I want to point out the amusing aspect of this, is that I have nearly the same identical conversation with (what I consider) the well meaning folks on the right that cheer leaders like Flake, Mccain and powell
Or you know - its the evil.
Almost all the public mass killings of the past two years are people acting out on the message being delivered from the very top. Decrying it isn’t ripping the US apart - the message from the very top of a single influential political party is.
So sadly, I guess we can agree on the moral weakness part.
Except I don’t disagree with you, I to decry it. Narrative absolutes are wrong, telling stories to say that Hispanics are mainly rapist is wrong, not decrying the white nationalist movement is wrong (and many republicans said so- just the president was hedging). Many republicans were horrified about families being separated at the border as a deterrent policy, and said so. Many of the voters also didn’t agree with it.
Though not enough to change the presidents behavior is fair. That is sad, depressing, and shows we clearly need to do be a better leader of moral authority.
Not funny.
Not amusing.
Not a great example.
Why is it not funny we agree on every specific point raised, and yet seem to be disagreeing?
Why is it not amusing that I have the EXACT same conversations about tribalism and the fallacy of absolute evil of the other side while not acknowledging the shortcoming of their own side-----with BOTH sides?
How does this keep happening?
Here’s why you’re getting such strong pushback, because by and large liberals do acknowledge shortcomings. You will not find it hard to have people offer critiques of President Obama, or any major Democratic leader.
To pick an example local to us, see @Nesrie’s critiques of Oregon’s governor and the way tax and budgeting items are presented and proposed. Now I am too recent a transplant to comment, but she is quite willing to criticize how the Portland road tax was handled.
There is criticism of how things like the ACA were handled, the drone warfare program, how they went along with the Patriot Act, all across the spectrum. I don’t really see people trying to force this narrative of ‘our side is always right’. I’ve got plenty to say about how the Obama administration handled environmental issues, particularly in regards to fracking, as well as handling the bank executives post bailout.
Thing is those aren’t remotely in the same neighborhood as why Trump is doing, hell they’re not even in the same zip code. There is nothing the scale of the formenting of hatred we see from the modern GOP. And that is why your point meets such resistance. Nobody here is under some illusion that the Democrats are perfect. However when one side is literally running Nazis and is bending over backwards to normalize their rhetoric and behavior all other factors become irrelevant. And even the supposedly good republicans in Congress do nothing to push back against this. Flake may be stepping down because he has not sufficiently embraced Trump, but that does not mean he has meaningfully opposed him either.
I would say his book was a pretty strong rebuke:
Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle
He has spoke about tribalism more than once, which could be (like me) a ding on both sides, but I consider it a call out of Trumps underhanded tactics,
I would general agree here on the self awareness, with a few exceptions. The critical nature and self reflective review is certainly better than the general public. I would say the main thing lacking here is the blanket judgement of the otherside (which I made my points on),
The right seems to um… more readily…embrace non critical self reflective behaviors than the left by a significant degree, I agree with that.
The other item of improvement I could offer here is need to reach across the isle when the other side is moderate and be willing to listen and try to understand the perspective they are coming from (and not the expected one)., ask questions if appropriate, and counter poor logic with facts and data assuming good intentions (albeit maybe misguided). I know we’ve had some people come to this site with bad intentions but I prefer to assume good till its proven otherwise.
I used to believe in this, unfortunately no longer. That is because over the last decade plus (really been about 20 years, but ramped up over the last decade) we have seen liberals constantly nd vigorously reach out and try and understand conservatives. To reach out and try and reach compromise. To bend over backwards to facilitate discussion. We really do not see a reciprocation of that. Where are the thinkpieces where conservative voices try and understand liberal views on healthcare, rather than try and call attempts to make healthcare universal and affordable state communism worse than Mao. Where is the vigorous grappling with why liberals oppose unlimited drilling, and want clean drinking water. Even the ‘liberal’ media bends over backwards to always give conservatives a platform that they use, mostly unopposed or with little pushback.
And so what happens is asymmetric compromise. It ends up with one side constantly giving, the other winning the narrative, controlling the framing, and getting what they want. At this point pushing for compromise, from a liberal point of view, is a mugs game. It condemns you to fighting a constant rear guard action, and enables the excesses of the GOP. So at this point, to achieve meaningful improvements on liberal policy goals, I do no longer believe that it is desirable or optimal to attempt to reach out with understanding and compromise with conservatives. What needs to be done is present your position strongly, and stick to that vision. Do not, for example, seek understanding and rapproachment on environmental policy. Make the argument for why this is the thing that must be done, and why. Here is why the GOP position is bad. fight it on those terms.
And, yeah, this represnents a shift to stronger partisanship. It is also, unfortunately, nessecary at this time.
“Embrace non-critical self-reflective behaviors”? You’re soft-pedaling that the right – they’re not even “the right” anymore – is morally bankrupt and driven by Republican party over country, without principles, meaningful policies, or any political grace. They’re a collection of thugs, assholes, morons, and craven cowards. Take any self-identifying Republican and you will find at least two of those qualities, and mostly likely three.
Non-critical self-reflective behavior? Good lord.
-Tom
In respect to Jews, pence had a Rabbi give s prayer at an event.
Oh wait! He’s not actually a Jew! He’s from a sect of “Jews” that believe Jesus is the Messiah.
Aka, a Christian.
Maybe, but I’m not willing to play the ‘Not a real X’ game. That way lies madness, and worse.
Nope. I can tell you, as a Jew, that we do not consider the Jews for Jesus to be Jewish, and actively resent their attempts to convert Jews. Every couple years or so a bunch of them come around my neighbourhood, look for the mezzuzah on the doors, and start ringing bells and try to talk us into abandoning one of the most central tenets of our faith (the belief that we are still awaiting the messiah). They are, by definition, NOT Jews.
Whether he’s a real Jew – whatever that means – is beside the point. He belongs to a fringe sect that poorly represents the faith of Judaism because it denies a fundamental tenet of the religion. It would be like honoring Christians by having a Mormon give a speech.
-Tom
EDIT: What Ephraim said.
Would Hitler and the Nazis given him a pass? Do modern Nazis give them a pass? Besides Pence I mean.
I’m not sure if you’re actually asking, but I’m guessing any anti-Semite with any principles* would give Jews for Jesus a pass because they acknowledge the divinity of Christ. As Timex said, they’re Christians.
-Tom
* ha!
Next thing you lot will tell me is that someone has to believe in God to be considered a ‘real Jew’, too.
I agree it’s bizarre Pence picked a fringe denomination.
Again, I have no idea what a real Jew is! I only know that the implicit message of Jews for Jesus is that Judaism is wrong because its messiah has already arrived, dummies. They’re basically evangelical Christians and I have never heard of them being included when people talk about various types of Judaism. Which casts about as broad an umbrella as a religion can cast given that you bring up secular Jews. But those guys don’t belong under the umbrella.
Pence is either a colossally clueless lunkhead, or he’s playing political games to appeal to the evangelical Christians in his base.
-Tom
Okay.
I’m really not disputing that. (And Pence is a clueless lunkhead too!)