Anger, resentment, envy. That is what you are defending here? All of your woes are due to the elite, huh? You voted and supported someone just because it drove liberals insane? Never mind his policies; that was irrelevant. I'm sorry but I have no respect for this position. Tell me: what policies did he put in place that benefited you? Ho…
Anger, resentment, envy. That is what you are defending here? All of your woes are due to the elite, huh? You voted and supported someone just because it drove liberals insane? Never mind his policies; that was irrelevant. I'm sorry but I have no respect for this position. Tell me: what policies did he put in place that benefited you? How has he made your life better? Did you even expect him to? I may not agree with Sanders, but I can well see how people would believe in him and support him. But this position --just stick it to the liberals -- just seems juvenile to me and I don't understand how you are defending it.
1. Government policy has almost zero effect on the day to day lives of the hoi polloi.
2. Any federal administration is constrained to "govern from 40 to 60". Extremism of any sort when you're actually in power is simply not possible. Trump's rhetoric may have been extreme but his actual governance?
This is back to the argument that nothing SO bad happened on his watch, which is backwards to me. We're lucky nothing SO bad happened. He was held back from extremism by the constraints of our government -- this is your defense of him? But you're missing my point to RJF. There are reasons people voted for Trump, reasons I can respect. My brother, who describes himself as right-of-center voted for Trump in 2020 b/c he thought the liberals had gone nuts and that Biden wouldn't be able to withstand a party deep into critical race theory and promoting maximum spending. I don't agree with my brother, but I can understand his reasoning. But just "stick it to the liberals" is not a reason I can respect.
If government policy actually has little impact on the day to day lives of ordinary citizens then what is the motive behind voting? Cultural issues, and that is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today. You may not like it but survey after survey has found that what really motivates political partisans is their dislike for the other side.
the effect on the day-to-day life of millions of people (mostly factory workers, but also middle class office workers and family farmers) whose jobs were off-shored should be obvious.
2. "bad middle eastern wars"
such wars had more than zero effect on the working class people in the military
3. "criminals/illegals swarming over the border"
millions of working class people lost earning power as a result of the 10s of millions of illegal, low wage immigrants that came to the USA in the last 25-40 years.
---
As far as how effective Trump was on those specific policy topics:
1. not very effective, but he shifted the debate about the evils of neoliberalism in the center toward populism.
the extremists and radicals on the cultural-left were NEVER going to change their mind, and in fact have doubled down on the anti-working class and anti-white rhetoric, as expected.
2. Trump made it a LOT harder for people on the "right" to openly embrace neocon war mongering.
Did that change the increasingly bizarre stuff going on inside the military-industrial-complex? Not that I can tell, there is increasingly rampant corruption and dysfunction, and the MIC is now openly embracing the violent totalitarianism of radicals on the cultural-left.
3. Sorta. Trump sent the only message to the illiterate, diseased peasants and the cartels and human traffickers in latin america that they will understand: brutal repercussions for illegal immigration. Trump did benefit from being able to invoke COVID to "shut down" the border.
Kamala Harris has now begun to use a watered-down version of Trump's "don't come here" rhetoric. lol
"Anger, resentment, envy. That is what you are defending here? All of your woes are due to the elite, huh?"
Anger, resentment, and envy are personally destructive. Individuals who let go of such emotions are far healthier and usually more moral than those who cling to them. In my own life, I strive to free myself of anger, resentment, and envy. I even find myself emotionally repelled by people who feel the need to point out (correctly) that anger can be a justified response to evil.
Nonetheless, I'm disturbed by the way mainstream left-liberal rhetoric has increasingly framed itself in opposition to anger, resentment, and envy—especially resentment. Indeed, this trend, along with the rise of resentment- and grievance-talk from people like Tucker Carlson, represents a troubling reversal of traditional left-right discourse.
Traditionally, the right stood for elite interests and smug satisfaction with class- and education-based hierarchies, while the left stood for suspicion and, yes, resentment of elites and elite interests. In Nietzschean terms, the right represented "master values," while the left served as a voice for the "slave morality" of "ressentiment." Despite the right’s appeal to "Christian values," it was the left that embodied the resentful cry of Luke 1:52-53: "He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty."
I'm satisfied with my life and don't resent those who are better off, and I do my best not to harbor genuine ill-will toward those I regard as arrogant or oppressors. However, I see it as the left's historic calling to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted," as the saying goes, and to view wealth and "the elite" with suspicion. This populist spirit must animate any left worthy of the name. Accusations of "envy" and "resentment" have been the right's traditional weapons against this populist spirit, and there's simply no denying that very real resentment has often been the driving force behind left-populist movements.
Therefore, I just can't get on board with the current anti-resentment rhetorical bandwagon. At best, it's a distraction from the left's historic calling. At worst, it signals a fundamental realignment of American politics, in which people like me will have to make a morally impossible choice between an economically populist but socially reactionary "right" and a socially liberal elitism that does not deserve the name "left."
Sure. Again --Bernie Sanders - makes sense. Fought for the working class his whole life. I don't think his brand of socialism is best for the country, but I can respect those who do. But how is Trump the champion of the working class? A NY millionaire -- the epitome of the elites. So yeah - when I see someone like RJF promote Trump just b/c he was entertaining, not caring about policy or making lives better, I lose respect. I can emotionally understand it and I agree that those on the left better pay attention. But we're having a reasonably intellectual dialogue here about Trump and this is what he comes up with. Disappointing.
don't think Trump supporters have the same definition of "epitome of the elites" you do.
I remember during the Republican primary they attacked Trump for being a business failure without realizing that was his selling point to his supporters. Why do you think Trump himself spends so much time talking about his business failures as a casino owner?
When Trump supporters talk the elite, they are not talking about how much money you have, or even if that money was inherited. The elite for them are life long politicians who never fail because their connection to government guarantees they will still win even after their decisions blow up the entire economy and everyone but them loses as they did in 2008.
Trump is part of his own rigged system and I'm no fan, but it's a rigged system his supporters can tolerate since they know in their bones life is not fair. It's a rigged system where he did not earn it, but he could lose everything as he did. When his supporters talk about "the epitome of the elite," they mean the Bush's and the Clinton's. The "heads I win, tails you lose" elite who never bet with their own money, never lose even when their choices means everyone but them loses as happened in 2008. People who send the children of other people to death in wars their own children will never participate in.
You're the person Steve Bannon believes and hopes exists; willing to abandon social causes for false claims of economic populism, which the right-wing blathers on about but does nothing about. DeSantis and Hawley and Cotton, won't raise the minimum wage, but they will talk about economic populism and then have fun gutting civil rights protections under the guise of religious freedom. And you are anxious to join them.
First of all, I voted for Biden, for Pete's sake. Second, how does my post indicate that I'm "anxious to join them"? I explicitly said that, even if the Bannon-esque political realignment were real (I agree with you that it has, at least so far, been fake), I would find it "morally impossible" to choose between an economically populist but socially reactionary right and a socially liberal but elitist faux-left.
Nailed it! Guilty as charged, juvenile pleasure galore, I found Trump delicious. His rallies were comic genius. The man absconded with the US presidency : the greatest political feat ever.
Obama was the only other politician that held rallies worth watching: soaring rhetoric, beautiful delivery and an Olympian presence. Our Canadian pols are pathetic, not a one worth listening to, tired cliches and careful choreography.
I’m not envious. I think they, the ruling class have a finger on the scale, steal many unfair advantages and then congratulate themselves for being successful all the while dismissing others as having been beaten fair and square. Trump lambasted them and I loved ever bit of it. That said Trump is sui generis, old and not long for this world. The people who like me found solace in Trump will remain - half of America.
Sorry, as a Canadian it’s really not my place to pontificate on America.
Anger, resentment, envy. That is what you are defending here? All of your woes are due to the elite, huh? You voted and supported someone just because it drove liberals insane? Never mind his policies; that was irrelevant. I'm sorry but I have no respect for this position. Tell me: what policies did he put in place that benefited you? How has he made your life better? Did you even expect him to? I may not agree with Sanders, but I can well see how people would believe in him and support him. But this position --just stick it to the liberals -- just seems juvenile to me and I don't understand how you are defending it.
1. Government policy has almost zero effect on the day to day lives of the hoi polloi.
2. Any federal administration is constrained to "govern from 40 to 60". Extremism of any sort when you're actually in power is simply not possible. Trump's rhetoric may have been extreme but his actual governance?
This is back to the argument that nothing SO bad happened on his watch, which is backwards to me. We're lucky nothing SO bad happened. He was held back from extremism by the constraints of our government -- this is your defense of him? But you're missing my point to RJF. There are reasons people voted for Trump, reasons I can respect. My brother, who describes himself as right-of-center voted for Trump in 2020 b/c he thought the liberals had gone nuts and that Biden wouldn't be able to withstand a party deep into critical race theory and promoting maximum spending. I don't agree with my brother, but I can understand his reasoning. But just "stick it to the liberals" is not a reason I can respect.
If government policy actually has little impact on the day to day lives of ordinary citizens then what is the motive behind voting? Cultural issues, and that is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today. You may not like it but survey after survey has found that what really motivates political partisans is their dislike for the other side.
1. "bad trade deals"
the effect on the day-to-day life of millions of people (mostly factory workers, but also middle class office workers and family farmers) whose jobs were off-shored should be obvious.
2. "bad middle eastern wars"
such wars had more than zero effect on the working class people in the military
3. "criminals/illegals swarming over the border"
millions of working class people lost earning power as a result of the 10s of millions of illegal, low wage immigrants that came to the USA in the last 25-40 years.
---
As far as how effective Trump was on those specific policy topics:
1. not very effective, but he shifted the debate about the evils of neoliberalism in the center toward populism.
the extremists and radicals on the cultural-left were NEVER going to change their mind, and in fact have doubled down on the anti-working class and anti-white rhetoric, as expected.
2. Trump made it a LOT harder for people on the "right" to openly embrace neocon war mongering.
Did that change the increasingly bizarre stuff going on inside the military-industrial-complex? Not that I can tell, there is increasingly rampant corruption and dysfunction, and the MIC is now openly embracing the violent totalitarianism of radicals on the cultural-left.
3. Sorta. Trump sent the only message to the illiterate, diseased peasants and the cartels and human traffickers in latin america that they will understand: brutal repercussions for illegal immigration. Trump did benefit from being able to invoke COVID to "shut down" the border.
Kamala Harris has now begun to use a watered-down version of Trump's "don't come here" rhetoric. lol
"Anger, resentment, envy. That is what you are defending here? All of your woes are due to the elite, huh?"
Anger, resentment, and envy are personally destructive. Individuals who let go of such emotions are far healthier and usually more moral than those who cling to them. In my own life, I strive to free myself of anger, resentment, and envy. I even find myself emotionally repelled by people who feel the need to point out (correctly) that anger can be a justified response to evil.
Nonetheless, I'm disturbed by the way mainstream left-liberal rhetoric has increasingly framed itself in opposition to anger, resentment, and envy—especially resentment. Indeed, this trend, along with the rise of resentment- and grievance-talk from people like Tucker Carlson, represents a troubling reversal of traditional left-right discourse.
Traditionally, the right stood for elite interests and smug satisfaction with class- and education-based hierarchies, while the left stood for suspicion and, yes, resentment of elites and elite interests. In Nietzschean terms, the right represented "master values," while the left served as a voice for the "slave morality" of "ressentiment." Despite the right’s appeal to "Christian values," it was the left that embodied the resentful cry of Luke 1:52-53: "He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty."
I'm satisfied with my life and don't resent those who are better off, and I do my best not to harbor genuine ill-will toward those I regard as arrogant or oppressors. However, I see it as the left's historic calling to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted," as the saying goes, and to view wealth and "the elite" with suspicion. This populist spirit must animate any left worthy of the name. Accusations of "envy" and "resentment" have been the right's traditional weapons against this populist spirit, and there's simply no denying that very real resentment has often been the driving force behind left-populist movements.
Therefore, I just can't get on board with the current anti-resentment rhetorical bandwagon. At best, it's a distraction from the left's historic calling. At worst, it signals a fundamental realignment of American politics, in which people like me will have to make a morally impossible choice between an economically populist but socially reactionary "right" and a socially liberal elitism that does not deserve the name "left."
Sure. Again --Bernie Sanders - makes sense. Fought for the working class his whole life. I don't think his brand of socialism is best for the country, but I can respect those who do. But how is Trump the champion of the working class? A NY millionaire -- the epitome of the elites. So yeah - when I see someone like RJF promote Trump just b/c he was entertaining, not caring about policy or making lives better, I lose respect. I can emotionally understand it and I agree that those on the left better pay attention. But we're having a reasonably intellectual dialogue here about Trump and this is what he comes up with. Disappointing.
don't think Trump supporters have the same definition of "epitome of the elites" you do.
I remember during the Republican primary they attacked Trump for being a business failure without realizing that was his selling point to his supporters. Why do you think Trump himself spends so much time talking about his business failures as a casino owner?
When Trump supporters talk the elite, they are not talking about how much money you have, or even if that money was inherited. The elite for them are life long politicians who never fail because their connection to government guarantees they will still win even after their decisions blow up the entire economy and everyone but them loses as they did in 2008.
Trump is part of his own rigged system and I'm no fan, but it's a rigged system his supporters can tolerate since they know in their bones life is not fair. It's a rigged system where he did not earn it, but he could lose everything as he did. When his supporters talk about "the epitome of the elite," they mean the Bush's and the Clinton's. The "heads I win, tails you lose" elite who never bet with their own money, never lose even when their choices means everyone but them loses as happened in 2008. People who send the children of other people to death in wars their own children will never participate in.
You're the person Steve Bannon believes and hopes exists; willing to abandon social causes for false claims of economic populism, which the right-wing blathers on about but does nothing about. DeSantis and Hawley and Cotton, won't raise the minimum wage, but they will talk about economic populism and then have fun gutting civil rights protections under the guise of religious freedom. And you are anxious to join them.
First of all, I voted for Biden, for Pete's sake. Second, how does my post indicate that I'm "anxious to join them"? I explicitly said that, even if the Bannon-esque political realignment were real (I agree with you that it has, at least so far, been fake), I would find it "morally impossible" to choose between an economically populist but socially reactionary right and a socially liberal but elitist faux-left.
Nailed it! Guilty as charged, juvenile pleasure galore, I found Trump delicious. His rallies were comic genius. The man absconded with the US presidency : the greatest political feat ever.
Obama was the only other politician that held rallies worth watching: soaring rhetoric, beautiful delivery and an Olympian presence. Our Canadian pols are pathetic, not a one worth listening to, tired cliches and careful choreography.
I’m not envious. I think they, the ruling class have a finger on the scale, steal many unfair advantages and then congratulate themselves for being successful all the while dismissing others as having been beaten fair and square. Trump lambasted them and I loved ever bit of it. That said Trump is sui generis, old and not long for this world. The people who like me found solace in Trump will remain - half of America.
Sorry, as a Canadian it’s really not my place to pontificate on America.
"...as a Canadian it’s really not my place to pontificate on America."
I mean, that ship has kinda sailed now, hasn't it?
I’m just acknowledging I’m aware of the trespass
All good, man.
> Sorry, as a Canadian it’s really not my place to pontificate on America.
Nah – as an American, I grant everyone standing to pontificate on America, or anything else, in perpetuity.