The Wisdom of This Choice Is Made Clear in the Panic of Liberals

[iu_a_att]

This is the title of an article in the conservative magazine Townhall
I don't really care about the content of the article one way or the other but do want to comment on the title. The premise is that conservatives are in a zero-sum game with liberals. That conservatives should learn something positive from the panic of the other side. I have read similar sentiments on this forum https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/t...late-him-on-his-election.165777/#post-2371680

Before the whatabouters come around I am sure that some folks on the left say such things on message boards as well. But I think there is a fundamental asymmetry between left and right. The left does not mean to destroy the right. But many on the right take the destruction of the left as an essential goal. I don't think we on the left have properly absorbed the message that many of the people we regard as our fellow citizens on the right actually intend our destruction. If we are frightened to the point of panic, they say, that is proof that what they are doing is working. Those of us on the left would be well advised not to panic but to contemplate soberly the utter hatred some very powerful and well organized forces at work in our society have towards us. Whatever we should do the answer is not to reciprocate.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Whatever we should do the answer is not to reciprocate.

Reciprocating is generally a losing proposition for the dominant position. Getting liberals to reciprocate (or tango, as I like to call it) on the abortion/right-to-life issue is one the primary successes of the Republicans since the Eighties that have given Republicans their unfathomable ability to convince poor or moderately well off Americans to vote for 1%er policies unwittingly (of course) against their own best interests. Guns is another. Religion not so much but still to some degree. Obamacare, and so on.

The MO is to create an artificially divisive issues using keywords and key ideas, and inflame partisans against liberals. Here, they are using the word panic to further create an us-versus-them construct in the minds of their faithful believers. I haven't met any panicked liberals, but maybe I don't get out enough.

Your point about not reciprocating is crucial, as far as I can figure. The only reason the abortion issue became prominent was because liberals fought back. Fought back? Why? Roe v Wade was already carved in stone. What's there to fight about? Just deflate the false conservative narrative by stating that all abortions are sad and we as a society need to do better to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Instead the GOP makes liberals out to be abortion lovers. Oooh, just loooove to kill those fetuses. oh yeah!

I don't know how to reverse such an image now that it's thoroughly embedded in the American consciousness that liberals are abortion lovers but not reciprocating is surely a key factor.

 

[Fro]

Isn't that a massive logical fallacy (Goat or Rockfish would probably know the name of it) to say that "lol this is good for us/the country because it makes the other side mad!"

 

[iu_a_att]

Reciprocating is generally a losing proposition for the dominant position. Getting liberals to reciprocate (or tango, as I like to call it) on the abortion/right-to-life issue is one the primary successes of the Republicans since the Eighties that have given Republicans their unfathomable ability to convince poor or moderately well off Americans to vote for 1%er policies unwittingly (of course) against their own best interests. Guns is another. Religion not so much but still to some degree. Obamacare, and so on.

The MO is to create an artificially divisive issues using keywords and key ideas, and inflame partisans against liberals. Here, they are using the word panic to further create an us-versus-them construct in the minds of their faithful believers. I haven't met any panicked liberals, but maybe I don't get out enough.

Your point about not reciprocating is crucial, as far as I can figure. The only reason the abortion issue became prominent was because liberals fought back. Fought back? Why? Roe v Wade was already carved in stone. What's there to fight about? Just deflate the false conservative narrative by stating that all abortions are sad and we as a society need to do better to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Instead the GOP makes liberals out to be abortion lovers. Oooh, just loooove to kill those fetuses. oh yeah!

I don't know how to reverse such an image now that it's thoroughly embedded in the American consciousness that liberals are abortion lovers but not reciprocating is surely a key factor.

I don't know about which--left or right--is a majority...I suspect both are minority positions. Probably right and left...with their ideological connotations are less helpful as labels. Perhaps the clearest way to formulate the underlying conflict here is between those who would dominate versus those who oppose domination. The dominators must destroy those who threaten their domination. The opponents to domination need not destroy the dominators but only remove them from dominance.

 

[iu_a_att]

Isn't that a massive logical fallacy (Goat or Rockfish would probably know the name of it) to say that "lol this is good for us/the country because it makes the other side mad!"

It is not illogical if the other side is not legitimately part of "the country".

 

[iuwclurker1]

I don't know about which--left or right--is a majority...I suspect both are minority positions. Probably right and left...with their ideological connotations are less helpful as labels. Perhaps the clearest way to formulate the underlying conflict here is between those who would dominate versus those who oppose domination. The dominators must destroy those who threaten their domination. The opponents to domination need not destroy the dominators but only remove them from dominance.

The goal is to win an election, whether you call it dominate or anything else.

Ignore the ideology, focus on the groups and issues. I think it's clear that a majority of American voters would agree that unwanted pregnancies are a bad thing. That addresses your concern about who's a majority. The issue is the majority.

The more narrowly you define an issue, the narrower the group interested in it, but at the same time, you can oversimplify it to the point of making it a binary choice, thereby giving everyone a clearcut opinion, independent of how strong their interest in the issue. Conservatives work hard at oversimplifying issues to create binary choices and then construct the choices to make one choice horrible for their intended constituents.

"Liberals want to take you guns away."
"Liberals love abortion."

The truth value of these statements is unimportant. The importance lies in creating the binary issue. This works only so well as constituents bite on the issue and it only gets played up significantly when both sides fight over it back and forth, thus creating news and debate and the like. Hence, your idea for not reciprocating. Refuse to accept the issue as stated. Change the narrative away from abortion to a broader issue that doesn't have binary answers, like unwanted pregnancy. Tell me how many liberals disagree that unwanted pregnancies are a problem

I don't know, maybe you have a better solution but one of the real problems is that the GOP continually conjures up these false narratives based on puerile binary choices and liberals go for it every time, hook, line, and sinker. Deny it's a basic problem or propose your solution.

 

[iu_a_att]

The goal is to win an election, whether you call it dominate or anything else.

Ignore the ideology, focus on the groups and issues. I think it's clear that a majority of American voters would agree that unwanted pregnancies are a bad thing. That addresses your concern about who's a majority. The issue is the majority.

The more narrowly you define an issue, the narrower the group interested in it, but at the same time, you can oversimplify it to the point of making it a binary choice, thereby giving everyone a clearcut opinion, independent of how strong their interest in the issue. Conservatives work hard at oversimplifying issues to create binary choices and then construct the choices to make one choice horrible for their intended constituents.

"Liberals want to take you guns away."
"Liberals love abortion."

The truth value of these statements is unimportant. The importance lies in creating the binary issue. This works only so well as constituents bite on the issue and it only gets played up significantly when both sides fight over it back and forth, thus creating news and debate and the like. Hence, your idea for not reciprocating. Refuse to accept the issue as stated. Change the narrative away from abortion to a broader issue that doesn't have binary answers, like unwanted pregnancy. Tell me how many liberals disagree that unwanted pregnancies are a problem

I don't know, maybe you have a better solution but one of the real problems is that the GOP continually conjures up these false narratives based on puerile binary choices and liberals go for it every time, hook, line, and sinker. Deny it's a basic problem or propose your solution.

The problem of elections is an important one to be sure. Elections are themselves a profound check on those who would dominate. But, as Trump says, the outcome of the election is legitimate only if he wins. A truly unprecedented statement from a presidential candidate. What we are looking at is a movement that sees losing elections to the "left" as unacceptable. Their view is that the left should be destroyed so that it never has the chance of winning elections ever again. So that it never again presents a threat to those who would dominate. So I suggest we start with that fact before moving on to the fine details of winning elections.

 

[iuwclurker1]

The problem of elections is an important one to be sure. Elections are themselves a profound check on those who would dominate. But, as Trump says, the outcome of the election is legitimate only if he wins. A truly unprecedented statement from a presidential candidate. What we are looking at is a movement that sees losing elections to the "left" as unacceptable. Their view is that the left should be destroyed so that it never has the chance of winning elections ever again. So that it never again presents a threat to those who would dominate. So I suggest we start with that fact before moving on to the fine details of winning elections.

So we're on a fire engine, racing to the fire, and you want to pull over and discuss the barking curs snapping at our wheels? You'll probably get more media attention by talking about the curs than about issues, that's for sure.

 

[iuwclurker1]

The problem of elections is an important one to be sure. Elections are themselves a profound check on those who would dominate. But, as Trump says, the outcome of the election is legitimate only if he wins. A truly unprecedented statement from a presidential candidate. What we are looking at is a movement that sees losing elections to the "left" as unacceptable. Their view is that the left should be destroyed so that it never has the chance of winning elections ever again. So that it never again presents a threat to those who would dominate. So I suggest we start with that fact before moving on to the fine details of winning elections.

That said, to start on your topic, I assert your portrayal of Them is an attempt to dehumanize Them, and by doing so, you've already agreed to lower the bar of the discussion.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

excuse me, but what does this have to do with the very real issue of death panels?

and why liberals hate America and freedom?

and why conservatives are all AR-15 toting racists?

meanwhile back at headquarters, the 0.01 percenters pulling all the stings just keep seeing their net worth skyrocketing.

 

[iu_a_att]

So we're on a fire engine, racing to the fire, and you want to pull over and discuss the barking curs snapping at our wheels? You'll probably get more media attention by talking about the curs than about issues, that's for sure.

I want to talk about what I am talking about. Elections are great...election strategies fascinating...but most places don't have them though.

But I am happy to say something about elections...the liberal approach to elections is to suggest providing general public goods to everyone. That inevitably implies some redistribution i.e, taxing and govt spending. Conservatives propose an alternative...providing more limited public goods to the "deserving people" while redistributing to themselves. So it goes back and forth in a never ending cycle...until one side decides they don't like elections anymore...then they become the ever shrinking set of people who are deserving while everyone else is increasingly screwed. Then everyone decides that autocracy sucks and we return to elections. So the world cycles back and forth between various despots until we get woke enough to return back to elections for a while. So it will go until we vaporize ourselves or get vaporized by something else. Or maybe we get raptured or something.

 

[iu_a_att]

That said, to start on your topic, I assert your portrayal of Them is an attempt to dehumanize Them, and by doing so, you've already agreed to lower the bar of the discussion.

Nope...don't propose dehumanizing them at all. Just want to keep track that there is thing going on we ought to which we ought to pay attention. Hatred is definitely a very human emotion.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Nope...don't propose dehumanizing them at all. Just want to keep track that there is thing going on we ought to which we ought to pay attention. Hatred is definitely a very human emotion.

I agree that hatred and anger are destructive so it's not surprising that the angry and haters are attempting to stop or destroy things. That's what they do. That fits in well with your historical election cycle bit. In fact that's an essential part of it because it's typically the anger that leads to revolution or coup that leads to the autocracy.

I think you're correct that there is an increased and increasing amount of anger present in our society. You even see it in journalists asking, "Does that make you feel angry?" As if that's just fine and expected and it's all someone else's fault. It's not of course. We create our own feelings. If our nation develops a preponderance of angry people, yup, we're doomed. Billions of rounds going off like firecrackers at Chinese New Year.

And?

 

[iu_a_att]

I want to talk about what I am talking about. Elections are great...election strategies fascinating...but most places don't have them though.

But I am happy to say something about elections...the liberal approach to elections is to suggest providing general public goods to everyone. That inevitably implies some redistribution i.e, taxing and govt spending. Conservatives propose an alternative...providing more limited public goods to the "deserving people" while redistributing to themselves. So it goes back and forth in a never ending cycle...until one side decides they don't like elections anymore...then they become the ever shrinking set of people who are deserving while everyone else is increasingly screwed. Then everyone decides that autocracy sucks and we return to elections. So the world cycles back and forth between various despots until we get woke enough to return back to elections for a while. So it will go until we vaporize ourselves or get vaporized by something else. Or maybe we get raptured or something.

Let me say more...I think in the contest between liberals and conservatives everybody does better the more the liberals win. The big problem is that anyone who wins all the time stops being liberal. The only real liberals are those who are out of power or have just recently taken power. Power makes one illiberal.

 

[iu_a_att]

And?

let's find ways to reduce the hatred...and make sure liberals win elections!

 

[iuwclurker1]

let's find ways to reduce the hatred...

You want to engineer someone's personal feelings out, I guess, even if they don't agree that they're angry, they just think you're wrong (about whatever).

More likely you're focused on outliers when you should be focusing on independents and getting more liberals out to vote.