Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Trump presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Conservatism is the dread fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal."
I can't find where this quote came from, who first said it, but think it expresses some of the attraction of the Trump message, without forcing everyone who voted for him into pointy hoods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRI
"Conservatism is the dread fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal."
I can't find where this quote came from, who first said it, but think it expresses some of the attraction of the Trump message, without forcing everyone who voted for him into pointy hoods.

Or, to look at CRI's ideology you might conclude "liberalism is the dread that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being referred to as a human being"
 
its a nasty little twist on identity politics and seeks to box workers voices in with a nice spoke on the Wheel of Opression. I've noticed the phrase 'white working class' being around for a while now(liberal dogwhistle for lumpen racists). The 'male' addition to this is a newer one on me.
Educated folks will get what it means and the ideological baggage it carries but working class may be a bit of a confusing category for a lot of Septics.

I've met few Americans who actually identified as being working class and that's not for want of knocking around with blue collar folk. Americans tend to identify elastically as rich, middle class and poor. Middle class is a very big category that certainly includes a lot of waged manual workers. The upper middle class often confuse themselves with the rich people they aspire to be. The lower middle class are often just scrapping by on maxed out credit cards. By poor Americans usually mean the bottom couple of deciles which really are busted flat, often patchily unemployed mostly in service sector minimum wage jobs and with an over representation of non-white folks.

I've noticed the celebration of the "working class" creeping ingenuously into GOP rhetoric. With Trump it's often coal miners. In many areas of manual work Latinos are over represented but coal miner are, incidentally, overwhelmingly white. It's a tiny (~80K jobs and shrinking) fairly decently paid group. At best Trump may halt the decline in coal mining jobs at worse it's a complete scam. Trump's choice of icon has a great deal more to do with the GOP's current fad for global warming denial and in turn the coal lobby which is less easy to nostalgically valorise than sooty, hard hatted, Kentucky Good Ole Boys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRI
Bernie Sanders says Trump voters aren’t 'deplorable' in jab aimed at Clinton camp

Bernie Sanders has defended voters who backed Donald Trump for president, telling a rally in Boston: “Some people think the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and deplorable folks. I don’t agree, because I’ve been there.”

The senator from Vermont was speaking on Friday night at an event staged by Our Revolution, a group set up after his unexpectedly strong challenge to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. Our Revolution aims, in the senator’s words in Boston, to create “a Democratic party that is not a party of the liberal elite but of the working class of this country”....
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRI
On CSpan Clint Watts 3/30/2017 On Russian active measures

I've seen a partial clip of this before. It's worth watching in full.

I more and more get the impression poor old Trumpski's just a gullible mark for Russian info ops. No one in their right mind would trust the mendacious bastard. On the other hand like a lot of chronically deceitful people he's an obvious dupe that can easily be manipulated.

He'll plainly run with any old conspiratorial bollocks he stumbles upon trending on the web. His idea of power is a dictatorial business amplified by diligent bullshitting. Well that's pretty much how Putin operates. Trump with his crude conception of US politics thought of himself as a similarly shrewd manipulator of weaker men that could easily fix a dysfunctional DC but he's really just a marketing guy with a good nose for riding the popular mood.

Trump's naturally sympathetic with the Russian elite as they are much like him i.e. basically scruple free grifters. And Putin has been a river to these people while Making Russia Great Again i.e. making his admiring cronies really, really rich as he skims of his cut. They have successfully looted their own state; it's a model crony capitalist operation. Trump's a very greedy man simply awed by the vast wealth of the shady Russian oligarchs. In the early noughties when Trump had burnt his lenders they were flush with loot that the Russian elite tended to put into foreign real estate for safe keeping. They were good customers and he learnt to talk up Putin as it was good business. It's not just dubious Russians Trump was happy to sell mobbed up folk units in Trump Tower that the residents' associations in other luxury properties would not have as neighbours.

Trump doesn't have the wit or managerial skill to participate knowingly in let alone build a covert conspiracy. For the campaign he assembled an entirely un-vetted pack of second rate rogues about him some with very dubious Russian connections. Some may have been Russian assets in play. He also antagonised the GOP establishment for political gain. Rubbing their nose in it with his frequent defences of the obnoxious Kremlin. What did it matter getting to Oval Office was a long shot. Now it's all under the full glare of FBI and bi-partisan Hill investigations. While a probably innocent (but stupid) Trump makes things worse by not simply distancing himself from his tainted lieutenants, interfering with investigations and Tweeting distracting fibs.
 

Bernie Sanders has defended voters who backed Donald Trump for president, telling a rally in Boston: “Some people think the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and deplorable folks. I don’t agree, because I’ve been there.”

The senator from Vermont was speaking on Friday night at an event staged by Our Revolution, a group set up after his unexpectedly strong challenge to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. Our Revolution aims, in the senator’s words in Boston, to create “a Democratic party that is not a party of the liberal elite but of the working class of this country”....

Without Sanders' quote to hand, I gave him benefit of the doubt earlier that perhaps his was a misguided "Not All Trump Voters" statement. Nope, he flat out said he doesn't believe trump voters are racist and sexist, and he knows best. :facepalm:

Maybe he meant to aim for Hilary Clinton and the so-called "liberal elite" of the Democratic party. But, he landed his punch squarely in the gut of people who actually experience racism and/or sexism first hand.

So, Sanders fans on here, do you think what he said was totally fine? Or can you actually see how bloody patronising and offensive his words were, coming as they did from a white man?

Plenty on the Twitter are pointing out the following as well:

- Sanders previously served in office as an Independent, only joining the Democratic party to run for the nomination. He's never put in the grunt work but feels entitled to dictate what the party should be like.

- The strongest blocs of votes for the Democrats last election were from African Americans and other people of colour and/or poorer people - hardly a "liberal elite." The DNC Chair and Vice Chair are both men of colour, one is Muslim and the member of Congress and the party most vociferous in rallying support against Trump is an African American, septegenarian woman.

- It's Sanders himself who makes it plain when he says, "the working class of this country" he means white males. He's already shut down and shut out working class people of colour and working class women with his claiming to know better than them what Trump voters are like. :rolleyes:

Good collection of points in this piece. Apologies in advance if it doesn't "work" as it seems to be an article that's a series of tweets.

On Sanders' Denial of the Role of Race and Gender in Election 2016

This sums up exactly why Sanders won't call out the racism and sexism of the Trump voters he's determined to embrace and needs to use for his own legitimacy.

upload_2017-4-2_17-0-13.png
upload_2017-4-2_17-0-45.png
 
In Scientific American How the Science of "Blue Lies" May Explain Trump's Support
...
“People condone lying against enemy nations, and since many people now see those on the other side of American politics as enemies, they may feel that lies, when they recognize them, are appropriate means of warfare,” says George Edwards, a Texas A&M political scientist and one of the country’s leading scholars of the presidency.

If we see Trump’s lies not as failures of character but rather as weapons of war, then we can come to see why his supporters might see him as an effective leader. From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump’s campaign and presidency.

Research by Alexander George Theodoridis, Arlie Hochschild, Katherine J. Cramer, Maurice Schweitzer, and others have found that this kind of lying seems to thrive in an atmosphere of anger, resentment, and hyper-polarization. Party identification is so strong that criticism of the party feels like a threat to the self, which triggers a host of defensive psychological mechanisms.

For millions and millions of Americans, climate change is a hoax, Hillary Clinton ran a sex ring out of a pizza parlor, and immigrants cause crime. Whether they truly believe those falsehoods or not is debatable—and possibly irrelevant. The research to date suggests that they see those lies as useful weapons in a tribal us-against-them competition that pits the “real America” against those who would destroy it.

It’s in blue lies that the best and worst in humanity can come together. They reveal our loyalty, our ability to cooperate, our capacity to care about the people around us and to trust them. At the same time, blue lies display our predisposition to hate and dehumanize outsiders, and our tendency to delude ourselves.
...
The unifying power of projectile bullshitting. Trump is like a truffle pig when if comes to sniffing out what dark falsehood his audience will wish into something subjectively true. The greatest trick the he ever pulled off was convincing so many voters that his superhuman business powers and gleeful bullying could solve gridlock in DC. In a way it was hope and change all over again if back to a forever lost America of the mid 20th Century. Trump would go on to demonstrate this magical revolution was a fairy tale even more quickly than his predecessor did.

A leader can move people's beliefs about reality and possibilies. Obama won the Whitehouse based on an optimistic belief in human decency and the ability of Americans to cooperate across partisan lines. As some pointed grumpily to the first black President as evidence America enter a "post-racial" era enter Trump defiantly dog whistling about Obama being Kenyan and an awful lot of Americans believing him. Faced at the end of a less than stellar Presidency with the affront of Trump as a divisive, hate preaching Presidential candidate Obama piously said he had faith in the American people. Americans were better than that. Obama probably wanted to believe that just as Trump probably felt millions of illegals must have stolen his majority in the electoral vote. Neither can be said to be evidence based assertions. It's arguable which is the bigger blue whooper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRI
Or, to look at CRI's ideology you might conclude "liberalism is the dread that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being referred to as a human being"

Can we stop using the word "liberal" in a way that is only really used in an incestuous radical left milieu? (or by the far-right) This nonsense is precisely why the left can't communicate with anyone. "Liberals" fail to communicate with certain types of people, liberals are associated with the left (in the UK as well as the US, at least for people who don't post on urban) so sections of the left respond by pretending liberals are really the right wing. Believe it or not, this is not how you convert actual right wingers to your cause and all it achieves is alienating the soft-left. (who are not all, by the way, irredeemably middle class, and this assumption itself reveals an unconscious snobbery.) It amounts to little more than hipster-ish posturing to impress people who largely share your opinions anyway.

Your name tagline references Mark Fisher's "Vampire Castle" essay, but you clearly missed the point of that essay entirely. It wasn't only the intersectionalistas he was critiquing.
 
Last edited:
I have never heard the word "liberal" in the sense it is used here outside of radical left circles. Which these days is an inward looking subculture, not a political movement. We have to confront this problem, and that involves adapting our viewpoints to the world as it is rather than wishing the world to conform to the way we see it. This use of the word "liberal" is a symptom of this problem.
 
...........While a probably innocent (but stupid) Trump makes things worse by not simply distancing himself from his tainted lieutenants, interfering with investigations and Tweeting distracting fibs.
hes been busted for fraud ...money laundering ... a long history of seemingly not being too bothered over where his financing is coming from ...and that's not to far in the past either ie ..his current dealings in Azerbaijan

he's a wrong un ...and not a dupe ..when it comes to personal gain
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRI
OK well I got that definition off google, just now. So I doubt very much that it's a term limited to
radical left circles
actually.

The only part of mainstream politics in the UK that could convincingly claim not to be politically liberal, would be the radical right of the tory party and UKIP (if they're mainstream). Everyone else is liberal. There are no left [edited in] radicals in mainstream politics anywhere I can see.

So that's how I'm using the term.
 
It's not a "So called Liberal Elite" that lost the election for the Democrats, but an actual Liberal Elite.
Evidence please?

At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, "Liberal" seems to be used as a slur in both the US and the UK. However, what it means and who it targets are totally different things in the two places, neither with much connections to the origins of the term.

In the UK, when not describing a specific political party, it seems to be lobbed as an insult to anyone with centre left views who's probably not from a working class background. It's lobbed by folk who describe themselves as socialists and often as working class, too.

In the US, it's an insult used frequently by Trump supporters and has generally been used by those tending to the right / Tea Party end of the GOP. It's used pretty much against anyone they believe to be more left-leaning than they are, ranging from centerist Republicans to Bernie Sanders.
 
OK well I got that definition off google, just now. So I doubt very much that it's a term limited to actually.

The only part of mainstream politics in the UK that could convincingly claim not to be politically liberal, would be the radical right of the tory party and UKIP (if they're mainstream). Everyone else is liberal. There are no left [edited in] radicals in mainstream politics anywhere I can see.

So that's how I'm using the term.

So, bearing in mind you're saying everyone apart from the far right and the radical left are liberals, do you think this is a sensible thing to be saying?

Or, to look at CRI's ideology you might conclude "liberalism is the dread that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being referred to as a human being"
 
do you think this is a sensible thing to be saying?

Full disclosure, I don't agree or endorse everything J Ed posts, though I do find myself in agreement and / or amusement quite often.

But the definition I would use of the word liberal has nothing to do with inferiority. It has to do with (again) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. Is there a problem with defining liberal that way in 2017?
 
But the definition I would use of the word liberal has nothing to do with inferiority. It has to do with (again) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. Is there a problem with defining liberal that way in 2017?

I think there is a problem with conflating economic Thatcherites with socially liberal soft leftists, and acting like both are equally the enemy.
 
and acting like both are equally the enemy.

Because they are the enemy as far as I am concerned.

If the radical left is to have any future relevance (or any future at all) then it should ditch any and all associated connections with liberalism (politically, ideologically, socially etc...) and be a force in its own right. Otherwise , what is the point? Might as well give up on everything and accept this end of history nonsense about liberal capitalism being the final stage of all history.
 
However, if one doesn't hold individual liberty and free trade as sacrosanct, and if one envisages radical social reform (which arguably can only happen if the other two are constrained) then one is definitely not a liberal.

Fuck me, I used one. I'll fucking do it again too. Well, it works so fuck teh h8erz
 
However, if one doesn't hold individual liberty and free trade as sacrosanct, and if one envisages radical social reform (which arguably can only happen if the other two are constrained) then one is definitely not a liberal.

Fuck me, I used one. I'll fucking do it again too. Well, it works so fuck teh h8erz

Don't get me wrong, I'm a communist, not a liberal.

But we need to be doing some serious reflection. The crisis of capitalism over the last decade has revealed how irrelevant the radical left is. People are deluding themselves into thinking that Brexit and Trump and other expressions of discontent are somehow a subliminal victory for the left. In actuality, the fact that discontent has been so thoroughly channeled into nationalism and right wing politics just shows how irrelevant the left has become, and this pretending like Brexit is something to do with the left is delusional.

Discontent does not automatically equal socialist revolution. The discontent that the rump of the left spent the 90s and 00s waiting for has arrived, and we've got nothing. IMO, the appetite for socialist ideas does exist, but first we have to shake off the inward looking culture developed within the left during the 90s and 00s wilderness years and get serious again.
 
Most people use it as meaning socially liberal.
I don't think youre right. I reckon most people understand liberal to mean what it means - where the disagreements occur is whether people think the various things liberalism means are good things or not.
 
the fact that discontent has been so thoroughly channeled into nationalism and right wing politics just shows how irrelevant the left has become

I don't think this is true. I think it shows the power of the media (if what's happened is how you put it)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom