4 ms·

> I don't recall people demonstrating and burning garbage cans and burning his effigy and chanting #nomypresident. The left and right express themselves in dif

by pdkl95 10y ago

> I don't recall people demonstrating and burning garbage cans and burning his effigy and chanting #nomypresident. The left and right express themselves in different ways. Instead of burning garbage cans, burning effigies, and #notmypresident, the reaction to Obama was racist cartoons[1], years of "Where's the birth certificate?" nonsense, and a sharp rise in the number of right wing militia groups[2]. [1] http://media.npr.org/programs/newsnotes/features/2008/10/obama_bucks2-47f10ea088ad7e29a9e3a2b10d0c9f534dd42a0e-s4-c85.jpg http://media.npr.org/programs/newsnotes/features/2008/10/oba... [2] http://media.salon.com/2013/03/militiagraph.jpg http://media.salon.com/2013/03/militiagraph.jpg That said, I agree the reaction from the left has been... unfortunate. It's demonstrating just how badly the left has succumbed to the politics of fear. The growing anti-establishment, anti-globalism/technocrat, "tired of the same old crap" sentiment has been obvious for years, but the left is acting surprised that their traditional establishment, "incremental change", corporate sellout candidate wasn't popular. Instead of recognizing the problem and changing tactics, far too many people want to give up and leave. /sigh/

mc32 10y ago
I agree with you completely. I do see the right reacting in unfortunate ways as well. The militia groups especially, it's a very unproductive response and increases fear and escalates tensions, very unnecessarily. But also, on the left, this is ridiculous. They accused Trump of peddling fear --but then turn right around and do exactly that same thing they furiously were denouncing!
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>The growing anti-establishment, anti-globalism/technocrat, "tired of the same old crap" sentiment has been obvious for years When isn't this true when people are fed such positions by demagogues? A lot of Trump voters are middle class and upper middle class people with relatively cushy lives making decent salaries, have healthcare, and have never been drafted to war, never begged for food, etc. Yet somehow these people have been taught that they're country isn't "great" and that only a radical restyling of things via a strict conservative agenda will "fix" things. I recall Bush having the same sentiment and tell me, were you or any of these voters better off after 8 years of Bush? I also want to point out that right now the unemployment rate is at a historic low of 4.9% and was nearly double that in 2009. The GDP per capita in the US is $53,000, literally 8x that in China and 4x that in Russia. The reality here is that you can have a rational and nuanced view of politics, society, your country, your economy, etc. Or you can engage in negative politics and tell people who own homes and two cars that they've been "shafted by liberals" and that if they only implement various crazy schemes, including undoing precious regulations that keep our environment safe, that only then will they be "great." Do you think, that perhaps, this kind of rhetoric convinces people to vote against their own interests and the kinds of people who actually will benefit from a Trump presidency might be the kinds of people who benefited from a Bush presidency, that's to say the connected upper class? Because that's what it looks like to me. edit: I can't reply below but there's a big difference between encouraging economic growth via traditional methods and a radical restructuring and an anti-globalization promise that will 'bring factory jobs' back to the heartland that is literally impossible unless you start paying people $1 and hour. The former is what every politician promises and latter is what Trump promises. These are stark differences in how to speak to the electorate and how to make realistic promises a government can carry out.
- mc32 10y ago
  Maybe you didn't notice, but Hillary had the same take on the economy as Trump --we need jobs, we need to create well paying jobs --people cannot afford an American lifestyle, etc. So, at least in appearances, she bought in to the same line of thought --and no one more so than Bernie!

by pdkl95 10y ago

mc32 10y ago

I agree with you completely. I do see the right reacting in unfortunate ways as well. The militia groups especially, it's a very unproductive response and increases fear and escalates tensions, very unnecessarily. But also, on the left, this is ridiculous. They accused Trump of peddling fear --but then turn right around and do exactly that same thing they furiously were denouncing!

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

>The growing anti-establishment, anti-globalism/technocrat, "tired of the same old crap" sentiment has been obvious for years When isn't this true when people are fed such positions by demagogues? A lot of Trump voters are middle class and upper middle class people with relatively cushy lives making decent salaries, have healthcare, and have never been drafted to war, never begged for food, etc. Yet somehow these people have been taught that they're country isn't "great" and that only a radical restyling of things via a strict conservative agenda will "fix" things. I recall Bush having the same sentiment and tell me, were you or any of these voters better off after 8 years of Bush? I also want to point out that right now the unemployment rate is at a historic low of 4.9% and was nearly double that in 2009. The GDP per capita in the US is $53,000, literally 8x that in China and 4x that in Russia. The reality here is that you can have a rational and nuanced view of politics, society, your country, your economy, etc. Or you can engage in negative politics and tell people who own homes and two cars that they've been "shafted by liberals" and that if they only implement various crazy schemes, including undoing precious regulations that keep our environment safe, that only then will they be "great." Do you think, that perhaps, this kind of rhetoric convinces people to vote against their own interests and the kinds of people who actually will benefit from a Trump presidency might be the kinds of people who benefited from a Bush presidency, that's to say the connected upper class? Because that's what it looks like to me. edit: I can't reply below but there's a big difference between encouraging economic growth via traditional methods and a radical restructuring and an anti-globalization promise that will 'bring factory jobs' back to the heartland that is literally impossible unless you start paying people $1 and hour. The former is what every politician promises and latter is what Trump promises. These are stark differences in how to speak to the electorate and how to make realistic promises a government can carry out.

mc32 10y ago
Maybe you didn't notice, but Hillary had the same take on the economy as Trump --we need jobs, we need to create well paying jobs --people cannot afford an American lifestyle, etc. So, at least in appearances, she bought in to the same line of thought --and no one more so than Bernie!