Exh ideologiy transcend
I am wary to cautiously ok with Reunited States of America film and its points . But I also second some critiques that Jacobin had of that film. While political divisiveness is certainly a huge issue in the US, it is poverty and exploitation that are the biggest problems in the US and are bigger issues than political divisiveness
I like how the film talks about the need for conversations, wants to go beyond partisanship and rancor, tries to create a system of solutions, to be problem solvers, not a partisans
I like how the film wants to shatter the political binary. There is multiple valid ways to solve math problems according to Equitable Math so there is similarly multiple valid views on and solutions to political issues also
It is topical in broad stokes but frustratingly allergic to particulars . It is earnest and well meaning
It rightfully makes a decent case for political empathy. But political empathy and a willingness to hear alternative viewpoints, as it turns out, generally can only get you so far.
The film was too vague . It can’t seem to make a meaningful case for itself beyond its vague promotion of “finding common ground.
The film’s implicit premise that polarization is a matter of tone and individual attitude, the true business of politics in the end involves competing values and interests that cannot be reconciled.
Even the most rancor-free political disagreements between Left, Liberal 2.0 and Right will remain disagreements, since conversations aren’t a substitute for public policy.
Jacobian took the words right out of my mouth: “The ultimate irony of the rebranded centrism qua populist idealism that a film like The Reunited States puts forward is that the would-be “solutions” it offers rarely enjoy any real popular buy-in. Millions of ordinary voters may dislike Congress, the two major parties, and the superficial spectacle that passes for discourse on network TV, but they’re hardly pining for a lukewarm agenda of means-tested tax credits or the election of phony outsider candidates like Michael Bloomberg and Howard Schultz — both of whom enjoyed decidedly less success than figures like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, who (despite the vast ideological chasm separating them) ran explicitly against the conventional governing class.
Rather than indulging in post-partisan fantasies, ordinary Americans should be encouraged to ask why their political and media institutions are so chronically unrepresentative of majority opinion, and why corporate interests are so regularly allowed to drown out dissenting views. Political discourse could always use a bit less toxicity, but what ails American society will not be healed by independent centrist lawmakers or a grassroots movement for post-partisan bridge-building. Far more urgently, the United States needs a movement for democratic government and majority rule.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/jvu8to/i_used_to_be_a_liberal_4_years_ago_but_im/ and
I am against both partisan extremes along with Liberalism 2.0.
If I sound partisan/too partisan on issues ,blame the polarizing politicians ,MSM, and political system itself for me having to be non partisan/too partisan on said issues. I , along with most Americans are victims of this polarizing/partisan political tug of war between the left and right for too long where me being a ‘militant moderate’ is getting harder by the day. A house divided against itself cannot stand (so we must stand with a united America)
It's like in the old USSR a few steps backward (Republicans) , more than a few steps forward (Democrats) , small step gain. It's a symbioses relationship between the two parties
Democrats exist to be a foil to the Republicans. The two parties were similar for so long but the Democrats chose to be the more ‘liberal party’ to differentiate itself from the Republicans. The Democrats embrace Liberal, Liberal 2.0 and progressive (and extremely rare leftist) views more to differentiate themselves from the Republicans than to naturally or truly have said views
People on both sides have a common tendency to exaggerate the viewpoints? of their ideological opponents They usually see on average, twice as much difference as actually exists. See this meme and post for a little more on this. Also see this post by me along with this thread
According to Glenn Greenwald : “I would be on [Fox News] every day if I didn’t say no sometimes. Why is that happening? It’s bizarre. You look at any article on my work and it’s “far leftist Glenn Greenwald” and now I’m the most frequent guest on Tucker Carlson’s show. How did that happen? I think the reason is so many people on the left and on the right . . . have so much more in common in terms of their political views and their common enemies than either want to recognize. . . . Those old labels [left and right] don’t really tell us much anymore.”
There are also imagined extremism. This comes in a via conflicts over abortion rights, the interpretation of a racial-ethnic incident, the attitudes of certain social viewpoints etc . Most Democrats see Republicans as fascists , most Republicans see Democrats as Socialists
Like saying someone who is against someone saying that Transgender women shouldn’t compete in Women’s sports ‘doesn't want Transgender people to exist’. or saying that someone who is against the 1619 project being taught in schools is ‘against students in schools learning about slavery’. or saying that supporting states requiring id to vote is trying to prevent minorities from voting or that those laws are ‘Jim Crow 2.0’. All sides , especially Liberal 2.0era use strawman and hyperbole on every non Liberal 2.0 viewpoint and action
In disputes on politics, everyone seriously overestimates the polarization between both sides. This is due to demonization by each side toward the other See here for more
Like why would you accuse 'the conservative' of something when you have no clue what his/her views are? 'You conservatives want to ban gays' as if it's an argument against the increase of fire arms rights. I'm not saying it is not happening, but so much of the arguments only end up in ad hominens. If someone is talking about increasing fire arm rights, that in no way means they want to ban gays. There may be a correlation in that people want more gun rights but ban gays etc, but the issue with these terms is that you assume right off the bat you are 100% correct.
To quote William Mckinley “our differences are policies our agreements are principals”
Democrats-Liberals don't embrace Republican-Conservative views because they feel Republican-Conservatives aren't on the same team so their views are bad due to them being associated with Republicans-Conservatives.
Republicans-Conservatives don't embrace Democrats-Liberals views because they feel Democrats-Liberals aren't on the same team so their views are bad due to them being associated with Democrats-Liberals (which is why Republicans and Conservatives rejected former President Barack Obama’s policies they should have embraced since Obama was almost like a Democrat version of GWB).
This article contrasts how Liberal 2.0ers are on hot button issues with how former President Abraham Lincoln was on hot button issues
Why can’t they debate using politeness, reason, and conviction (and maybe humor and charm)?
“It is harder, but not less important, for us to try and communicate with those who do not agree with us on every issue. And it is important to see where if possible, and I do believe it is possible, we can find common ground." Bernie Sanders
Politicians should not make decisions based on emotions but based on rational thinking. Being compassionate is good but there needs to be a balance with decision making
Democrats, Progressives and Liberal 2.0ers should drop the purity tests. People should support views based on research and independent thought not party lines)
I am thinking what Tulsi Gabbard said here is base? “I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms," At worst what she said wasn’t wrong or offensive. See more of my thoughts on this quote by her here
Comments
Post a Comment