal.
They are behaving like they are in the midst of a civil war in Washington, they need to be able to look across the aisle and see their countrymen and not the enemy.
From the left, I think it's important to not just turn our back on anyone who tries to break from the lunacy of the Trump GOP. There will be time to debate policy and to hold to account when the runaway train has been stopped.
I understand the urge to tell Flake to go forth and multiply, but when your hair is on fire, you don't say no to help because you don't like the color of shirt the guy with the fire extinguisher is wearing.
Kin
New member
See, I think the issue I have with that right now WIGWAL is that I don't really think what Flake was talking about was the Right and Left divide in the US. Because, honestly, I don't know Trump has really done a lot to exacerbate that. I mean, if you look at what Flake is saying in terms of a traditional Left-Right political axis a lot of what he's criticizing Trump and his populist movement for isn't being far enough to the right.
I think what Flake is talking about is specifically about the divide within the Republican party itself. He's objecting to the tone, not the message. Nowhere in his speech does he give the Democratic party or any of its members any credit for always having been opposed to Trump or make any real nods towards any bipartisan reconciliation. Nothing in his speech or voting record seem indicates that he thinks that the 50% of people who voted for Clinton or the even greater number who voted for Obama should have any real say in policy.
Instead he seems to be lamenting the fact that Republicans, who control the White House and both houses of the Senate, can't seem to stop fighting among themselves long enough to get around to crushing whatever last vestiges of Obama and FDR's legacies remain. "Let's focus on our common enemy" isn't a call to peace.
Not a single GOP senator, Flake included, has come out and said that the people of Alabama shouldn't vote for a Senate candidate who has said that he thinks the Constitution is secondary to Bible law and the Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage was worse than the one that upheld slavery. But does Flake speak to that? No. Because any sort of nod towards actual bipartisanship is really secondary to him to consolidating GOP power. He just doesn't like the kind of GOP power that has been born out of a placing of power over principle.
He ended his speech with that quote from Lincoln's inauguration, the whole "we are not enemies, but friends" thing. But, you know, when Lincoln said that in 1861...he was wrong.
I think what Flake is talking about is specifically about the divide within the Republican party itself. He's objecting to the tone, not the message. Nowhere in his speech does he give the Democratic party or any of its members any credit for always having been opposed to Trump or make any real nods towards any bipartisan reconciliation. Nothing in his speech or voting record seem indicates that he thinks that the 50% of people who voted for Clinton or the even greater number who voted for Obama should have any real say in policy.
Instead he seems to be lamenting the fact that Republicans, who control the White House and both houses of the Senate, can't seem to stop fighting among themselves long enough to get around to crushing whatever last vestiges of Obama and FDR's legacies remain. "Let's focus on our common enemy" isn't a call to peace.
Not a single GOP senator, Flake included, has come out and said that the people of Alabama shouldn't vote for a Senate candidate who has said that he thinks the Constitution is secondary to Bible law and the Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage was worse than the one that upheld slavery. But does Flake speak to that? No. Because any sort of nod towards actual bipartisanship is really secondary to him to consolidating GOP power. He just doesn't like the kind of GOP power that has been born out of a placing of power over principle.
He ended his speech with that quote from Lincoln's inauguration, the whole "we are not enemies, but friends" thing. But, you know, when Lincoln said that in 1861...he was wrong.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
That's fair enough.
Isn't that bold part extremely important though?
The country is a disaster right now, in large part because there is an egomaniacal man-child at the steering wheel and the Congress is content to let him just do his thing as long as it allows them to consolidate power.
Flake is definitely repugnant politically, but I think you have to give him credit for being a loud voice of reason, and if not reason maybe at least civility.
I'm just reluctant to write off what seemed like at least a small break in the dam, if we wait for the GOP to be the kind of allies we want and need, we'll never make any progress and just resign ourselves to an endless cycle of us and them bipartisanship. If Flake and others in his party can cause a pivot back towards reasonable political discourse, that seems like a pretty big win considering where we are right now.
I mean it's political suicide now for members of the GOP to even be seen talking to Democrats or taking meetings, that's insane, we are not at war.
It might be wishful thinking and is probably an indictment of the politics in Washington, but his speech seemed like the most reasonable thing I've read from a GOP politician since before Obama.
Kin
New member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
Yes and no. It is if it either A) causes some real reflection about what this means about the deep partisan divide as opposed to just the internal machinations of the GOP or B) at least inspires him to stay and fight for whatever vision of the GOP he wants.
Because by leaving the Senate he's almost guaranteeing that the Trump wing of the party is going to field the next nominee in Arizona(and therefore add to the bad conditions of the Senate). "This is a terrible problem, I hope you suckers can figure it out. Bye!" Isn't terribly noble.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
I guess I just don't see the point of civility absent reason. As much as we don't like Trump if there is any sort of legitimacy to the movement he's behind it's that there's no point to politics if nothing gets done but everyone's civil enough to the point that nobody loses their job. Maybe you can't credit Trump with that and focus more on what Sanders was saying but civility without positive action seems like advocating for a polite stagnancy.
But even with that said, that all is only true if you think Flake is making a case for better discourse between Democrats and Republicans which, again, I don't think he's doing(certainly none of his Pre-Trump actions indicate he was interested in that). Instead, he's upset with the people out there like Steve Bannon who're going after him for being insufficiently vicious. It's not self-reflection, it's self-preservation.
I can only speak for myself here but I want more division and less civility between mainstream Republicans and people like Roy Moore or Steve Bannon. I'd like to believe that conservative politics in the United States don't have to go hand in hand with nationalism and racial resentment but...I'm waiting for any elected official to take that stance.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
You're correct for now, but I guess my naive hope was that civility would actually be the first step towards a reasonable dialogue. As it stands it's hard to even begin a conversation with an orange buffoon that's default communication method is throwing 140 character handfuls of excrement.
I know none of this was enough, but it seemed like a large enough tone change to me to be significant, I can't argue with what you've said though, but part of me will continue to hope for the best, while preparing for the worst.
Thanks for going through it with me Nik, when not breaking balls, you're a pretty good educator.
Kin
New member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:Thanks for going through it with me Nik, when not breaking balls, you're a pretty good educator.
fwiw, I do think there are some conservatives out there who are taking significant stands against Trump and Trumpism, rejecting his more odious aspects, without entirely abandoning the ideology of conservatism. People I disagree with on the issues but who are smart and at the very least try to acknowledge that Trump didn't just accidentally happen.
Here, for instance, is a conversation in New York magazine with Charlie Sykes, who was a conservative talk radio host for years:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/the-republican-roots-of-trumpism.html
So I do think the sort of thing you're talking about exists and is out there, I just don't think this was it.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Thanks for sharing that, it was an interesting read. Although it was a little easy on Reagan, I think he was a large part of the present day problem, he courted the Evangelical vote and they still have an unhealthy amount of influence in Washington.
Do you think the U.S. is closer to finding political middle ground or to civil war?
What is the great hope?
The young turn out to vote and allow a generation of Democrats to steer the country towards more of a Canadian/European left of center government?
bustaheims
Active member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
I agree. Reagan's courting of the Moral Majority played a big part in increasing the divide between the left and right on social issues.
Kin
New member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
Yeah, for the record I'm not a huge fan of Chait but there is a link there to his review of Sykes' book where he does say Sykes is somewhat blind to a lot of the antecedents of Trump.
Either way, I was reading it and thought I'd pass it on.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
I have no idea. I wrote a long thing about how I thought that the war to come won't be between Liberals and Conservatives but people who are pro and anti-revolution but I think I've said that before in this thread and I was bumming myself out.
So instead, because I used the word Libertine in that long thing I've deleted, I'm going to remember how good Pete Doherty was before the sustained heroin/crack/Kate Moss problem got to him and crank Up the Bracket or What Became of the Likely Lads.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
I'm partial to Time for Heroes, cheers!