General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA somewhat effective meme against the epidemic of false equivalence propaganda
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FSogol
(45,480 posts)
irisblue
(32,968 posts)Well said. No matter who tries to spread this lie, it is what it is a LIE!
Thanks for this post.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)meetings.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)so much harder than posting to anonymous political message boards. Besides, the precinct folks (that have put in 30 years on the ground) won't listen to us when we tell them that our yet to be identified progressive candidate would be so much better! Damned establishment!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So I'm not going to go pout. Instead of flooding the pool of potential candidates at all levels with liberals, thereby actually giving me liberals to vote for.
'Cause the second one requires me to do more than post angry rants and click-to-sign petitions.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)if they are nutbags, voting for them is easier than meetings.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(at least at many local levels) because someone actually decided to run and others (or, maybe, themselves) actually went out and collected the signature to get them on the ballot!
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)A caucus meeting nominated Warren and without them she never would have run?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That is what got her ELECTED! (the support of the Democratic "establishment" political machine)
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Did the machine choose her, or did she win a primary?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that Warren was not engaged in the precinct level politics, prior to and during the primaries?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Mostly I think she was busy in DC. I'm sure people on her staff were.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You really believe your own stuff, don't you?
How do you suppose Elizabeth Warren was able to avoid a primary when she ran in 2012? Here's a hint:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/06/02/154222963/elizabeth-warren-leaps-over-primary-challenge-in-massachusetts
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)“You taught a scrappy first-time candidate how to get into the ring and win,” she said. She closed by noting that Mr. Kennedy was first elected to the Senate 50 years ago, and she vowed to continue his fight.
With the win, Ms. Warren, 63, a Harvard professor who set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the Obama administration, becomes the first woman to represent Massachusetts in the Senate. She had made a forceful appeal to women, who overwhelmingly supported her bid, while more men favored Mr. Brown.
snip
“We raised money from more donors than any Senate campaign in the history of the United States,” Ms. Warren said in a statement about an hour after the polls closed Tuesday and before she made her victory speech at the Fairmont Copley Plaza hotel here. She added, “We knocked on more doors and made more phone calls than any candidate in the history of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-massachusetts-senate-scott-brown.html?_r=0
I only met her in person after she won. It was when she was campaigning for Edward Markey for Senate here in MA.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)getting her elected.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You really think that people can change what POTUS and the Congressional leaders do? How would that have stopped Obama from putting Wall Street in the White House? How would it have stopped him putting SS on the table?
The Dem party is not the same as the GOP but it serves the same masters. That has been crystal clear by the last two Dem presidents.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
calimary
(81,220 posts)There ISN'T one.
treestar
(82,383 posts)
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)
blm
(113,044 posts)And she would NEVER agree with you that both parties are the same.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That's right--Glenn, who has worked for the Kochs, and apparently does not want people like Elizabeth Warren to be elected, said this....
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/15/1262880/-Glenn-Greenwald-advocates-letting-Republicans-destroy-the-country#
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Posted earlier:
could be heard whispered throughout the land. (It seems)
GOP: "Government doesn't work" ... Check!
Libertarians (right and left): "Government is evil" ... Check!
Tea Party: "Government doesn't work and there is no difference between establishment republicans and establishment Democrats" ... Check!
"Liberals/Progressives": "Government is evil and there is no difference between establishment republicans and establishment Democrats" ... Check!
The media has played this narrative on a 7-day, 24-hour loop.
Result: Only 15% of the American people pay close attention to the only mechanism for change.
Nicely played, Oligarchs!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)That's the goal.
Actual voter suppression plus endless propaganda to discourage as many of the the rest as possible.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and when I see much of what's posted here, I can't get the phrase, "useful idiots" out of my head. (with idiot meaning: sincerely frustrated).
freshwest
(53,661 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)Sadly some here actually think it would be a good thing if they did win because they think that will drive the democratic party further to the left. The problem with that kind of thinking is the fail to see just how much damage will be done if republicans do win the Senate. The next two years will accomplish nothing, and then the republicans will use that in 2016 and blame it all on democrats.
People really need to wake up and realize republicans winning anymore seats is bad for the country and every person in it, except for the 1%.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I think some of them really believe that we need the GOP to win, destroy the country some more, and then the people will rise up and throw out the entire current system.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Poll results on question:
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1708001/vote
29% wanna stand by and watch government, and many of us, burn.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Hahahaha!!! How sweeeeeet!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And I'll tell you what...for a banned troll, that Kos diarist sure kicked ass....
Ted Rall is gone from Kos because of him.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)going out to dinner and the movies and I might miss it if it falls off the first page.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)rightfully targeted by that diarist, or not?
Ted got taken out by a disposable sock. It was epic.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Wish I'd seen the Ted Rall drama played out. Would like to check the style.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the poster was a sock....a longtime poster had enough. The longtime poster remains.
ancianita
(36,023 posts)They will turn this country into a big version of current tax havens -- plantation life for the rich with an archipelago of little Dubai's -- namely, entertainments, tours, two-leveled transportation, infrastructure, and service/servants quarters. No schools or medical care except for the rich.
How could our own sell us out?!! Goddammit!!
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Your obsession with Greenwald is unbecoming.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That's dedication son, dedication.
rock
(13,218 posts)"Then you won't mind voting Democratic, will you!"
jwirr
(39,215 posts)truly would be no reason to vote.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)mentionss that tired refrain about 'why bother voting.'
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)She once attended an event hosted by a guy whose brother runs a company that sells pencils to a Wall Street lobbying firm. I ask you, can we possibly trust such a person?
Getting elected is proof of corruption. That's why I took the Loser Purity Pledge (TM) never to vote for anyone with the slightest possibility of ever achieving anything whatsoever, since reality is such a dirty and unpleasant thing, totally beneath the dignity of my values.
I intend to vote in November for Moonbeam Peaceman Rainbowstar. Never heard of him? Well, that's proof that he's the right one! I would never pollute my vote by supporting a candidate whose name actually came prewritten on a party line (ptooey!). I always do write-ins, because I'm authentic like that.
In fact, any person who actually "exists" (to use the arrogant term of the existentially privileged) is too corrupt to win my support. I will only vote for figments of my imagination, or as I call them, Mytho-Americans.
Remember, when you talk about "reality-based politics," that's actually just a dog-whistle for discrimination against Mytho-Americans.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Wow, it's getting crowded under there. At least they're in good company.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)to make it better. We do have great politicians, Warren, Sanders, Whitehouse and more, and they have done great things for us!
However (you knew it was coming), we have a lot of Democratic politicians and all of the Republicans who have done a Quid Pro Quo (F U John Roberts) with Wall Street and the 1%. We need to support Bernie and get others to the cause of getting the $$$ out of politics. We desperately need Publicly Funded Elections to have true Representative Democracy so that they are all accountable to us, not just the wealthy!
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)But it's a sharp, steep climb from where they are to where they'd need to be in terms of political machinery and personal stature among the apolitical public. They would need to transform intellectual liberal approval into a passionate, broad-based coalition in the Party to get nominated, and then transform that into an even broader coalition nationwide.
I won't draw any conclusions until I see them in action, but neither have yet given me a reason for excitement. But I will definitely vote in the primary for whoever is most strongly challenging Hillary, even if I have little confidence in them, because I have none in her.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)Enough exposure to get his message out where it would hopefully catch fire with a disaffected public. The more other politicians see the kind of support his message is getting, hopefully they will jump on the bandwagon. Politicians just want to stay in power, and if some see this as a winng message for themselves, maybe they will go with it. I am realistic about Bernie's chances, as I think he himself is, he just wants to get the corruption out of or politics, to the extent anyone can.
The more we support him, the stronger the signal is to the others. Maybe it can get butts off of the couch and out protesting for Publicly Funded Elections!
edhopper
(33,573 posts)you could find democrats who were more conservative than the more moderate republicans.
Now I don't think there is a single Republican who doesn't support the entire right wing agenda.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)At one time it was unheard of for a Dem to offer up SS in negotiations. No longer. At one time we would have been shocked and appalled at a Dem appointing Wall Street banksters to his admin but now there are Dems who actually defend it.
Too bad the Dem party didn't turn left when the GOP took a hard right. They just keep following them down their journey rightward.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I agree with much of the meme, but definitely not all of it.
Unfortunately, in the past the Koch Brothers have funded the Democratic Leadership Council.
Thomas Frank, who grew up in Kansas, makes a similar observation:
Quoted here: The Rightwing Koch Brothers Fund the DLC
I have a hunch that the votes the Kochs work so hard at suppressing aren't DLC-style votes.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)because most who use that line don't really mean that the two parties are "identical", just that the similarities outweigh the differences in the minds of many, if not most.
"We" fully understand that there are differences, because there has to be or the good cop/bad cop game would be over. It's required that the good cops throw us dogs an occasional bone to keep us "excited" about the differences, but these days they are lucky if they can get mere placation outta of a great many, and therefore will be luckier still if they stop an increase of the bad cops presence this Nov.
ANd take an example like chained cpi for example which BHO doubtlessly expected his dem congressional colleages to support should it be neeeded, can one imagine a EW or BS even "proposing" such a thing regardless of their awareness likely long in existence before BHO's of the political oppositions goals and methods and means of achieving them? They stand in sharp contrast on a variety of issues that strengthen the "both the same" meme/false equivalence as you designate it, not weaken it, given how rare those creatures are. I find it disgustingly hilarious how we're supposed to be for example, excited about the "I love cluster bombs but I hate single-payer!" HC candidacy, like the Einstein definition of insanity has no application here.
WHat the "both the same" means from most is that they are both -- despite the presence of a few outspoken ones like EW -- have for the last few decades been servants of the same monied masters.
And Konczal airbrushes out of the picture that Obama was hoping to secure as the crowning accomplishment of his second term the “reform” of Social Security and Medicare. Even the Republicans came to recognize that going after these programs was a political third rail. And Obama is completely on board with neoliberal, meaning austrerian thinking, particularly the “need” to “live within our means”. By contrast, he’s been complacent even as unemployment has languished at levels higher than those that led Ronald Reagan to decide he needed to take more aggressive action (the 1985 Plaza Accord, among other things). And the idea that the Republicans are somehow trying to steal the populist mantle from its presumed rightful owners, the Democrats, is more than a tad peculiar given that income inequality has widened more under Obama than in the Bush Administration, as shown in the work of Emmaunel Saez:http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/yes-obama-democrats-mussolini-style-corporatists-just-like-republicans.html
And finally, how can we forget the ultimate reward to large corporations, that of allowing them to substantially circumvent nation-based regulation by appealing to secret panels that can impose fines on governments? Obama has been pushing hard to get the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships concluded, which also would greatly enrich American drug, technology, and entertainment companies through stronger (more accurately, overreaching) intellectual property provisions.
Thus the Mussolini comparison is apt. Now admittedly Konzcal does not define corporatism; but the Italian fascist version was that of coordinating large enterprise with the rest of society, and it’s not hard to guess who wound up dominating. Il Duce combined centralized coercive powers of government with the elite of the largest industrial concerns, throwing some crumbs to labor so they’d fall in line with the propagandizing to the population at large. This marriage is documented in detail is Denis Mack Smith’s “Modern Italy: A Political History,” and his biography, “Mussolini”. Both works describe a regime which, while claiming to reduce an inflated bureaucracy, needed to do precisely the opposite to reward personal clients and followers. These books also describe how the efforts of Mussolini’s first Fascist Finance Minister De’Stefani to curb tax evasion and limit stock exchange speculation were constantly thwarted by other political cronies of Il Duce, as well as Mussolini himself, who soon allowed the majority of his Cabinet to discredit one of the few competent ministers.
and this effort (like the recent "defense of Obama" from Krugman imo) in the final analysis differs little from the effort critiqued by the author in the aforementioned -- trying to gloss over what we all know to be the reality/proper conclusion as all the facts in their totality inexorably lead to.
Of course their not "identical/the same" in practice, much as the good cop and bad cop aren't, but that doesn't alter who is buttering both of their bread or the net negative results being perpetuated by that game for we little people, or who and what is the source of the little peoples problem both parties in their current policy pursuits -- or lack thereof -- contribute to.
The dems try to do enough to keep the people from revolting while using the revolting rightwingnuttery like Bush use to use the "color codes".
Perhaps it's well past time that your "fales equaivalence" is replaced by "both mostly on the same side" instead. That's why I've long described the condition in DC as a good cop/bad cop, false duopoly, janus-like condition, and an assault on the complete accuracy of a meme doesn't undermine that in any way.
The indefensibility of all of this is precisely why the defenders of it have been reduced to things like "Obama-haters" labeling, "trying to throw the election" charges, etc. And even those that concede all this recently seem to be convinced of the fact that the fault lies with us keyboard warriors relying too much on that versus real world efforts like participation in GOTV efforts, like BHO's election-winning "no more dumb wars" promise doesn't completely in a big way falsify the existence of that "fault".
The fault lies and will continue to lie in the money is speech doctrine that fuels and pays the good cops and bad cops alike, and insures their allegiance to the dark forces we'll be powerless against until it's changed. UNtil then, the idea that they're "both the same" -- no matter it's inaccuracy -- will be pervasive and the major reasons for the abominable and enslaving in many ways, lack of voter participation and increasing disappointment amongst those that do. All that is representitive of the widespread public perception that your false equivalence is "mostly" true.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I'm sorry if it got lost in the shuffle.
I for one read and greatly appreciated it.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)that happens a lot around here I'm sure.
As I see it, the short term gain of merely putting more D's in DC alone is no replacement for shattering the shortsightedness that makes the current status quo so acceptable to so many. SO what the dems aren't "exactly like" the repubs, that doesn't make them innocuous or not an impediment in terms of what our collective goals should be, and exactly how in the hell are people to know that unless it is voiced.
"The same" might be an exaggeration in some ways, but at least it provides fodder for a discussion or debate about how much the same they are that wouldn't otherwise occur. It's widespread acceptance imo means that they are the same in many ways that matter most to many if not most one of these days. After all, what was the basis for the attack on repubs from the Tea Partiers?
and it's a lot easier to attack than the litany of things that make people feel that way.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)eom
So tired of people ridiculing those who actually think. As if blind loyalty is the noble thing to practice.
Thanks for the post.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and you're welcome
My sense of things has been since this kinda stuff erupted pre-election in 2012 that they -- the loyalists -- are in the minority around here, and given the recent numbers regarding dem enthusiasm, well, this sorta thinking is more communicable than ebola is.
FlatStanley
(327 posts)There is also a reason Charlie Christ is a Democrat. There was also a reason Arlen Spector was a Republican.
The best way to eliminate false equivalencies is to elect candidates that reflect Democratic policies both in action as well as in word. And more importantly, stop settling for the mediocre for fear of having to fight for the good.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... or that Michele Bachmann was once a Democrat who campaigned for Jimmy Carter. And that I voted for former Republican, then independent John Anderson when he ran against Carter.
I would vote for Carter in a heartbeat today over just about any recent president. What people did in the past and how they've evolved may tell us a few things, but it shouldn't be an indictment against what they are now. What is most important are the issues of today and how strongly they align with what we want today and work towards resolving those issues the way that most of us feel best for this country. Warren and Sanders today are far better than any other pols that might run for president in 2016.
FlatStanley
(327 posts)But it is worth understanding why and how and whether they have changed.
Arlen Spector obviously did it for selfish reasons, as I suspect Charlie Christ has. Reagan appears to have had a change in philosophy but I think it was selfish as well. I don't know about Warren. But she appears to be talking a good game. So we will see.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Now there was two different elections of course and that's scraping my long term memory a bit, but I didn't care much for how Carter ran as a "born again" candidate, and no doubt that was what attracted Michele Bachmann to him then too. But I look at him now, and realize more that that was a strategy to try and neutralize that movement to being just skewed towards the Republicans. Jimmy Carter has true Christian values that I can see, and over time since then has tried to be true them and himself as a human being as one of the greatest ex-presidents in our lifetime.
I can't speak for Warren during those times, but who knows if she didn't have some similar concern that if you put it in context, would make her stances then more understandable. As I note, though it is interesting and perhaps something to study each candidate's history to help us ask important questions, I still feel the most important thing is what they are doing now, and that though we should ask questions, we shouldn't hold them hostage to their past. Republicans didn't hold Reagan hostage for him being a Democrat in the past either.
FlatStanley
(327 posts)I try not to hold people's past against them. But if they haven't developed a past, I don't automatically embrace what I consider potential Trojan horses, either. Reagan built a long history of Republican policy. He earned his red stripes. But people like Christ and Spector have or built no history before expecting Democrats to pull the lever for them.
I prefer actions over words, and I wish the Democratic Party would as well. If Christ is the only "Democrat" we had on the bench for Florida, then shame on the Democratic Party.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)"If Christ is the only "Democrat" we had on the bench for Florida, then shame on the Democratic Party."
MisterP
(23,730 posts)like Warren
got it!
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)So-called "Democrats" that try to just rally people as cheerleaders would a football game's crowd who only care about "who wins" and not what the party and those leading it are trying to do for us are NOT DEMOCRATS and DO NOT REPRESENT PEOPLE who are Democrats. They should be purged at the ballot box, and we should have a government that keeps in place a diverse media to keep us informed on who represents us and who don't so that we as voters can make that choice properly. Still a long way to go, but we do need more like Warren with the courage to stand up to the corporate state we have now to represent US!
MisterP
(23,730 posts)they're lying there on a sleepless night: at 3:30 am it hits them--"Elizabeth Warren ... is a Democrat! and the Kochs aren't!" they get up and grab a pen or pencil or even just something scratchy and make a note of it on the back of a bill or the flyleaf of a checkbook; next morning (still a little numb, a little weak in the knees from last night's veritable annunciation) and mash together this--thing, all the while thinking "they like Warren, and Warren's a Dem, so they have no CHOICE but to like any and all Dems! wait ... now they're saying 'we like Warren for her policies, not her party, and if a Dem acts like a Kochie we'll call them out on it'? that makes NO SENSE! THE KOCHS AREN'T DEMOCRATS SO HOW COULD A DEM ACT LIKE A KOCHIE?!"
it's so STRANGE that all these people are suddenly using Warren or Sanders to plump the party, which is moving very far away from anything that we support Warren or Sanders over: the Party must be supported because Warren's in it, but nothing that Warren says or does is relevant, so you can't judge the Party on whether it'll do what we support Warren for
it's like when Michael Moore was attacked for not backing Obama 100%, and they said they were being attacked for not supporting Moore 100%--it's like they literally can't understand that someone could think differently from them (their response literally was "we don't demand that Obama be supported 100%, but you firebaggers demand that everyone support Moore 100%"--they literally aren't listening)
The parties are just alike is bullshit and always has been.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I corrected him with, NO, the Democratic Party try to do what is in our best interest most of the time where the RepubliCON party never gives that a thought. I doubt what I said made any difference but at least I felt better by not letting that bullshit get pass me as true.
ETA: I remember when I might have said that but since I've been a regular here at DU I no longer see it that way. The whole key is education, I've simply learned a lot hanging out in this place 
IronLionZion
(45,430 posts)Where it seems like Democratic Underground exists to bury the Democrats deep Underground to punish them or something.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that both parties are the same. We need to explain the differences.
Triana
(22,666 posts)Probably posted here!
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Sadly, that isn't the case, and I am struggling against values voters who don't know what they are talking about.
It is just disheartening sometimes.
Cha
(297,154 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)I now I see posts trying to tell us that there is not such meme being spread on progressive sites. I find it amazing that the same people who bash the president daily, the democratic party, all kinds of doom and gloom posts, and yes the "both parties are the same", seem to be the ones trying to deny it's really happening.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Diremoon
(86 posts)Every single republican is the enemy. They not only do not care about you, they will do everything they can to make you suffer, because republicans can't be happy just because they have the whole pie. They need to see others in misery as well.
Not every democrat is squeaky clean and going to share all of your values, either. But Any democrat is better than the republican choice. First we get rid of every republican. They have no place in government. Then we vote in better democrats. Voting third party is usually a waste of your vote. An established and popular candidate like Bernie is an exception, and there may be others, but for the most part a third party candidate has very little chance. Just get the damned republicans out first.
Most important of all, is to GET OUT and VOTE! If we all voted, republicans would be extinct. Everyone in our family will be out to vote, and we will vote a straight democratic ticket. Lets really surprise them and all show up at the poles this year.