7 ms·

Conversely, it makes running an opposition campaign so easy that the opposition won't need to focus on the big issues. The opposition could focus on morality an

Conversely, it makes running an opposition campaign so easy that the opposition won't need to focus on the big issues. The opposition could focus on morality and pay lip-service to neoliberal diversity theatre while simultaneously selling out to corporate interests. If you're running against Trump in an election, what's the point of drawing the ire of industry (pharma, insurance, military, surveillance, general big-corp) when you can focus on orthogonal issues? You could get more funding by ignoring them and focusing on mostly-irrelevant wedge issues such as abortion (never going anywhere), "decorum", etc. Personally if Trump loses the next election I think we're going to get the biggest corporate-bootlicker democrat we've ever seen

adamsea 9y ago
> The opposition could focus on morality and pay lip-service to neoliberal diversity theatre while simultaneously selling out to corporate interests. Pretty sure any phrase preceded by the word 'neoliberal' is already (by definition) aligned with corporate interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism "Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980."
- opportune 9y ago
  Yes, I agree, I know what the term means. A common critique of neoliberalism is that it pays lip service to adding diversity to traditionally high status/class/prestige careers and positions without disassembling the unfair power structures that cause those careers and positions to be so desirable. Hence "neoliberal diversity theatre" is somewhat separate from ostensibly selling out to corporate interests, because diversity theatre's goal is to advance justice along identitarian lines without removing injustice from the system; it's spreading injustice out among races and gender without addressing it as an intrinsic symptom. Politicians selling out to corporate interests is the main mechanism through which those power structures are maintained and expanded, but the equality-charades are a necessary ingredient to make the main course palatable (for the democrats. Republicans are also neoliberal but use other wedge issues).
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Republicans are also neoliberal Some Democrats and some Republicans are neoliberal; the dominance of the neoliberal faction in the Democratic Party is weakening, and it's even weaker in the Republican Party—Trump is decidedly not a neoliberal.)
    - opportune 9y ago
      True, but I would correct "some" to "most." Neoliberalism is a blanket term that encompasses multiple axes that some might be split on, so many people aren't either 0 or 100% neoliberal, too. Republican rhetoric may not by and large lean neoliberal, but the way they vote often is. Even if neoliberalism is weakening, it's still the dominant economic ideology in the US government.
- BurningFrog 9y ago
  Yeah, "neoliberal" is pretty much a slur. No one calls themself neoliberal.
  - randomname2 9y ago
    https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/ does
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Conversely, it makes running an opposition campaign so easy that the opposition won't need to focus on the big issues. Just over 50% disapproval isn't actually that easy to beat; its enough to draw strong candidates of diverse viewpoints into the opposition primary (rather than them sitting out as often happens with a strong incumbent), but not solid enough for opposition complacency. Of course, that number could move strongly either way before candidates are firmly in or out of the primary. > Personally if Trump loses the next election I think we're going to get the biggest corporate-bootlicker democrat we've ever seen Personally, I think if the Democrats nominated a candidate like that again, they’ll lose to Trump again, even with his unpopularity.
- opportune 9y ago
  I don't think being a corporate mouthpiece was the reason Hillary lost; I think it had more to do with her lack of charisma and the many years of media that had engendered a deep feeling of mistrust towards her. Obama was almost as corporate as her, in my opinion, except he was much more well spoken and likable. Biden is along the same lines and it looks like he's gearing up for a run for the presidency. Also as election season approaches, I think that disapproval will rise simply due to all of the marketing/discussion that will bring back into the public consciousness all of the reasons people disliked Trump in the first place.
  - HillaryBriss 9y ago
    i think so too. if Trump is still around in Nov 2020, he's overwhelmingly likely to lose. his opposition is extremely motivated and overflowing with a prurient desire to defeat him, while Trump's remaining voters, who have been repeatedly embarrassed and disappointed, have as much motivation to show up at the polls as a child has to show up at a vaccination clinic.
    - SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
      It’s like it’s Nov7th up in here.
    - 9y ago
ljm 9y ago
The fundamental issue, I see, is the polarizing platform. When it comes to modern day discourse you're not looking at a nuanced debate, you're just seeing pro and anti. I don't even need to cite a source, you just need to look at the division in the world around you and wonder why it looks so fucking simple. Nobody is focusing on big issues because everybody is being told to look for an attack or to make a defense. It's an old book but I recommend reading Flat Earth News by Nick Davies, it gives an incredible insight into how current affairs are spun into particular forms to suit certain agendas. The key motif of the book is that there are more than two sides to every debate but we treat it as gospel that you're either for or against. It's never so easy as that.
- dfsegoat 9y ago
  Your first paragraph is so spot on IMO, that it frightens me. We, as free thinking, reasonable people are continuously drawn into hyper-polarized debates, particularly on social media: There is no nuance (as you said), only pro vs anti (as you said II). It also seems fairly systematic, and that we are clearly being kept busy with these "debates" while we are flanked and maneuvered on.
  - telchar 9y ago
    The huge growth of fake news/misinformation and punditry-as-news in the last couple years, which really has been on the rise for decades, seems analogous to trolling. It's very difficult to have a good discussion with nuance and mutual respect when trolls are involved in a thread. Likewise it seems the general public conversation is being disrupted and dumbed down. I see the same effect you do and I think on at least some parts it's intentional.
dbsvsv 9y ago
The entire Russia collusion thing is to take peoples attention away from dnc's burning of Bernie and other actions. I would urge people to read the WikiLeaks emails once and see what's in their. Its truly damning. Also if there were an actual collusion then one of those "17 intelligence agencies" and the senate intelligence committee or Mueller probe would have revealed in a year. Unless you admit Trump is a total Genius who hid all his tracks well (and at the same time, according to same people, has trouble spelling and keeping his mouth shut )
- opportune 9y ago
  It's possible for the Russia collusion thing to be both a distraction and substantive. We'll see if it is or not in due time.
- weirdstuff 9y ago
  And it started right after Trump won. Before that night the wisdom was exactly the opposite: that our elections can't be hacked, and we shouldn't believe claims about it. Then Trump won and created mass hysteria in the political community, then the FUD went full steam ahead about Russia. Instead of talking of the contents of the leaks, all we now can talk about was that there was a leak – and, oh – it was Russia hacking! (But don't discuss the details in the leaks, though. Instead pivot the discussion to malevolent hacking.) I'm extremely skeptical Russia and their paltry spending had any effect on the election. Clinton and Trump were well known in this country long before the election anyhow. Clinton had a close relationship with Russia for that matter. And domestically Clinton/Trump and U.S. stakeholders spent billions of dollars to sway public opinion. Russia can't compete with that.
  - grzm 9y ago
    > "that our elections can't be hacked" There have been concerns about election security going back many years for different interpretations of "hacked". Election fraud worries (one interpretation of "hacking" an election) go back pretty much as far as you want to go. Foreign influence? The Foreign Agents Registration Act was enacted in 1938. Hacking electronic voting machines was in the news around the 2000 election. "All started right after Trump won"? Let's at least be specific about what we mean when we say "all", for starters. Obama (in)famously said "The larger point I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there that would suggest that you could even rig America's elections" in response to Donald Trump speaking out about the possibility that the US Presidential election would be rigged. It's unfortunate because the integrity of elections is something we need to value and secure to ensure people have faith in the system, because if the elections are secure, if people doubt them, it undeservedly undermines people's belief in the legitimacy of the elected government. (Similarly, it's important to engage in good faith discussions with people you may not necessarily agree with if you want to cooperate and move forward.) Note that Obama was speaking specifically about rigging elections, which Trump was on record as saying "I'm afraid the election's going to be rigged. The allegations I've heard† (and a focus of the Mueller investigation) have been of Russian influence in the elections via misinformation, not rigging or hacking election machines. I'm all for honest discussion of the topics you raise, which includes being clear specifically on what was said and alleged, as well as what specifically is under discussion. † You can likely find anyone saying pretty much anything, so let's please except more fringe accusations on all sides.

adamsea 9y ago

> The opposition could focus on morality and pay lip-service to neoliberal diversity theatre while simultaneously selling out to corporate interests. Pretty sure any phrase preceded by the word 'neoliberal' is already (by definition) aligned with corporate interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism "Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980."

opportune 9y ago
Yes, I agree, I know what the term means. A common critique of neoliberalism is that it pays lip service to adding diversity to traditionally high status/class/prestige careers and positions without disassembling the unfair power structures that cause those careers and positions to be so desirable. Hence "neoliberal diversity theatre" is somewhat separate from ostensibly selling out to corporate interests, because diversity theatre's goal is to advance justice along identitarian lines without removing injustice from the system; it's spreading injustice out among races and gender without addressing it as an intrinsic symptom. Politicians selling out to corporate interests is the main mechanism through which those power structures are maintained and expanded, but the equality-charades are a necessary ingredient to make the main course palatable (for the democrats. Republicans are also neoliberal but use other wedge issues).
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Republicans are also neoliberal Some Democrats and some Republicans are neoliberal; the dominance of the neoliberal faction in the Democratic Party is weakening, and it's even weaker in the Republican Party—Trump is decidedly not a neoliberal.)
  - opportune 9y ago
    True, but I would correct "some" to "most." Neoliberalism is a blanket term that encompasses multiple axes that some might be split on, so many people aren't either 0 or 100% neoliberal, too. Republican rhetoric may not by and large lean neoliberal, but the way they vote often is. Even if neoliberalism is weakening, it's still the dominant economic ideology in the US government.
BurningFrog 9y ago
Yeah, "neoliberal" is pretty much a slur. No one calls themself neoliberal.
- randomname2 9y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/ does

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Conversely, it makes running an opposition campaign so easy that the opposition won't need to focus on the big issues. Just over 50% disapproval isn't actually that easy to beat; its enough to draw strong candidates of diverse viewpoints into the opposition primary (rather than them sitting out as often happens with a strong incumbent), but not solid enough for opposition complacency. Of course, that number could move strongly either way before candidates are firmly in or out of the primary. > Personally if Trump loses the next election I think we're going to get the biggest corporate-bootlicker democrat we've ever seen Personally, I think if the Democrats nominated a candidate like that again, they’ll lose to Trump again, even with his unpopularity.

opportune 9y ago
I don't think being a corporate mouthpiece was the reason Hillary lost; I think it had more to do with her lack of charisma and the many years of media that had engendered a deep feeling of mistrust towards her. Obama was almost as corporate as her, in my opinion, except he was much more well spoken and likable. Biden is along the same lines and it looks like he's gearing up for a run for the presidency. Also as election season approaches, I think that disapproval will rise simply due to all of the marketing/discussion that will bring back into the public consciousness all of the reasons people disliked Trump in the first place.
- HillaryBriss 9y ago
  i think so too. if Trump is still around in Nov 2020, he's overwhelmingly likely to lose. his opposition is extremely motivated and overflowing with a prurient desire to defeat him, while Trump's remaining voters, who have been repeatedly embarrassed and disappointed, have as much motivation to show up at the polls as a child has to show up at a vaccination clinic.
  - SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
    It’s like it’s Nov7th up in here.
  - 9y ago

ljm 9y ago

The fundamental issue, I see, is the polarizing platform. When it comes to modern day discourse you're not looking at a nuanced debate, you're just seeing pro and anti. I don't even need to cite a source, you just need to look at the division in the world around you and wonder why it looks so fucking simple. Nobody is focusing on big issues because everybody is being told to look for an attack or to make a defense. It's an old book but I recommend reading Flat Earth News by Nick Davies, it gives an incredible insight into how current affairs are spun into particular forms to suit certain agendas. The key motif of the book is that there are more than two sides to every debate but we treat it as gospel that you're either for or against. It's never so easy as that.

dfsegoat 9y ago
Your first paragraph is so spot on IMO, that it frightens me. We, as free thinking, reasonable people are continuously drawn into hyper-polarized debates, particularly on social media: There is no nuance (as you said), only pro vs anti (as you said II). It also seems fairly systematic, and that we are clearly being kept busy with these "debates" while we are flanked and maneuvered on.
- telchar 9y ago
  The huge growth of fake news/misinformation and punditry-as-news in the last couple years, which really has been on the rise for decades, seems analogous to trolling. It's very difficult to have a good discussion with nuance and mutual respect when trolls are involved in a thread. Likewise it seems the general public conversation is being disrupted and dumbed down. I see the same effect you do and I think on at least some parts it's intentional.

dbsvsv 9y ago

The entire Russia collusion thing is to take peoples attention away from dnc's burning of Bernie and other actions. I would urge people to read the WikiLeaks emails once and see what's in their. Its truly damning. Also if there were an actual collusion then one of those "17 intelligence agencies" and the senate intelligence committee or Mueller probe would have revealed in a year. Unless you admit Trump is a total Genius who hid all his tracks well (and at the same time, according to same people, has trouble spelling and keeping his mouth shut )

opportune 9y ago
It's possible for the Russia collusion thing to be both a distraction and substantive. We'll see if it is or not in due time.
weirdstuff 9y ago
And it started right after Trump won. Before that night the wisdom was exactly the opposite: that our elections can't be hacked, and we shouldn't believe claims about it. Then Trump won and created mass hysteria in the political community, then the FUD went full steam ahead about Russia. Instead of talking of the contents of the leaks, all we now can talk about was that there was a leak – and, oh – it was Russia hacking! (But don't discuss the details in the leaks, though. Instead pivot the discussion to malevolent hacking.) I'm extremely skeptical Russia and their paltry spending had any effect on the election. Clinton and Trump were well known in this country long before the election anyhow. Clinton had a close relationship with Russia for that matter. And domestically Clinton/Trump and U.S. stakeholders spent billions of dollars to sway public opinion. Russia can't compete with that.
- grzm 9y ago
  > "that our elections can't be hacked" There have been concerns about election security going back many years for different interpretations of "hacked". Election fraud worries (one interpretation of "hacking" an election) go back pretty much as far as you want to go. Foreign influence? The Foreign Agents Registration Act was enacted in 1938. Hacking electronic voting machines was in the news around the 2000 election. "All started right after Trump won"? Let's at least be specific about what we mean when we say "all", for starters. Obama (in)famously said "The larger point I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there that would suggest that you could even rig America's elections" in response to Donald Trump speaking out about the possibility that the US Presidential election would be rigged. It's unfortunate because the integrity of elections is something we need to value and secure to ensure people have faith in the system, because if the elections are secure, if people doubt them, it undeservedly undermines people's belief in the legitimacy of the elected government. (Similarly, it's important to engage in good faith discussions with people you may not necessarily agree with if you want to cooperate and move forward.) Note that Obama was speaking specifically about rigging elections, which Trump was on record as saying "I'm afraid the election's going to be rigged. The allegations I've heard† (and a focus of the Mueller investigation) have been of Russian influence in the elections via misinformation, not rigging or hacking election machines. I'm all for honest discussion of the topics you raise, which includes being clear specifically on what was said and alleged, as well as what specifically is under discussion. † You can likely find anyone saying pretty much anything, so let's please except more fringe accusations on all sides.