4 ms·

> Even if you, like me, generally believe that the liberal political position is correct, ideological conformity of this magnitude should frighten you. What it

> Even if you, like me, generally believe that the liberal political position is correct, ideological conformity of this magnitude should frighten you. What it does is make people whose views fall out of that bubble feel disenfranchised. This is no small part of the Trump phenomenon. I was watching a documentary about South American politics yesterday and there was a globalist establishment candidate running against one that was a protectionist populist. It was strange to see that the globalist was on the right and the protectionist was on the left and that is exactly the opposite of what we are seeing in the US election this year. After decades of people on the left lamenting that working class Republicans don't vote in their own interest the left is in a panic now because they are. No one saw this coming and the media lock down is the reason why. When it's easy to smear anyone who does not take a globalist position as a racist that part of political discourse goes underground until it pops up in the voting booth.

mc32 10y ago
I think it also helps to have someone "legitimize" what are relatively to mainstream news "outcaste" views. It also helps when you have a charismatic person personifying those ideas. Palin, for example may have had similar opinions but was not charismatic. Trump on the other hand sounds like your regular blue collar worker --I've known black as well as white blue collar workers and they speak just like that. When they make a mistake, they don't try to explain it away like a Clinton or a Bush. Nah, they just come out and say, yeah, I was probably wrong and this is why and offer some plausible support for the argument. Also, I think lots of working class people have felt funny about politicians tiptoeing around issues rather than just being a bit "vulgar" about things and that appeals to some people. If you ever listen to how people who take buses to the poorer areas of town talk, just sit at one of those stops long enough you'll know what I mean. They are unfiltered and speak as they feel without any affected tiptoeing.
- twoquestions 10y ago
  Wow, I never noticed this until now! I come from those blue-collar places you talked about, and I can't stand people who try to run away from what they've done, as it feels like they're trying to dodge responsibility for what they've done! Better to screw up and apologize than screw up and deny screwing up! This irritates me with corporate management types too, trying to tell you what to do without telling you, and therefore avoiding responsibility for their guidance. I'll have to think about this more, thanks again!
mindcrime 10y ago
It was strange to see that the globalist was on the right and the protectionist was on the left and that is exactly the opposite of what we are seeing in the US election this year. Realistically, the terms "left" and "right" don't mean a damn thing in modern politics, at least not in the US. There's not really a cohesive ideology that you can say is "the left ideology", or one you can call "the right ideology". Both labels are, at times, attached to a smorgasbord of ideas, some related, some unrelated, and probably some that are diametrically opposed to each other. Mostly those words exist simply as pejoratives now. And to the extent that they have any meaning, the idea of one dimensional model of political orientation is brain-dead anyway. You can't actually reflect the variety of political belief like that. Take, for example, Libertarians, who are, as the old joke goes "left of left, AND right of right". That shouldn't be possible, and yet, here we are. We really ought to quit talking in terms of "left" and "right" and find a richer and more consistent model to describe political orientation.
- krapp 10y ago
  >We really ought to quit talking in terms of "left" and "right" and find a richer and more consistent model to describe political orientation. We would need a higher dimensional political process to apply it to, first. A two party system can only describe one-dimensional politics.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    I believe referring to our system as a "two party" system is mistake. In the United States there are far more than two political parties, although two specific parties dominate electoral politics. BUT, continuing to refer to the system as "two party" simply perpetuates this belief that there's no reason to vote for "third" parties, even though "3rd party" candidates DO get elected. Most of them are at the city council / county board of commissioners level, they they get elected and hold office.[1] And as long as we stick to this incorrect single dimensional model, we make it even more difficult to talk about 3rd parties, exactly because some (many?|most??) of them don't fit the simplistic left/right continuum. To continue with an earlier example, American libertarians do not fit cleanly on either side of that model. I'm pretty sure there are other examples, but the Libertarian one is the one I'm most familiar with. It's something of a chicken-or-the-egg problem, granted, but right now it's probably easier to start changing the language we use, than it is to overcome first-past-the-post single-member-district voting systems, etc. [2] [1]: https://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials https://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

mc32 10y ago

I think it also helps to have someone "legitimize" what are relatively to mainstream news "outcaste" views. It also helps when you have a charismatic person personifying those ideas. Palin, for example may have had similar opinions but was not charismatic. Trump on the other hand sounds like your regular blue collar worker --I've known black as well as white blue collar workers and they speak just like that. When they make a mistake, they don't try to explain it away like a Clinton or a Bush. Nah, they just come out and say, yeah, I was probably wrong and this is why and offer some plausible support for the argument. Also, I think lots of working class people have felt funny about politicians tiptoeing around issues rather than just being a bit "vulgar" about things and that appeals to some people. If you ever listen to how people who take buses to the poorer areas of town talk, just sit at one of those stops long enough you'll know what I mean. They are unfiltered and speak as they feel without any affected tiptoeing.

twoquestions 10y ago
Wow, I never noticed this until now! I come from those blue-collar places you talked about, and I can't stand people who try to run away from what they've done, as it feels like they're trying to dodge responsibility for what they've done! Better to screw up and apologize than screw up and deny screwing up! This irritates me with corporate management types too, trying to tell you what to do without telling you, and therefore avoiding responsibility for their guidance. I'll have to think about this more, thanks again!

mindcrime 10y ago

It was strange to see that the globalist was on the right and the protectionist was on the left and that is exactly the opposite of what we are seeing in the US election this year. Realistically, the terms "left" and "right" don't mean a damn thing in modern politics, at least not in the US. There's not really a cohesive ideology that you can say is "the left ideology", or one you can call "the right ideology". Both labels are, at times, attached to a smorgasbord of ideas, some related, some unrelated, and probably some that are diametrically opposed to each other. Mostly those words exist simply as pejoratives now. And to the extent that they have any meaning, the idea of one dimensional model of political orientation is brain-dead anyway. You can't actually reflect the variety of political belief like that. Take, for example, Libertarians, who are, as the old joke goes "left of left, AND right of right". That shouldn't be possible, and yet, here we are. We really ought to quit talking in terms of "left" and "right" and find a richer and more consistent model to describe political orientation.

krapp 10y ago
>We really ought to quit talking in terms of "left" and "right" and find a richer and more consistent model to describe political orientation. We would need a higher dimensional political process to apply it to, first. A two party system can only describe one-dimensional politics.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  I believe referring to our system as a "two party" system is mistake. In the United States there are far more than two political parties, although two specific parties dominate electoral politics. BUT, continuing to refer to the system as "two party" simply perpetuates this belief that there's no reason to vote for "third" parties, even though "3rd party" candidates DO get elected. Most of them are at the city council / county board of commissioners level, they they get elected and hold office.[1] And as long as we stick to this incorrect single dimensional model, we make it even more difficult to talk about 3rd parties, exactly because some (many?|most??) of them don't fit the simplistic left/right continuum. To continue with an earlier example, American libertarians do not fit cleanly on either side of that model. I'm pretty sure there are other examples, but the Libertarian one is the one I'm most familiar with. It's something of a chicken-or-the-egg problem, granted, but right now it's probably easier to start changing the language we use, than it is to overcome first-past-the-post single-member-district voting systems, etc. [2] [1]: https://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials https://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law