How do liberals halt the march of the right? Stand our ground and toughen up

[malaise]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/26/liberals-far-right
<snip>
To all you despondent liberals, Labour centrists, Tory modernisers, remainers, social justice warriors, social justice worriers, and everyone out there fretful about Brexit, depressed by Donald Trump, and scared of the alt-right, here is my festive message: get off the ground, you wusses. Put down your gingerbread lattes, and put up your dukes.

Let us consult the wisdom of Sean Connery’s Malone in The Untouchables, and adapt it to our times. You want to get the alt-right? Here’s how you get them. They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way.

Before we proceed, and to pre-empt litigation, let me emphasise that I am speaking metaphorically. If you were by any chance planning to mark Boxing Day by going after a member of the far right with a pointed stick, please don’t. Being against the law, it will only complicate matters. It is also likely to give you indigestion after all those turkey sandwiches.

Stand up for integration: present it as an opportunity not a burden

Still, in every other respect, it really is time to stop sobbing and toughen up. So here are my 10 tips for liberals of all kinds hoping to stop the march of the right in 2017:
Defend your ground, aggressively

Pluralism, women’s equality, ethnic diversity, our responsibility to refugees, internationalism, LGBT rights – all that is now under systematic attack. It won’t defend itself. One of the enduring lessons of Bill Clinton’s campaigns is that rapid rebuttal works. When idiots post idiocy on social media, call them out. Challenge, probe, demand answers. Be civil, but unrelenting. Never cringe or yield ground to bigots. Facts defeat fury, sooner or later.
Colonise your opponents’ language

The Brexiteers, alt-right and Breitbart gang have been expert in their vocabulary. “Take back control” was a great campaign slogan. But what does “control” mean to the mother of three whose pay is lagging behind inflation? Or to the 55-year-old man suddenly made redundant because his employer is relocating to the continent? Or to the restaurateur no longer able to hire migrant labour? And why is centrist speech dismissed as “virtue signalling” while fiercely rightwing language is hailed as “plain speaking”? As for “liberal elite”, that has come to mean little more that “people in London I don’t like”. Again, point this out. You’ll find that the most sensitive “snowflake” of the lot is an alt-right tweeter called upon to define his terms.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. A major problem is making this stuff actually relevant to the population...

There's a lot of cognitive dissonance out there, and issues are not analyzed by the public, but accepted as given by "trusted" advisors.

And, the ace in the hole that conservatives have is basic selfishness. We can argue until we're blue in the face about how better schools for minorities and immigrants will be better for us all in the long run, but if the public gets the notion they'll be paying for it, it's all over.

The WIC program to help keep children fed? Sure, it's great unless the "wrong" children are getting and I'm paying for it.

Charity is great, but only if I have a couple of extra bucks to throw that way, and if the recipients deserve it.

A lot of this goes back to Calvinist theology that was a large part of our early churches. Calvin taught that only a certain number of people were predestined for salvation, and that was that. He got the number from Revelation, and played with it a little, but the point was that there were the few saved and the many unsaved who wewre therefore of lesser value and much lesser moral worth.

The extension to this is basically that conservative refrain that it is probably your fault that you are broke, but even if not, it is evidence that you are not one of the chosen and we don't have to do a damn thing for you. At any rate, if you suffer misfortune, the best you get is not being shamed for it-- but you won't often get that.

So, how do we argue that it is not such a good thing for you to get stuff, and a better thing for others to get stuff? That's what it comes down to. It gets a lot tougher when they make moral judgements about crime, sex, and all sorts of other stuff.

And then the other side redfines "freedom" and "liberty", using them and others as code words.

It ain't easy.

[dbonds]

2. +1

[malaise]

9. Good post

[Mc Mike]

3. The new nazi push is attacking everyone, all at once, all the time.

If you look at the list of the groups of people they hate -- Women, Blacks, Hispanics, Moslems, Jews, Labor, LGBTs, Students, the Poor, Scientists, Professors, etc. -- they're attacking the vast majority of the population. That means clearly they're a small minority, and the people who are their enemies are the overwhelming majority.

So it shouldn't be too hard to find some local action to defend against their attacks. Work across affinity group boundaries, if there's no action on your own affinity groups' front. No reason to stand around and wait for "your turn".

Jewish Voices for Peace sent me an invite to an action last week defending the rights of Moslems to be secure against attacks by hate criminals and unconstitutional governmental oppression. I told them up front their list was in error -- they must have got my contact info from J-Street or NIF e-actions I did in the past, I'm a catholic -- but if they were being inclusive, I'd come.

It was a nice action. They're being pro-active, creating a rallying point, raising peoples' spirits, steeling peoples' resolve. I didn't understand the words in the Chanukkah song they sang during part of the march, but I could hum along.

[malaise]

10. Pro-active is what is required

That and local action

[Mc Mike]

24. Support other Rainbow Coalition groups, across affinity group lines.

I saw Angela Davis advocate that at Chatham U. some years back.

[HAB911]

4. The problems as I see it

there are far too many dainty little flowers posting here. They sit with their trigger finger on the 'alert' button for any hint of a negative remark about any Democrat but don't have the balls to pull a gun in a knife fight, 'it would be unfair" bwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Good luck to us all.

[Sunlei]

5. as I see it there are to many lovely roses with nasty thorns here. Happy New year.

[HAB911]

6. A rose by any other name...........n/t

[Sunlei]

20. 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

[malaise]

11. That too

[eniwetok]

7. Want to stop the right? Reform the system that gives them so much power! Duh!

After debating this issue with liberal Dems for close to 20 years I know most don't want to look at the obvious... but if we want to stop the Right... one obvious approach is to finally look at how our antidemocratic federal system gives the right power they'd never have in a system based on democratic principles. Haven't the Bush and Trump Juntas yet proven knocked enough sense into Dems to realize this?

What should we expect when our system was based on class warfare (Madison's minority of the opulent) where wise elites would have a veto over the People at every turn... yet the system has no check should those elites become corrupted by money or ideology?

What should we expect when our system gives 18% of the US population 52% of the seats in the Senate. Our amendment formula gives states with less than 4% of the US population the ability to thwart any reform.

It should come as no surprise that growing corporate power and obscene wealth inequality would be more of a problem in the US than in most nations with more modern electoral and political systems. If a system is so antidemocratic it can't pass needed reforms... big money and corporate power will be hard to check.

[malaise]

12. +1,000

Thoughtful - important data as well

[eniwetok]

15. if Dems kept up the fight to abolish the EC in 2000

If Dems kept up the fight to abolish the EC back in 2000... we might have been 16 years closer to that goal. And maybe after the disaster of the Bush years the nation would wake up the fact the popular vote loser can never have any moral legitimacy no matter how big their EC win.

But neither has happened... and compared to the new Child King... Bush2 is looking like a emotionally mature, moderate.

[malaise]

16. Dems help to perpetuate a system that is rigged for

the 1%. I seriously doubt the convictions of many Dems which is why I keep asking for the core beliefs of the party.

[eniwetok]

19. cognitive dissonance

I've been arguing for nearly 20 years that most liberal Dems, who you think should know better, are deeply mired in cognitive dissonance. They want to believe they have a monopoly on democratic concepts like the Right claims the flag... and yet when one scratches the surface we see they're deeply mired in the Civic Religion that we dare not question our federal system... even if it's antidemocratic and can permit minority rule. I routinely get beat up in forums that I simply don't understand our system... otherwise I'd never criticize it. That we SHOULD have state suffrage.... even if it's at the core of every antidemocratic feature of our federal system.

The bottom line is if these Dems cared IN THE LEAST about those democratic principles they claim to believe in when they create groups like Democracy For America etc... they'd at least try to define what democratic principles are. in the end what they propose are feel-good bandaids over a antidemocratic system that may increase participation but do nothing to change the underlying system...

because in the end, under our current electoral and political systems, we can have

100% voter participation
100% vote count accuracy
100% publicly financed elections... and

18% of the US population will still get 52% of the seats in the Senate
4% if the population can still block any amendment
and we'll still be getting Bush and Trump Junta being imposed on a nation that rejected them.

[azureblue]

8. My Frame--

"look at you - you're honest, you are working hard, and you still can't make ends meet without going further into debt. Remember the good old days, back in the 50'sand 60's, when a man could support his entire family comfortably, and have money to save? What happened between then and now? I'll tell you - the rich people have been stealing your money, a little at a time, until you are near broke. Just look at how their taxes went way down in the 70's and now they have more than half of the money, but you have nothing. If some Big Bank officer is complaining about why he can't live on a measly million dollars a month, if the head of a health insurance company thinks he can't make it on $24 million a year, and you can't get a raise, there is something bad wrong here. These are the people who have control of you and those are the people who are fooling you. You want a better life? Take back control of this great country from the people who have taken your money. Look at all those millionaires in Washington. They have no idea what you are going through and all they want to do is to make more money for themselves. Look at the people who get elected, and after a couple of years suddenly they are millionaires. Where do you think they got the money? From bribes, I tell you. They don't care about you until it's time to get your vote. So don't vote for them. Vote for somebody who knows your problems and has solid plans to fix them. That is how you can make your own life better."

[malaise]

13. That's the truth

It's a total and complete scam - so how to we run the 'thiefing' politicians and lock up their corrupt financiers?

[bigtree]

14. of coures, we have 'lefties' like Sanders

going on and on about wwc Trump voters who got just what they asked for in this election.

Never mind the millions of blacks and Latinos who voted with the MAJORITY in this election.

Sanders and his demagogic partners want us to turn our backs on our own constituency and mollycoddle people who will never accept a Democratic agenda - people who rail against Democrats no matter how much voting for them is in their economic interest, because of their antipathy and bigotry toward the vast numbers of blacks and immigrants who rally under our Democratic banner.


Raw Story @RawStory
Bernie Sanders: It’s a ‘tragic mistake’ to dismiss anti-establishment voters as ‘deplorable’ http://ow.ly/XQ3U307spXb

[malaise]

17. At least Sanders is out there speaking

The rest are hiding

[bigtree]

18. not all of them

...just saw Maxine Waters.

My own congressman, Elijah Cummings has been speaking out. Schumer has made several combative statements... others, as well, Like Patty Murray, today.

I think Sanders is a shameless demagogue on the issue of the wwc. He's still demagoguing, even now, and was throughout the campaign, to the exclusion of ANY mention of the millions of blacks and Latino working-class voters who helped make up the majority of the popular vote Hillary won.

[malaise]

21. Maxine always speaks

and has been criticized in the past by DNC folks. I disagree re Sanders being a demagogue.

[bigtree]

23. demagogic on the issue of Democrats and the wwc

...not generally.

[eniwetok]

25. GO SANDERS!!! Every voter has more than one trait... so stop pretending everyone can be pigeonholed

Sanders is merely saying that economics is an overarching issue that affects everyone in the working and lower middle classes... and it's counterproductive to not make a strong economic appeal to reach those voters... even if you're going to attract some people we might not want to know personally. Economics is a way to create solidarity between diverse groups. Identity politics has a place, but it can pit one group against another.

But Hillary wasn't credible on some working class issues... like free trade, and unlike Bernie she didn't go for the jugular on the Right's war on labor.

[Scurrilous]

22. K & R