Earl Aelfheah

Except it wasn't tribalism I was cricising, it was people encouraging xenophobia and intollerance and then refusing to take responsibility for what comes of it.

I don't see where I've been hypocritical btw.

The tribal thing isn't helpful and there are many republicans / conservatives who are appalled by Trump as much as anyone. But when people start saying "it's the Lefts fault", well, its shows such a lack of self awareness that I find it hard not to play that game back.

I agree that it's not helpful, but frankly there is a lot of hypocrisy and I'm not yet ready to 'start the healing'

It's like getting pissed, crashing the car and then saying "you know, I think there are some serious questions to be asked of the police here...they really should have beeen more effective at stopping me".

Never mind the hand wringing on the left, personally I think there should be calls for some soul searching on the right.

It's interesting, whenever 'the left' has tried to speak to the disenfranchised, talked about inequality, suggested a fairer distribution of wealth, or a better deal for those who have been left behind by globalisation - they've been told to be realistic, to stop trying to turn the clock back and accused of being 'extremists', pursuing the 'politics of envy'. In short, they're told to tack to the right. But guess what - shifting the centre of gravity ever rightwards brings the fringes ever closer to the mainstream and before you know it people like 'the Donald' are getting elected. Now the more moderate 'right' are saying 'this is the lefts fault for listening to us, for not offering a counter narrative'... 'The left should have provided a counter weight to avoid the increasingly out of control lurch to the right. They should have done more to make themselves heard over our shrieking'. ...Or else it's 'the lefts' fault for 'closing down discussion of immigration'. Funny, but looking at the daily, rabid headlines put out by a sizable proportion of the press, the 'go home' vans our delightful PM authorised to drive through areas of high immigration and the attempts to paint our city's major as a dangerous Islamist (for just a few examples), one might be forgiven for thinking that actually it's open season on immigrants and minorities and has been for many, many years now). I personally, can't believe the bleating on 'the right' of politics at the moment. They've used dog whistle politics, they've pandered to UKIP, they've taken advantage of the fear and division the right wing press have sowed for their own advantage, rather than challenging it. And now, they cry - it's not our fault, it's the people on the other side - they should have been more effective against us.

I thought the right were all for personal responsibility and owning ones own problems etc. Trumps your guy. Stop blaming everyone else for what you've created.

So the right launch a really nasty and divisive campaign backed by a virilant tabloid press and it's the lefts fault that we end up with Trump? Oh, and if you criticise him, or suggest that his rhetoric is that of a bully and a bigot (even though it self evidently is), that's just pushing more voters into his arms! Best to keep the criticism to ta minimum, accept the 'will of the people' (around a quarter of them anyway), and acknowledge that it's actually the fault of those who oppose him. There are people who have legitimate grievances, but voting in Trump is shameful after the things he's said and we shouldn't try to appease him or his supporters. Trump and his supporters repeatedly promote 'straight talking', well we should give them it. The right created the tea party movement, bill o'reilly and Trump. They've enabled this man and decent Republicans should be (and in many cases are) ashamed.

This: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/everyone-to-blame-for-twats-like-trump-except-the-people-who-vote-for-them-20161113117081 (Everyone to blame for twats like Trump 'except the people who vote for them')

This is interesting: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/this-american-life/id201671138?mt=2&i=377270248 this American Life episode 600.

If it is about disappointment that Obama was neutered by the senate and by congress, then voting back in the incombants seems at best misguided.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can vote for a candidate without endorsing > everything they do and say. Of course that's true. But you can't really vote for a candidate without endorsing the central tenants of their campaign.

@JohnL - I hope you're right and at the moment, I'm still optimistic that he'll quickly row back on some of his more extreme pronouncements.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whilst I agree that there are a sizeable chunk of > people who voted for him because they agree with > his vile views, I think it's simplistic to write > off everyone as having voted for the same reason. > For instance, there were a lot of extremely poor > people who voted for him because the system is not > working for them and they want change, and Hillary > represented the social structures that they feel > have kept them oppressed. Of course there is no one simple answer. Different people voted Trump for different reasons, but there is no getting away from the fact that a vote for Trump is at some level an acceptance (or at least not a rejection) of his clearly and repeatedly expressed (and in my opinion quite vile) views.

People knew exactly what they were voting for. Trump didn't mince his words, he was clear what his values were (he's an unreconstructed misogynistic, racist bully). It may be comforting for those on both the right and the left to try and rationalise this as a protest against economic grievances, but the truth is that isn't what the voters themselves say. It's about immigration, about 'political correctness' - there are a lot of angry white men who don't like the social changes which have seen their privilege slowly eroded and want to take us back to the 'good old days' when they could say what they wanted without being challenged on it. And it's not just blue collar workers, there were a greater percentage of affluent, older white men who voted Trump.

Let's cut to the chase here. People who vote in a dangerous Proto-fascist deserve to be called out for their choices. The things Trump has said and done aren't OK. If someone is a racist and a sexist and a bully and a liar and you support them, then personally I don't think that's some kind of legitimate form of protest.

This is pretty informative http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=1n

There is some truth in this Louisa but the point is that a lack of high quality blue collar jobs can't explain the larger number of white collar voters. As I said originally, there isn't any one answer of course, and different people will have voted the way they did for different reasons...but there were some broad patterns in terms of what those voting in the greatest proportions shared in common (and there's some overlap with Brexit) and lots of similarities in what they voted against. It wasn't income, if anything Trumps votes were skewed towards the more affluent. They were predominantly white, generally older, and wanted to turn the clock back. Both campaigns were strongly anti-immigration and supported by the deeply, socially regressive elements of the right wing media.

@ Louisa: I actually think the 'centre left' are absolutely pushing the same narrative which you seem to support - That this is about disaffected post industrial communities. That it's the 'uneducated working class' protesting against the establishment. It's a convenient story, but fundamentally wrong. Look at how people voted when broken down by income: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0 Look at Viscount Rothermere, Rupert Murdoch, the right wing of the Conservatives and those funding the Eurosceptic cause - look at Fox news and the Billionaire property magnate. I don't know who the 'elite' is if it's not these guys... apparently it's the 'middle class', or anyone who works in an office!??? I don't buy it at all. Plenty of very affluent people voted Brexit / Trump.

Quids - I don't get your point. So you think there should be no debate of ideas because 'the left are illiberal'. There are people who will always try to demonise those who hold different positions to their own on any given issue. One might argue, you've just kind of done this yourself.

... It's actually not so much a class issue at all. It is (in my opinion - and I believe the data bear this out) a kick back against what I would call social progress (those on the right, might claim it is 'political correctness'). This is not exclusively, but predominatly from older, white men.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This wasn't primarily about the working classes > > who've suffered under globalisation. Whilst > this > > may be a part of the story, (there were lot's > of > > different people voting Brexit / Trump, for > lot's > > of different reasons of course), the bigger > > picture in both cases is one of older, > relatively > > comfortable, white men, who feel things are > worse > > today than they used to be. Brexit was trailing > > until they focussed relentlessly on > immigration. > > Trumps campaign was laced with xenophobia and > > misogyny. The truth is that this wasn't 'anti > > establishment'. It was the result of a > successful > > campaign by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, > viscount > > Rothermere, many in the Conservative party and > the > > ruling elite, over many years. It was a kick > back > > against progressive social changes which have > > sought to erode some of the traditionally > white, > > male Establishment privilege. We should see it > for > > what it is - and it's far from a working class > > revolution. > > I'm sorry rah but I couldn't disagree more. By > making this alienating assumption, you are falling > for the centre left mantra the likes of 'the > guardian' love to hammer home with pride, with no > solid foundation in reality. Older people of all > races and social classes who have experienced life > and it's realities, have tended to swing to the > right in later life, that's always happened. > Nothing new there. > > The poorest communities of all races have suffered > under institutionalised powers from above, nothing > new there either. The difference is, manufacturing > in the poorest regions has collapsed, and the > centre left political parties who used to be the > 'go to' destination for poorer communities, has > for a number of reasons fallen apart. These people > in these places have consistently been failed by > the people who they and their parents and > grandparents have naturally voted for over > decades. The gulf left by the centre left and > social democratic parties of the western world has > given people like Trump and Farage a free for all > on them. As an example, Clinton recently at a > rally said she would come down hard on miners and > those who produce coal. This is not going to win > over a poor family who've lost their livelihood > and life as they knew it, they will of course look > elsewhere for answers, and did. > > It's a sad reality that most on the centre left > can't acknowledge the above and then look for > answers to win these people back. They seem pre > occupied trying to justify Trump et al via some > 'wealthy white male' loss of power through > globalisation. All the time they continue with > this rhetoric, people like Trump will soak up > disaffected post industrialised communities, the > western world over. > > Louisa. Except the poorest voted for Clinton in the majority of cases and the richest for Trump. The data doesn't support the prevailing narrative. Whilst I agree that there are major issues with how globalisation has effected the poorest and in particular the young, look at who voted Brexit. It wasn't the under thirties. The problem with pretending that this was somehow an 'anti-elite' vote is that it ignores the fact that the most powerful and affluent people - the likes of Murdoch for example have been pushing a far right agenda which is anti immigrant, homophobic and misogynistic for too long. I'm not dismissing the real issues that have resulted from the loss of high paid, blue collar manufacturing jobs. But to say paint this as a working class revolution is simply wrong.

There seems to be a confusion about how politics, discourse and democracy work. If Labour win an election for example, do conservatives supporters say "well that's sorted, end of discussion, let's dissolve the party"? It's exactly the same with Brexit. Whatever side you're on, you will continue to have a view, and in a democracy, you are free to express it. You should, if you believe it strongly, continue to try and persuade others of the strength of your arguements, I would say it's your duty to. This is not anti-democratic, it is the fundamental basis of free political debate and a central plank to a functioning democracy. Clearly democratic decisions should be accepted in the sense that must not be overturned by force, through coercion or by illegal means - but there are all sorts of other reasonable, peaceful, lawful and democratic routes for influencing and persuading others. The idea that you have two opposing ideas, that one 'wins' and then all further debate or discussion must be silenced, is ridiculous, anti-democratic and frankly childish.

This wasn't primarily about the working classes who've suffered under globalisation. Whilst this may be a part of the story, (there were lot's of different people voting Brexit / Trump, for lot's of different reasons of course), the bigger picture in both cases is one of older, relatively comfortable, white men, who feel things are worse today than they used to be. Brexit was trailing until they focussed relentlessly on immigration. Trumps campaign was laced with xenophobia and misogyny. The truth is that this wasn't 'anti establishment'. It was the result of a successful campaign by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, viscount Rothermere, many in the Conservative party and the ruling elite, over many years. It was a kick back against progressive social changes which have sought to erode some of the traditionally white, male Establishment privilege. We should see it for what it is - and it's far from a working class revolution.