To the people who keep saying "get over it" about the far-left's sabotage of our nation:Let me add both an "Amen" and a few words of context. Although I supported Hillary unashamedly, I myself stand somewhere to her left on many issues. I also understand that in politics, as in poker, it is often the case that you can't win unless you're willing to take a risk.
Sorry, that's not gonna happen. This is now twice that the far left has intentionally, and successfully, pushed a far-right president into office. With disastrous consequences.
Yes, of course, the GOP are the real villains. The GOP is like Jeffery Dahmer. And the Greens are going around saying, hey, Jeffrey Dahmer isn't so bad, you should let him babysit your kids. After all, the teenager next-door once smoked a joint so either way you are leaving your kids with a criminal, might as well go with the real criminal so we can all have a revolution.
If this had only happened once, if those idiots had learned from Nader's mistake, that would be one thing. Even then, "just move on" isn't really appropriate because the world is still reeling from the Iraq War and the financial collapse and other consequences of Nader's vanity run.
But the Greens and Bernie-or-Bust types didn't learn. They did the exact same thing again. Everyone who made the argument that there is no significant difference between the parties has their name stamped on this tax bill in boldface capital letters. And the tax bill is just one small fraction of the horrible things that Trump and the GOP are doing.
I'm wondering if any one of them -- Jill Stein, Chris Hedges, Cornel West, Jimmy Dore, Susan Sarandon, etc. -- will have the basic human decency to come forward and simply admit, they were totally and horribly wrong. I don't mean for them to just say that the tax bill is a travesty. I'm sure they're going to be all over media saying "the GOP has just sold out our nation to the top fraction of a percent," hoping that their feigned outrage will hide their complicity. The GOP did sell us out, but the did it with the direct help of the Greens, BoBs, and their sympathizers.
So go ahead, post as many snarky replies you want telling me to "just get over it." Call me "obsessed." Recommend that I seek psychological counseling. Insult me all you want. But I am not going to forget what the Greens and the far left have done here. And I'm not going to stop reminding people of it.
But purists ask for too much of a risk. They keep betting the rent money on a pair of threes, and they hate guys like me who refuse to do likewise.
Consider, for example, the issue of climate change. If faced with a choice between a Republican senatorial candidate who scoffs at science and a Democrat who believes in science, I'll take the science-believer, even if he or she is otherwise disappointing -- or infuriating. I have no tolerance for those who, in an orgasm of virtue, snootily insist on Option Three even in the face of ecological Apocalypse. In practical political terms, there often is no Option Three.
The race in Alabama illustrates my point.
Fact: Doug Jones will lose. (Yes, I know that the latest polls slightly favor him. He's still going to lose. It's Alabama.)
Fact: If Doug Jones opposed abortion (and maybe flavored his speeches with references to Jesus), he would win.
Many Democratic activists insist that a woman's right to choose is the bedrock issue on which there can be no compromise. Any candidate who opposes abortion is anathema, even if he or she leans toward liberalism on most other issues.
The "anti-abortion Democrat" used to be a thing. Now, the species is nearly extinct.
Please don't give me the standard lecture about a woman's right to choose; I memorized that speech back in the 1970s. And I agree. The re-criminalization of abortion would be a hideous tragedy.
But: In all likelihood, that hideous tragedy will be inflicted on us by the Supreme Court, not Congress.
Suppose the choice in Alabama came down to A) Roy Moore and B) a Dem who opposes abortion and gun control but has reasonable views on climate change, net neutrality, health care and so forth. Many progressive purists would rather see Moore win than countenance a compromise.
Well, if that's the way you think...you don't think.
8 comments:
It may just be numbness, but I'm feeling little emotion of this tax bill. It's actually even more monstrous than I thought the Republicans would pass, but overwhelmingly my feeling is that this is the obvious consequence of electing Trump. It is wholly predictable and expected, and it has always been crystal clear that the "leftist" purity ponies are complicit in electing GOP politicians. Note this is not criticism of the post. On the contrary, the message cannot be expressed loudly and often enough.
My only criticism is thinking Jones's abortion stance will effect any votes. Yes, when it used to be the case that a faction of Democrats were pro-life and conservatives believed a Democrat could credibly have this position, it may have made a difference. But Republicans believe all Democrats are pro-choice no matter what they say, so I'm not sure it matters anymore. This also assumes that they even really care about pro-life as opposed to using it as an excuse to oppose Dems. Either way, I assume Roy Moore will when until I actually see the election results say otherwise.
The funny thing the faces of the revolution themselves are rich. So the tax bill may work for them. Not that they are selfish or anything.
Bullshit. Berniebots didn't throw the election. Russians stole it and will keep stealing while Democrats self destruct with all of this petty squabbling.
Expect Democrats to lose big in 2018. Rather than unite they will continue to splinter into more and more subgroups... Berniebots, Vs. Hillaroids, Pussyhats vs. Penises. Just about every day a new fault line erupts in the Democratic Party's unity and the dummies on Democratic Underground and else where take the fault lines and turn them into canyons causing more infighting on DU and other left leaning sites. š¤
Rather than dig deep on the Russian thing, the redistricting thing, the voter purged thing.... They will keep fighting the internecine Dem wars over and over again. Democrats are not as smart as they pretend to be. Or maybe it's just that the Russians and Republicans are smarter?
Divide and Conquer as they say.
YE OLDE PRIMER ON THE FINE ART OF DIVIDE AND CONQUER:
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects to prevent alliances that could challenge the sovereign
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign
- fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers
- encouraging meaningless expenditures that reduce the capability for political and military spending
Divide and rule (or divide and conquer, from Latin dīvide et īmpera) in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures, and especially prevents smaller power groups from linking up, causing rivalries and fomenting discord among the people.
R&R Playbook (Russian & Republican)
As you often point out, this has happened thrice (John Anderson, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders/Jill Green).
The problem with the idea that everyone should have gathered around Clinton because she's the one who could have won is that she didn't win. Blame the purists, the Clinton-haters, the apathetic, or whoever else. These are things she knew would happen. People she knew she must win in spite of. Maybe Sanders would have done worse, but the Presidential election is a zero sum game, you win or you lose. Winning the popular vote gets you a pat on the head and a footnote in the history books.
Anon624, don't forget about Pigasus the Immortal in '68!
Post a Comment