4 ms·

It is not "feel-good rhetoric". It's a suggestion that it would be better to do the hard, consistent work to humanise the opposition so that their decisions can

It is not "feel-good rhetoric". It's a suggestion that it would be better to do the hard, consistent work to humanise the opposition so that their decisions can be criticised without writing them all off as people. But if I must spell it out to you -- I'll get downvoted for it -- I am saying that, essentially, "othering" politicians as inherently not doing good, or saying that they are all tainted by the actions of some of them, is the precise sentiment that was exploited to allow a corrupt, amoral, malignant narcissist and populist into the White House, who deliberately tried to overthrow the democratic process. Very few of the politicians tarred in that way are anything like as dangerous as the man this enabled. And the most dangerous of them take part in the tarring. If you cannot look at politicians and seek to find the good and the common ground in them, you're doing the nihilistic groundwork of future fascists. Don't do that.

Clubber 5y ago
>It's a suggestion that it would be better to do the hard, consistent work to humanise the opposition so that their decisions can be criticised without writing them all off as people. I'm not dehumanizing anybody, I'm just calling them corrupt. Politicians have been doing a lot of dehumanizing though. "Socialists," "basket of deplorables," "anti-vaxxer," "thugs," "racists," etc. You know the routine. >I am saying that, essentially, "othering" politicians as inherently not doing good, or saying that they are all tainted by the actions of some of them, is the precise sentiment that was exploited to allow a corrupt, amoral, malignant narcissist and populist into the White House, who deliberately tried to overthrow the democratic process. Don't you feel the corruption of the existing system was what allowed him to get elected in the first place? Would we have Trump if we didn't have the bank bailouts in 2008 while letting grandmas get their house foreclosed on? Doubt it. Would we have Trump if we hadn't insisted on staying in Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years, then barely help vets when they came home? Doubt it. Would we have Trump if Occupy Wall Street made a difference rather than get jackbooted? Probably not. Would we have Trump if politicians didn't wholly allow globalization at the expense of the US worker? No. Would we have Trump if politicians didn't almost exclusively pass legislation to the benefit of their donors while ignoring the citizenry? No. Trump absolutely wiped the floor with GOP darlings at the GOP debates and he largely did it from the left of GOP dogma, at least economically. I see Trump as a symptom of our current predicament. He was popular because he pointed out the corruption of the existing system. The irony of course is he was just as corrupt. Make no mistake, unless things improve, there will undoubtedly be another, who is more politically and bureaucratically expedient. If you are concerned with that at all, the status quo is almost a guarantee it will happen. Anyway I gave you a couple upvotes incase someone comes along and tries to downvote you. I'm enjoying this discussion.

Clubber 5y ago

>It's a suggestion that it would be better to do the hard, consistent work to humanise the opposition so that their decisions can be criticised without writing them all off as people. I'm not dehumanizing anybody, I'm just calling them corrupt. Politicians have been doing a lot of dehumanizing though. "Socialists," "basket of deplorables," "anti-vaxxer," "thugs," "racists," etc. You know the routine. >I am saying that, essentially, "othering" politicians as inherently not doing good, or saying that they are all tainted by the actions of some of them, is the precise sentiment that was exploited to allow a corrupt, amoral, malignant narcissist and populist into the White House, who deliberately tried to overthrow the democratic process. Don't you feel the corruption of the existing system was what allowed him to get elected in the first place? Would we have Trump if we didn't have the bank bailouts in 2008 while letting grandmas get their house foreclosed on? Doubt it. Would we have Trump if we hadn't insisted on staying in Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years, then barely help vets when they came home? Doubt it. Would we have Trump if Occupy Wall Street made a difference rather than get jackbooted? Probably not. Would we have Trump if politicians didn't wholly allow globalization at the expense of the US worker? No. Would we have Trump if politicians didn't almost exclusively pass legislation to the benefit of their donors while ignoring the citizenry? No. Trump absolutely wiped the floor with GOP darlings at the GOP debates and he largely did it from the left of GOP dogma, at least economically. I see Trump as a symptom of our current predicament. He was popular because he pointed out the corruption of the existing system. The irony of course is he was just as corrupt. Make no mistake, unless things improve, there will undoubtedly be another, who is more politically and bureaucratically expedient. If you are concerned with that at all, the status quo is almost a guarantee it will happen. Anyway I gave you a couple upvotes incase someone comes along and tries to downvote you. I'm enjoying this discussion.