Current Affairs Culture wars & The rise of grifting
- Thread starter longers
- Start date
- Status
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
There's a difference between their personal morality and the implications of the policies they advocate to earn votes.
They're mostly tin idols on both sides of the aisle, at least over here. The ones with character were purged by both sides over the last fifteen years. It's an ugly, Social Darwinism game of fundraise-or-die, these days.
Bernie doesn't have to grift like that because it's Vermont, and he's an icon. The situation is rather different for most of the rest.
It's not that. It's that the interest group agendas on the left are fundamentally incompatible. A dollar to promote female business ownership is a dollar not spent doing the same for male minorities. The transgender agenda undermines female athletics. Reparations for African-Americans would require taxing everyone else. The internal conflicts are baked in.
Over on the right, wealthy business interests just go to church and spout the nonsense knowing full well they can buy their way out of any legal trouble, often before it starts. The dynamics make cohesiveness possible.
You are putting perfume on a pig, I've literally just said that without the extensive vocab flex.
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
You most certainly did not. You have attempted to claim that the left has morals, and the right does not.
I disagree. I think the politicians on the left are little better in moral terms, at least in America. It so happens that many (not all) of the policies those politicians push to earn votes are better for most voters than those of the right, which in turn gives the left what cohesion it possesses.
The problem is the interest group portion of their politics, which is independent of being on the correct side of things like regulation, public health and climate change. That is a battle to select winners and losers within the left's coalition. It's not possible to satisfy them all, not only because they all strictly prefer infinite money allocated to their interests and zero to everyone else's, but because some groups' social preferences directly impinge on those of others.
It's a structural problem, not a moral one. Both left and right in the US are trying to screw anyone not like them to the hilt, and rig the system so that their voices are heard at the expense of others. The only difference there is the names and photos on the membership cards.
You are correct, I actually misinterpreted how wrong you are amongst all that verbose guff.
The whole “both sides are as bad as each other” standpoint gives me a headache.
One side is literally trying to legislate trans people out of existence, ban books, remove women’s rights to bodily autonomy, murder homeless people, and build concentration camps in Rwanda for people fleeing wars - all the while is using that all as a distraction while they line their own pockets, their corporate overlords pockets, and their mate’s pockets.
The other side is saying “all of that is pretty bad, maybe we should have a fairer system and not be wildly cruel to marginalised groups, or people feeling conflicts created our own foreign policy”
One side is literally trying to legislate trans people out of existence, ban books, remove women’s rights to bodily autonomy, murder homeless people, and build concentration camps in Rwanda for people fleeing wars - all the while is using that all as a distraction while they line their own pockets, their corporate overlords pockets, and their mate’s pockets.
The other side is saying “all of that is pretty bad, maybe we should have a fairer system and not be wildly cruel to marginalised groups, or people feeling conflicts created our own foreign policy”
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
What you're missing is that a human rights or natural rights argument has the same internal arrogance as those of the member of a proselytizing faith who comes knocking on your door uninvited. Those human rights arguments may seem self-evident to you, given the culture you live in, but I might say the same thing about the arguments of the person of faith.
Approaching the opposition from a position of claimed moral superiority builds walls. Getting things done in a democracy requires building bridges. If we're observing things like abortion bans and the UK's Rwanda policy, that's not a time for bashing the other side. It's time for action. It's time to realize the moral high horse isn't producing results, climb down and find the common ground that ends the madness, and secures votes.
In the case of the abortion bans, that has proven to be the denial of life-saving care, and needless suffering. State governments have shown they cannot be trusted with the power the Supreme Court remanded to them, and opinion polling on wholly unrestricted abortion rights shows a seismic shift in favor. In the case of the Rwanda policy, it's securing the voters who agree that's not who the UK is strongly enough to overcome their other differences with you.
The left gets those voters by stopping the constant looking down its noses at opposition voters baked into its rhetoric, and talking about policy implications and national identity. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Democrats have only won the White House from the other party in the midst of the three worst economic pullbacks since 1990. When American presidential elections are about something other than a loss of faith in the Republicans on economic policy, and the Democrats lack incumbency advantage, the Democrats lose.
Why? For decades, the left has been rowing as fast as they possibly can in the opposite direction of port, then blaming their leadership for the ship only coming in when the tide is in and the prevailing winds blow hard enough to counteract the self-destruction. Some of that blame is well-founded, in the sense that politicians in safe seats have every reason to engage in inflammatory rhetoric. Some of that blame lies with those who cheer on those politicians like they're a football club, retweet them and donate to them.
I can't claim I want to stop the Tories and Trump as much as you do. I think it's apparent I also want to stop them. Your moral outrage does not win votes. It loses them. Who's winning the biggest-sinner contest this week does not matter. There's plenty of dirt on both sides' politicians. Yours are also grasping pondscum who spend far more time fundraising than they do legislating, by and large. They have the one redeeming virtue of supporting some policies we can agree are broadly better for most people.
If you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you would row towards port for a change. In case you haven't noticed, there's a crisis on this side of the pond, and you're tossing gasoline on the fire. As one of the few remaining members of the endangered species known as moderates, I talk to the other side, too. They'll tell me stuff they won't tell you. Some of them are gettable. You're making that much harder.
If you think you're upset with an argument you dislike, imagine how I feel every time I have to deal with the emotional nonsense the left's sanctimonious rhetoric provokes. Treat the other side like adult human beings rather than wayward children in need of a scolding, and I can get some work done on your behalf. Quit poisoning the well we both drink from. Thank you.
lol
Any chance we can talk about the rights role in all this for once?
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
No, it's not their fault it's the invisible wang directing economic forces.
Spadge Vernacular
Player Valuation: £70m
efcfanwirral
Player Valuation: £30m
I doubt the actual politicians are saying that, only the supporters. Labour will have us in just as many wars as the Tories, with the exact same propaganda and consequences. Mainly because British foreign policy is created in Washington.
I do wonder whether there will be more war support once Labour are in though, as more will trust the government - what do you reckon? An actual question, not an invitation for an attack or being called names...
Not sure if this is what you mean, but here's my take...I never really understood this characterization of the left-being more morally high-grounded/superior than the right. It seems more of a meme that gets repeated than a data-driven statement. In my recollection (at least in my lifetime) it was actually Newt Gingrich who infused highly charged moral language into the congress. He talked about good versus evil, a battle for America, questioned the patriotism and "American-ism" of the Democrats, etc. etc. There was a book written about this that came out in 2020.
Also, Reagan eliminated the fairness doctrine in media; this stated that in order for media outlets to keep their FCC license, they had to present both sides of an issue on matters of national importance. Soon after Reagan killed it, Rush Limbaugh went into syndication and began chatting some highly charged morally outraged language. This was an unprecedented "shock jock" approach to politics and media (having watched and listened to his show many times in the early 90s out of morbid curiosity) and it seemed to reinforce hyperpartisan politics.
These calls for "find common ground" "meet me in the middle" are a bit disingenuous in light Gingrich's rhetoric (the rise of shock-jock political media shows--Ingraham, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, etc.) and the fact that if you look at which party has moved to more extremes over the years, it is the Republicans, at least on the National level.
Attachments
- Status