Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PatrickforO

(14,570 posts)
Sat Mar 4, 2017, 07:03 PM Mar 2017

Someone asked how the 'anti-Trump liberals' would react if Trump actually turned

this nation around and improved it substantially. Here's my reply:

I just don’t think that’s going to happen. That said, allow me to say something else. I’ll be as honest as I can be, but you must realize this is my opinion. It is, however, an educated one. Here’s the thing: Americans live in bubbles. The far left lives in the ‘far left bubble’ where they get their news from certain sources and no other. The far right lives in the ‘far right bubble.’ This bubble is larger, some say much larger, and it consists primarily of Fox News and AM talk radio. The rest of America tends to live in the ‘entertainment, sports and popular culture bubble’ and doesn’t really even think about elections until the week before.

Let us look at the history of the far right bubble. How did this come to be? The old and venerable newscasters, people like Edward R. Murrow and even Walter Kronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, would spin in their graves if they watched the O’Reilley Factor or Fox and Friends. Why? Because they had to abide by the Fairness Doctrine, which required both sides of an issue be reported.

Unfortunately, after Vietnam, Watergate, and the Civil Rights and anti-war movements that changed our society, intellectuals on the right felt they needed to find a way to get the corporate or business ‘truth’ out to Americans because they were afraid we were moving too far left.

Accordingly, future-Supreme-Court-Justice Lewis Powell wrote a confidential memorandum to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In it, he laid out the case for the Chamber to become more activist in challenging what he genuinely felt were ‘leftist’ positions.

Powell laid out a plan for the Chamber to challenge the ‘leftists’ on college campuses, speakers bureaus, and business schools. He advocated the creation and assistance of groups on the right who would challenge the ‘liberal’ system through local political involvement, textbook editing, and the courts.

Later, in 1987, Ronald Reagan vetoed a new Fairness Doctrine bill sent to him by the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress of the time.

During the 1990s and on to today, we have seen the growth of AM talk radio and Fox News. The message of these outlets has become rather insulated. In fact, there are whole groups of Americans who deeply believe the ‘news’ broadcast by these groups, and who don’t get their news from anyplace else.

In effect, this was an absolutely brilliant insurgency by the right using some of the same brainwashing techniques our CIA learned about during the Korean War, and perfected in the 1960s and 1970s.

This is why, when someone like Kellyanne Conway talks about ‘alternative facts,’ and Donald Trump tweets out wild accusations, they are believed by a substantial number of Americans.

Sadly, this brilliant insurgency move by corporate interests has rendered our country so divided that some perceive a danger of civil war. Do we want to get rid of the gridlock and reinstitute sane public dialog? Then I believe we need to do three things:

1. Overturn Citizens United and get corporate money out of politics.
2. Impose a new Fairness Doctrine, which includes net neutrality.
3. Limit political campaigns to a month or two in duration, and finance them equally using public, not private, monies.

Ah, you’re laughing, I see. And calling me a ‘unicorn.’ Indeed. There’s lots of money out there; billions of dollars in fact, that will line up against these reforms. I’m 58 years old now, though, and I will say this: If you want this country to be what it could and should be, then we need to find a way, somehow, to make these reforms.

The American people deserve more objective facts and less ‘spun’ propaganda.

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
1. Looking only at the economic aspect of a Trump Administration:
Sat Mar 4, 2017, 07:08 PM
Mar 2017

Trump is running as Reagan, Part 3. Bush Jr was Reagan, Part 2.

Supply side economics will only succeed in transferring more wealth to the 1% while increasing taxes on the bottom 90%. That is how it worked during the Reagan and the Bush Presidencies.

The second effect will be a massive increase in the debt and deficit. Again, echoing the Reagan and Bush Presidencies.

samnsara

(17,616 posts)
2. ..the same way I would react if i was confronted by a cougar...
Sat Mar 4, 2017, 07:08 PM
Mar 2017

..who turned and walked away. Don't trust it one second!!

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
3. Trump is gutting the EPA...
Sat Mar 4, 2017, 07:19 PM
Mar 2017

There's nothing he can do to improve it without protections to the environment.

Planned parenthood, NOAA, the state department these are all things that need to remain in place in order to improve the country.

If he improves the economy while removing these other things, he's not improving the country.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
14. Quite the contrary actually...
Sun Mar 5, 2017, 09:42 AM
Mar 2017

He's already done a few damaging things to the economy (i.e. Muslim ban damaging tourism industry).

The economy will pick up if he actually gets infrastructure spending, but I still won't support him because of the damage he's done to the government.

andym

(5,443 posts)
4. With a conservative majority on the Supreme Court
Sat Mar 4, 2017, 07:19 PM
Mar 2017

which is likely, then
Citizens United will remain.

Democrats would have to control the House, Senate and Presidency to get a Fairness Doctrine bill. 2009/10 was the best chance at that. Next possible time would be 2021.

Limiting campaign length would invoke the same reasoning as Citizens United at the SC.

So none of these things are going to happen anytime soon. Need something else.

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
8. Democrats will have to control the White House and Congress
Sat Mar 4, 2017, 08:18 PM
Mar 2017

for 20 years minimum to undue the damage that Bush II and Trump will cause. Obama reversed SOME of the Bush II damage, but the purists abandoning Democrats in the 2010 and 2014 midterms insured that Obama could only reverse a fraction of the Bush II damage. Trump will try to stack the Supreme Court as well as set back environmental legislation for decades. Trump has signaled that he will appoint Justices that could be on the Court for the next 30 years, so we would need enough time to get the seats of Roberts, Alio and Thomas filled to get a Court that has a liberal bias.

central scrutinizer

(11,648 posts)
5. "turned it around"?
Sat Mar 4, 2017, 07:50 PM
Mar 2017

Back to Jim Crow, white supremacy, patriarchy? I don't care if the Dow breaks 100,000 I don't want to live in that turned around America.

MedusaX

(1,129 posts)
6. Define substantial improvement....
Sat Mar 4, 2017, 07:54 PM
Mar 2017

The only benefit of a two party system is that you are almost guaranteed never to have a tie.

So, if you want to go all out rainbow sparkle Pegasus unicorn
Add this to your wish-list

4. eliminate party affiliation altogether.

As long as the system remains based on having two major parties there will always be the current
us vs. them;
left vs. right;
conservative vs. liberal;
party before country;
label driven expectation of loyalty/rivalry;
zero sum win-lose mentality.

I do believe that our current situation is a prime example of the perils which can result from intense party based polarization.

 

Bradical79

(4,490 posts)
9. He would have to become a completely different person
Sat Mar 4, 2017, 08:20 PM
Mar 2017

and maybe have time travel powers to boot.

#1 issue is the enviroment. It's just a fact that without agressive reversal of enviromental damage, we're all fucked. Every single day we go backwards on this issue, the more drastic any solution will have to be, and the more unlikely solving the problem will be.

So in my view, "what if" arguments about Trump improving the country are nothing more than day dreaming about an impossibility.

sinkingfeeling

(51,444 posts)
10. I don't consider eliminating the arts (NEA), drilling on our national
Sat Mar 4, 2017, 08:20 PM
Mar 2017

parks, putting gas guzzling vehicles our our roads to contaminate our air, building walls to keep us contained, tearing decent families apart, and forcing a particular religion's views on everyone improving the country.
I could add many more things to that list.

PatrickforO

(14,570 posts)
13. Boy, you guys SO missed my point. Am I that obtuse? Really?
Sat Mar 4, 2017, 10:25 PM
Mar 2017

The question was asked by someone on a different forum which is neither left or right.

I wanted to educate those on that forum who are to the right about the sad fact that though they hear Fox and talk radio crow the right wing talking points, THEY WILL NEVER HEAR OUR COUNTERARGUMENT, OR EVEN AN INDEPENDENT, OBJECTIVE ONE BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAVE A FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, CORPORATE MONEY HAS CORRUPTED OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM, AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE SPENT ON COMMERCIALS ON CORPORATE-OWNED TV NETWORKS AND CABLE.

This is why we must roll over this substantial group at the polls, locally, statewide and nationally.

Geez.

Sigh...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Someone asked how the 'an...