Donald Trump: Political Intolerance

[Stavros]

If it is not too cynical the judgement may be a case of the friend being 'nice to have not need to have'. Other than that I think political opposites can work if there is an intellectual honesty to the relationship that does not involve the kind of prejudice that results in violence or social exclusion.
When I was an undergraduate and still a Labour Party activist, I was friends mostly with a Conservative Party activist, the kind of person I should have been at war with. In fact I had a bigger problem with people on the left I was supposed to be in sympathy with mainly because they had no flexibility in an argument, but everything was rooted in 'facts' as was also the case with two Tories in my year who were impossible to debate with because everything Thatcher said was right. Maybe that flexibility is the key, and not taking politics too seriously. On the other hand, some years later I was friends with someone who after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait became more and more defensive of Saddam as the west's victim, and prone to conspiracy theories in which she insisted there was a secret world government run by the Illuminati, the Jews and so on. There comes a time when there is noting left to discuss, and as I did not need her friendship I let it go and she didn't care much either. It is a pity when such differences come between people, but if the quality of the friendship declines because of what each party knows about the other, it is best to knock it on the head and go elsewhere. Though not politically related, I lost two precious friendships because of friends who married men who clearly disliked me, to the point of mutual loathing. You can't do much about it but move on.

[broncofan]

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news...mps-little-boy

I did not know where to put this. But since we are talking about the new constituents Trump has pulled into the race, I thought this was an amusing profile of a buffoon supporter of Trump. It also touches a little bit on the alt-right, a segment of the right wing I am having trouble defining. I think it's relevant that the story is written by someone who describes himself as right of center, because it is not an ideological attack on conservatism, but rather on a sort of vacuous nihilism that has taken over in certain circles.

[Stavros]

Makes me think of Jean Genet, the permanent outsider. Having grown up gay when it was illegal and spent a life in and out of prison for petty theft, Genet considered himself unable and unwilling to fit in to society, so he decided to permanently oppose whatever it was that people fought for regardless of its content. In Funeral Rites he resurrects that peculiar gay fetish for the uniformed Nazi not out of any sympathy for national socialism, but because they had become so hated he embraced them as someone who had been hated in his past, just as he idolised thiefs and murderers in his classic The Thief's Journal. I have never heard of this Milo Mind-bender and hope never to encounter him again. But as a fall back position is it easy to be a nihilist as you can then condemn every political idea, every social movement, and every government, and never have to offer an alternative. Anyway according to Elon Musk we are just bytes in a super-computer.

[broncofan]

I have never heard of this Milo Mind-bender and hope never to encounter him again. But as a fall back position is it easy to be a nihilist as you can then condemn every political idea, every social movement, and every government, and never have to offer an alternative. Anyway according to Elon Musk we are just bytes in a super-computer.

For a variety of reasons I also hope you never encounter him again. He is so far succeeding in providing cover for very obvious white supremacists.

He has a following of 200,000 twitter followers, but right now is a grassroots harassment racket...we'll see how much it grows. The other day on twitter one of his followers told me that objecting to a dead-serious death threat was to muzzle free speech. The derangement of this alt-right subculture cannot be put into words without witnessing them; even the article I posted only scratches the surface. If there is one thing in that article that may have more lasting relevance than the fool it profiles, it's the movement he represents, and the important issue of whether it remains fringe or gains traction. He is a circus clown providing cover for dangerous morons.

[blackchubby38]

I'm a registered independent who has voted Democrat since I turned 18 in 1992. So I am by no means a Trump supporter. But I totally understand why he has become the Republican nominee due to the fact that I spend a considerable amount of time online with people who have said they will vote for Trump. I also have seen people who would identify themselves as a Republican who say they can't bring themselves to vote for Trump.

Having said all that, if the violence that happened last night at the Trump rally in San Jose continues to happen during the general election, Trump will be sworn in as president in January. Those images were disturbing and they are playing right into the hands of the Trump supporters who are shouting, "Build the wall"! Those images may also convince any undecided voters that politics in this country have swung too far to left and Trump is exactly what this country needs in order try to balance things out.

Damn it, why can't there be a viable third candidate.

[Stavros]

I'm a registered independent who has voted Democrat since I turned 18 in 1992. So I am by no means a Trump supporter. But I totally understand why he has become the Republican nominee due to the fact that I spend a considerable amount of time online with people who have said they will vote for Trump. I also have seen people who would identify themselves as a Republican who say they can't bring themselves to vote for Trump.

Having said all that, if the violence that happened last night at the Trump rally in San Jose continues to happen during the general election, Trump will be sworn in as president in January. Those images were disturbing and they are playing right into the hands of the Trump supporters who are shouting, "Build the wall"! Those images may also convince any undecided voters that politics in this country have swung too far to left and Trump is exactly what this country needs in order try to balance things out.

Damn it, why can't there be a viable third candidate.

Violence is not new in American party politics, in my lifetime the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago in 1968 remains the most violent and chaotic, but that took place when demonstrations against the Vietnam War were increasingly violent and when the Democrats were tearing themselves apart over the war and civil rights issues. Trump himself has encouraged violence and there has been more at his rallies I believe and I think this is part of his 'no-nonsense' agenda anyway, and an indication of how reckless this man is. The problem surely is that these events attract people who are looking for a fight whether or not they are 'card-carrying' Democrats and Republicans.

Viewed from the UK, and lacking the nuanced perspective you have in the US, it looks like both parties are divided among themselves, unable to agree on where they are going or even why. The Clintons appear to me to represent the kind of politics one associates with Tony Blair and 'New Labour', making an accommodation with 'neo-liberalism'/globalization in order to win elections. Labour lost 4 general elections in a row between 1979 and 1997, the Democrats three between Reagan and Bush Snr, they eventually became so desperate for power they were prepared to ditch decades of policies to move to 'the the centre' where the centre ground had been re-located by Reagan and Thatcher; but note too that both parties historically had been successful with blue collar workers but that by the 1990s heavy industry was in decline taking the traditional party base with it. I think in both countries, Democrat and Labour have attempted to replace their declining blue collar constituency with public sector workers and high tech and social media and mostly urban voters.

The financial crisis since 2008 has tested this agenda with some arguing for a return to state involvement in the economy (Sanders) or a more libertarian agenda composed of state withdrawal from welfare, tax cuts, and hostility to liberal social policies on abortion (TEA Party). As I have suggested before, I think this election is a write-off and you have four more years of what you have had in the previous eight, which begs the question will someone with a fresh agenda emerge to capture the 2020 election? We have the same problem in the UK with the country agonising over the European Union but with no major politician able to tell us where jobs and economic growth are going to come from over the next 25 years whether we are in or out of the EU. And we appear to be lumbered with the same political parties as in both the US and the UK small parties like the Greens or the Libertarians cannot get enough votes and seats to gather any forward momentum. There is also the question of 'permanent war' given that the US has been militarily engaged without a break since 2001, and that those 15 years account for the 'longest war' the US has been involved in since 1776, with no sign of it coming to an end.

And anyway, in spite of the noise, I think people are afraid of change -real change- and Trump for all his trumpeting, is more likely to change the tone of politics than hard core policy so where do all those disillusioned voters go, on both sides of the divide? That may even be the scariest question, if they choose 'direct action' rather than disengagement.

[blackchubby38]

Violence is not new in American party politics, in my lifetime the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago in 1968 remains the most violent and chaotic, but that took place when demonstrations against the Vietnam War were increasingly violent and when the Democrats were tearing themselves apart over the war and civil rights issues. Trump himself has encouraged violence and there has been more at his rallies I believe and I think this is part of his 'no-nonsense' agenda anyway, and an indication of how reckless this man is. The problem surely is that these events attract people who are looking for a fight whether or not they are 'card-carrying' Democrats and Republicans.

Viewed from the UK, and lacking the nuanced perspective you have in the US, it looks like both parties are divided among themselves, unable to agree on where they are going or even why. The Clintons appear to me to represent the kind of politics one associates with Tony Blair and 'New Labour', making an accommodation with 'neo-liberalism'/globalization in order to win elections. Labour lost 4 general elections in a row between 1979 and 1997, the Democrats three between Reagan and Bush Snr, they eventually became so desperate for power they were prepared to ditch decades of policies to move to 'the the centre' where the centre ground had been re-located by Reagan and Thatcher; but note too that both parties historically had been successful with blue collar workers but that by the 1990s heavy industry was in decline taking the traditional party base with it. I think in both countries, Democrat and Labour have attempted to replace their declining blue collar constituency with public sector workers and high tech and social media and mostly urban voters.

The financial crisis since 2008 has tested this agenda with some arguing for a return to state involvement in the economy (Sanders) or a more libertarian agenda composed of state withdrawal from welfare, tax cuts, and hostility to liberal social policies on abortion (TEA Party). As I have suggested before, I think this election is a write-off and you have four more years of what you have had in the previous eight, which begs the question will someone with a fresh agenda emerge to capture the 2020 election? We have the same problem in the UK with the country agonising over the European Union but with no major politician able to tell us where jobs and economic growth are going to come from over the next 25 years whether we are in or out of the EU. And we appear to be lumbered with the same political parties as in both the US and the UK small parties like the Greens or the Libertarians cannot get enough votes and seats to gather any forward momentum. There is also the question of 'permanent war' given that the US has been militarily engaged without a break since 2001, and that those 15 years account for the 'longest war' the US has been involved in since 1776, with no sign of it coming to an end.

And anyway, in spite of the noise, I think people are afraid of change -real change- and Trump for all his trumpeting, is more likely to change the tone of politics than hard core policy so where do all those disillusioned voters go, on both sides of the divide? That may even be the scariest question, if they choose 'direct action' rather than disengagement.

I have only seen news footage of 1968 Democratic Party Convention and of the events that occurred that year in general. That tumultuous year helped Nixon get elected. So that's why I was thinking the same could happen with Trump. Think about it. Replace "hippie counterculture" with "PC culture" and the "anti-war" movement with the "black lives matter" one and Trump becomes the new leader the "silent majority" desperately yearns to put into office.

You're right about how both parties are divided among themselves and there is a disconnect between the base of the respective parties and the party keaders. That disconnect is what led to Trump becoming the GOP nominee. While Hillary Clinton is the nominee the party wants, but a portion of the base doesn't know and/or care about the name of Clinton and wants Bernie Sanders to be the nominee.

You bring up an interesting point about this election being a write-off and we are going to have four more years of what we have in the previous eight. If that happens, I think the Republican party as we know it is pretty much finished and whatever party rises from the ashes maybe the one with a fresh agenda that people are looking for.

The one thing I would look for in a new party is the notion that "Isolationism" doesn't work (I get a sense that part of the Republican party has reared its ugly head again in the wake of Trump's success), but also finds a way to put an end to the "longest war" this nation has been involved in.

[Stavros]

I think the context is where you find important differences. When the Democrats lost in 1968 they were more divided then than they are now, or divided in a different way. The radical politics of the 1960s meant divisions over the wars in South-East Asia; the 1960s slogan the personal is political became part of the identity politics which at the time appeared chaotic as different groups vied for their slot in the Conference and recognition as people who had that most crucial legacy of 1776 -Rights, where Rights should become the basis of policy (in reality I suspect the Supreme Court has been the key arbiter of Rights). The Democrats also had a geographical problem as the decline of the 'Dixiecrats' is said to have followed extensive civil rights legislation eating away at the Democrats support in the South, though one notes Texas had a Democrat governor as late as the 1990s (Ann Richards), and Carter was from Georgia, whereas since the 1990s I suspect Democrats have been in decline across the South. But the party was out of power for two terms -thus for most of the 1970s and 1980s- as Carter only managed one term. And yet the identity politics which may have weakened the Democrats in its wilderness years became an essential part of the Clinton Presidency, even as he ditched New Deal economics in favour of Neo-Liberalism, so that these days it is not so much the Rights based politics of diverse groups that is the issue in the party but its overall economic programme and what it offers the USA in terms of job creation and economic growth. Mrs Clinton may create jobs by extending the remit of Federal agencies, but that is not the same as economic growth.

The Republicans do use this Rights-based trend to argue their 'traditions' -the family in particular- are under threat, from abortion to same-sex marriage to gun control and so on, and I think on a lot of the Rights based issues they have lost the plot in recent years, but they face the same dilemma as the Democrats, having to offer a credible economic framework to create jobs and economic growth that is not just based on tax cuts. But I also would not rule the Republicans out because they can adapt to identity politics and in the end, it is the economy that matters.

Sanders, Clinton and Trump are offering the US more of the same policies that have failed. The difference, I think, is that neither New Deal economics or Neo-liberalism are credible as alternative choices as they were perceived to be up until 2008, and that neither party has been able to articulate a 'third way' -as yet. But to an outsider the USA has always found a way to innovate its way out of a crisis, although I think the hardest part these days is not creating economic growth, but creating the jobs that go with it. The biggest danger, however, is that differences across US society, or societies become hardened into irreconcilable factions gaining enough support at the level of the state to undermine the integrity of the Union. The question then revolves around 'third party' politics and whether or not breaking the duopoly of Democrats-Republicans would be good for the USA or pave the way for the breakdown of the Union in, say, 25 years time or a generation. As long as the two parties delivered for enough people, they survived. Are the independents like Sanders and Trump a one-off or part of a growing trend? Easy enough for someone of my generation to think little will change in the near term, but a new generation may decide otherwise, and they are the people who will be around for the next 50 years.

[senestro]

Look Dude or dudess Peeps dont want millions of muslins over here !!!! Hillary wants to bring them over here in troves,by the millions.She calls it freedom of religion!!! This is a big turn off.Just look at the current situation and ask yourself ,is that what I really want?.Plus Hillary is under investigation still and she is wanted dead in the middle east for war crimes.Good luck negotiating anything on those grounds!

[trish]

Peeps are anti-Christian as well - they get eaten to near extinction every Easter. But regardless of what peeps want, the Constitution and more than two hundred years of jurisprudence guarantees religious freedom.

Now my reading of the dictionary is that a trove is a "store of valuable or delightful things." So although it might be a bit presumptuous for you to claim to know what Hillary wants (especially when she said nothing resembling your claim) millions of troves sounds pretty nice. The U.S. has promised to take in ten thousand Syrian refugees (millions is larger by a factor of several hundred). To our shame no one in the U.S. (including Hillary) is volunteering to help with more. As of April we only took in 1285 refugees, and it really doesn't look like we're going to keep our promise. Meanwhile about four to six million war weary, terrorized civilians have escaped Syria. It's a problem the world needs to solve with a great deal of cooperative effort. Carpet bombing Syria (Cruz's solution) or nuking it (Trump's solution) or do nothing (Trump's other solution) won't give these people a home to go back to or give them a place to be in the interim.

Hillary has been a target of egregious and trumped-up legal attacks ever since she was First Lady. White-water amounted to nothing after umpteen investigations by republican appointed examiners. She was accused by republicans for the death of Vince Forster, which turned out to be just a horrendous GOP exploitation of a very sad suicide. There have been over ten investigations of Benghazi, all politically motivated, all initiated by key GOP players, and none of them turned up anything. Now she's being investigated for thwarting State Department Email Guidelines. Really? When Colin Powell, Bush's token black man, did the exact same thing as Hillary and said so.

Everyone of substance is wanted dead by some fanatic somewhere. It's hardly an argument that the President of the United States won't be able to negotiate with the powers that be in the Middle East.