Looking Forward To Democratic Debate
Last night I wrote down my snap reactions to the fourth Republican debate. Today, rather than looking backwards again, I'm going to instead look forward (both literally and figuratively) to the upcoming Democratic debate which will be held this Saturday night.
The Democratic field has certainly tightened, in contrast to the free-for-all happening on the Republican side. Since the race began, the Republican field has shrunk from 17 announced candidates down to only 15. Their debates have needed two separate sessions each, just to fit everyone on the stage. Their main debate has featured anywhere from eight to 11 candidates, with the remainder getting a non-prime-time "kids' table" debate. During the same time period, the Democratic field has shrunk from six candidates down to three.
Now, you can argue this is a good thing or a bad thing, which is certainly a debatable point (pun intended). How large a field is the optimum for any party's primary race is an interesting political science question, but this year it certainly appears the Democrats have hit the low end of the scale while the Republicans still are at all-time highs. In fact, the biggest shakeup in the Democratic field happened when one man decided not to run, since all the polls had been including Joe Biden's name for months. Biden turning down a bid, coupled with the exits of Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, and Lawrence Lessig, have left us with only three candidates -- and only two who realistically look viable. Martin O'Malley will indeed be on the stage this Saturday night, but all eyes will really be on Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. If the Democrats were using the same rules as the Republican hosts, Clinton and Sanders would debate each other and O'Malley would debate himself, a few hours earlier. Since that's pretty ridiculous to even suggest, O'Malley will likely be invited to all the debates right up until he ends his run, no matter how dismal his poll numbers remain.
There has been some controversy over the debate calendar on the Democratic side, of course. Many have pointed out the debate schedule seemed to be set by Debbie Wasserman Schultz to benefit Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the nominee. The tight schedule (only six debates, total) and the timing (holding them on Saturday nights, for instance) have been criticized, but to no avail. This has even led to "non-debate debates" being scheduled (like the one hosted by Rachel Maddow, last week), where the candidates aren't actually on stage at the same time as each other (call them "candidate forums" instead, we are told).
Controversy aside, the upcoming Democratic debate will be notable because it will be the first one held this year on broadcast television. People who want to watch the debate will be able to do so without a cable or satellite subscription, and without having to livestream it on their computers. It may not draw a bigger audience than, say, the first two Republican debates (with over 20 million viewers each), but it may draw a different audience, being on CBS.
All three candidates will have clear goals in the debate. The polling is settling down from the impact of Joe Biden not running, and so far it looks like Hillary Clinton did a better job than Bernie Sanders of picking up Biden's supporters. Clinton was also helped by her strong performance at the Benghazi hearings, it should be added, which happened at roughly the same time. Since the last time they debated, Clinton picked up over 11 percent support to climb comfortably back above 50 percent of the Democratic voting base, while Sanders picked up over seven points to reach the mid-30s in the polls. O'Malley rose above one percent in his polling average, but has yet to hit two percent.
Martin O'Malley's problem is that he's never given a clear definition of why he's running. He says he's a different kind of Democrat than either Bernie or Hillary, but his positions are pretty close to both of theirs on a multitude of issues. The differences are mainly ones of degree, not ideology. O'Malley is trying to stake out some sort of position between Hillary and Bernie, but not to any noticeable success yet.
Of course, O'Malley has the least to lose of the three. Which means he could play the attack dog against both Sanders and Clinton. However, many people assume O'Malley is essentially running to be Hillary's veep choice, so perhaps he'll hold back a bit on taking on Clinton. He doesn't want to say anything completely unforgivable, to put this another way.
In the first debate, Hillary Clinton was much stronger against Sanders than many had expected. She directly challenged him on a number of issues, instead of just playing it safe. Hillary was also forced -- just before the first Democratic debate -- into taking some concrete positions on several issues that Bernie had been using against her to good effect on the campaign trail (the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Keystone XL pipeline, to name just two). Since then, Hillary has moved to the left on marijuana legal reform as well (although not as far as Sanders).
Last debate, however, both candidates were vying for the Biden vote. Now that disappointed Biden fans have sifted into one camp or the other -- and now that Hillary's back up above 50 percent again -- the race has truly been defined as a head-to-head contest, with one clear frontrunner and one scrappy underdog. In most such political matchups, the frontrunner would tend to lay back a bit and skate on already-high support, while the underdog would fiercely try to take the frontrunner down. This will certainly be the narrative from the media, as we get closer to debate night. The problem is, neither candidate may accept these traditional roles, at least not in the classic sense.
Hillary Clinton seems to be a natural debater. Whether this is true or not (how "authentic" this read may be, in other words), she certainly seemed in her element during both the last debate as well as during her 11 hours of questioning by the Benghazi committee. Up until this point in the campaign, Clinton was noticeably stiff and exuded an air of caution. She's definitely not a natural campaigner, unlike her husband. But in the first debate, she came alive in a way not previously seen this year. So it's doubtful that she'll play it safe this Saturday night, and she may indeed strongly go after Bernie once again. Especially since there will only be three people on the stage, making the contrasts between Clinton and Sanders much clearer.
Bernie Sanders is not a natural debater. He's best out on the stump, delivering stem-winding speeches that make the crowds roar. He is not practiced or polished in his answers, but he certainly is as authentic as ever. But no matter how much the media goads him, he will also likely not play the attack dog with Clinton. The media gloss over the distinction, but Bernie's right -- he has consistently attacked Clinton's positions on the issues without ever stooping to attacking her personally (or "attacking her personality" perhaps). They have clear differences of opinion on a number of things, which both Bernie and Hillary do a pretty good job of defining, when facing each other.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but it's a distinction worth making. Bernie may point out that he supports a $15 minimum wage while Clinton only has committed to $12 an hour. But he won't call her a secret conservative, or call her out of touch with reality or anything. Sanders, in the first debate, had to introduce himself to millions of people who had never heard him speak and hadn't looked at what he stood for. He won't have to do as much "reintroducing himself" this time around, which means he'll probably focus more on the specific differences between his platform and Clinton's.
A lot will depend on the moderators. John Dickerson is a pretty wonky guy, which does bode well. Anderson Cooper, in the earlier debate, seemed much more interested in heightening the drama on stage, at the expense of exploring the real policy differences between the candidates. Cooper was, contrary to the myth now circulating in the right-wing media echo chamber, actually pretty tough in his questions last time around, but they all had a rather snarky spin to them that (hopefully) won't be present Saturday night. Dickerson should be much better at asking intelligent and relevant follow-up questions, as well -- which are often the key to challenging airy talking points from stump speeches with hard, cold facts.
All of this means the next Democratic debate could be quite good. I'd like the voters get a chance to hear the differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, on how to deal with Wall Street, on domestic economic issues facing the middle class, on gun control, on law enforcement, on immigration, on criminal justice reform, on marijuana reform, on trade agreements, on how to deal with Congress, and on executive power in general. Some of these differences are small, and some are quite large. The voters deserve to have these differences clearly defined by the two candidates, in detail.
Luckily for us all, the stars seem to be aligning for just such a substantive debate to take place. With only two viable candidates on stage (and with only one not-really-viable candidate), both Hillary and Bernie should have lots of time to explain their positions. They won't be competing with seven others, as we just saw in the Republican debate, so the competition for airtime won't be nearly as fierce. With a wonky moderator, hopefully the Democrats (also unlike the Republicans) will be challenged on facts and details, and the weakest parts of their respective platform ideas. Democratic candidates (for the most part, and certainly this year) don't whine and try to "work the refs" when challenged in this fashion, they just tend to get wonkier than the questioner.
The media has stopped treating Bernie Sanders like a joke, which will also help. Hillary Clinton won't have as many "scandal" questions, since she's largely put most of them behind her at this point. Martin O'Malley may get a little desperate at some point during the evening, but Clinton and Sanders will likely brush him off and concentrate on the differences between each other instead. Plus, the debate will be available to everyone, meaning a broader demographic audience may be tuning in.
So, yes, I will be looking forward to this Saturday's debate. The conditions seem perfect for a real political debate between two candidates who differ from each other on many key issues. Both viable candidates are now at the top of their game out on the campaign trail. With only three candidates on the stage, we'll have a good opportunity to hear what they have to say, in much greater detail than is possible with a crowded stage. We have a frontrunner already commanding majority support among Democratic voters, an underdog who isn't all that far behind (flipping 10 percent from Clinton to Sanders would put them even), and one outsider candidate with virtually no chance of being at the top of the Democratic ticket. No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, however, debates like this will be excellent practice for when he or she has to face the eventual Republican nominee -- who will be hamstrung, by the softball nature of what passes for debates among Republicans.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Ya'all every notice how ya'all want "substantive" debates for Democrats, but call for blood and claws and whips and chains for the GOP debates??
I am curious...
Does the partisanship fuel the hatred??
Or does the hatred feed the partisanship??
Or are they one and the same??
Michale
TRUMP: IS THAT A WIG?
http://www.marklevinshow.com/2015/11/11/trump-it-was-shocking-to-see-hillarys-hair/
Isn't it just completely and utterly ridiculous to make so much out of a candidate's hair??
Oh... wait.... :D
Michale
Re: #1
To be fair, I am fully cognizant of the fact that the majority of Weigantians don't "hate" Republicans..
But I could point to more than a few that do..
With the Left Wingery in general, I am on firmer ground..
The level of hatred and animosity that the Left directs toward the right is unprecedented in my lifetime..
Granted, the Right has it's fair share of nasties and haters as well, although not to the level of the Left..
But with the Right, it's ALWAYS been there.. "Traitors" and "Communists" have been the go-to epithet for the Right Wingery as long as I can remember..
Seeing so-called "liberals" descend to such depths of hatred and vitriol with their hysterical cries of "TERRORIST!!!, "HOSTAGE TAKER!!!" ??
Well, that's just a new development..
So, I think it's a fair question...
Does the hatred beget partisanship?
Or does the partisanship produce the hatred?
Does anyone on the Left really care??
Michale
Hey CW
You would seem to be the right person to be raising a comparison of the current Bernie/ Hillary poll numbers to the Obama/Hillary poll numbers from 8 years ago.
Maybe throw in the fundraising/donor numbers too?
Now that the "we can ignore Bernie" phase is over, the comparison becomes quite revealing.
Given that Bernie's doing a little better than our current president, and that name recognition has been a major factor in polling, I think your readers would be well served by the effort.
I would also welcome your expertise and current input on the back and forth among supporters of the two Dem candidates on some of the recent poll numbers.
It seems that older groups and larger numbers of people with landlines may be influencing some of the recent polls... perhaps intentionally.
I am asking you, because I have some doubts about the impartiality and accuracy of some of those presenting the arguments on both sides.
I also wouldn't mind hearing your two cents on the head-to-head poll matchups with Repubs either, as it seems they have some bearing on the electability argument the Hillary supporters insist on clinging to (flashback language trigger)... not unlike the argument they failed with against Obama btw.
Given the disarray on the Repub side, it may be too early... but I'd still like to know what you think.
Thanks
A
M3
This article offered some interesting commentary on that topic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/why-are-republicans-like_b_8474026.html
I didn't necessarily agree with all of his points, but I think he makes several accurate observations that contribute to your questions regarding hate and partisanship.
Bleyd...
Thanx, but I already know why Republicans are like that..
My question is, why is the LEFT the way the Left is??
The Right is easy to figure out... And much of the reason why the Right is the way the Right is in the here and now is a direct result of the Left being the way the Left is being.
The intolerance.. The hate... The unwillingness to compromise on even the littlest things.. The *ridiculous* accusations of terrorism and the blatantly false accusations of racism....
That explains a LOT of what the Right is the way the Right is...
But why is the Left the way the Left is??
What happened to the Liberals of my childhood?? The ones who would be MADDENINGLY sweet?? The ones who would epitomize the concept of "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it"???
The liberals who would feel that ALL opinions have values?? The liberals who were all about diversity and not imposing their will on ANYONE...
What happened to THOSE liberals??
Because, from where I sit, the "liberals" of today are EXACTLY like they Left accuses the Right of being??
Michale
Bleyd,
The problem I am speaking of is epitomized by a commenter on HuffPoo..
We should promote a civic atmosphere of civility and understanding."
~~~~~
I agree. But we'd have to first ban Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, along with ALL the gotp candidates AND foxnews before we can ever attempt to return to a civil nation.
Get that??
"We will promote a civic atmosphere of civility and understanding.. Our FIRST step in doing so is to eliminate voices that we don't agree with.."
-The Left Wingery
THAT is the EXACT problem I am referring to....
THAT is the EXACT attitude that forces the Left Wingery to relinquish ANY moral or ethical ground they might have held...
THAT is the problem with the Left... Exemplified...
And what is so utterly MIND-BOGGLING about it is that the Left Wingery sees ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with it!!!
They are like Dr Evil on Jerry Springer going, "Wha??? What's the problem??? Whaddyii do??"
Until the Left Wingery can take a good hard look in the mirror and say to themselves, "Geeee.. Maybe WE are part of the problem..." any changes are only going to be brought about by force of arms...
And the Right is MUCH better armed and MUCH better trained than the Left...
Michale
altohone -
Those are both excellent ideas for columns. The head-to-head thing I still think is too early (I've been keeping an eye on this polling, but I don't think it'll be relevant until just before the primaries actually start, when voters get more serious about their choices).
But the Obama/Clinton vs. Sanders/Clinton is a great idea. I will look into the differences and similarities, and thanks for giving me the idea!
:-)
-CW
Thanks for the response CW.
I look forward to it.
One of the other arguments against Sanders being bandied about is the supposed ease the Repubs will have in demonizing the socialist thing.
This is more of a possible talking point type thing than a column thing, but after 7 years of endless Repub harping about (neoliberal) Obama being an unAmerican/communist/Marxist/Muslim/Kenyan/Pastafarian... ok... that last one I threw in there because I know I'm forgetting one of their standard bits...
... anyway, after all their nonsense, doesn't it seem like just maybe a big, bad democratic socialist just won't be as useful in scaring most voters?
Obviously, it's Hillary supporters currently making the argument, and I imagine some Repub strategists will try it if he's the nominee... and there's no denying old rich men and a large segment of Repub base voters may be swayed by their childhood boogeyman, but they aren't going to vote for a Dem anyway...
... so, could it be that Repubs have sort of inoculated the electorate against what was previously one of their go-to attack lines?
A
Hi Bleyd
Nice.
I think your response was a good attempt at avoiding futility.
Hard to say if wingnut trolls like Micha are missing the point, or choosing to miss the point, eh?
They do love "debating" a false premise.
A
@Michale [#3]
Granted, the Right has it's fair share of nasties and haters as well, although not to the level of the Left.
Well, that's a hell of a claim, friend. If you wanted to prove you were correct, as objectively as possible, what metric would you propose?
I will say that it's clear that there is a lot of animosity built up and that both "sides" of the aisle behave as though besieged and attacked. The angst is palpable. It's my impression from reading sites from both sides and in deliberately starting conversations with people I imagine may agree or disagree with me, that there is a genuine feeling on both sides of being vilified and demonized by the other side.
But the thing is, there aren't really any sides. Most people want roughly the same things and can find agreement if they aren't made to join one tribe or the other. Most people want things to work out. Instead the current polarization is as much manufactured outrage as a way to sell advertising on news programs and get politicians elected as it is anything. Its like the sort of sports rivalries that get everyone excited to put on face paint.
So, put a practical solution on the table to improve civility. It's time to stop pointing and saying how "left wingers" (or "right wingers" for that matter) are wrong and see what you'd actually do about it.
This is not just a theoretical discussion for me. I'm part of a local civility focus with a year long project in 2016 that very much wants to find a way for people to have reasonable thoughts about contentious issues -- say on gun control or religious freedoms -- without it just turning into 3rd grade playground fights and hair pulling (figuratively speaking, of course) that cause 90% of regular citizens to just throw up their hands and walk away.
So get real, Michale, and put an objective, measurable metric (or two) on the table and what you, personally and with us, can do to improve that metric for the people you interact with. If you put a good faith effort in that, I'll be happy to see how I can help.
Until then, I reject your claim as unsubstantiated rabble rousing.
Well, that's a hell of a claim, friend. If you wanted to prove you were correct, as objectively as possible, what metric would you propose?
The false accusations of racism and the ridiculous accusations of terrorism is all the proof that is needed...
:D
So, put a practical solution on the table to improve civility. It's time to stop pointing and saying how "left wingers" (or "right wingers" for that matter) are wrong and see what you'd actually do about it.
The key is to find the common ground and build on that.
Emphasize the common ground rather than the ground that divides us..
I try to do that a lot around here..
Take BigAl for example. We both have the same thoughts about Hillary. We both have the same thoughts about the employment issue.
But every time I try to bring it up, I get it thrown back in my face with a heaping helping of personal attacks.. You see his comment above...
He just can't BEAR the fact that we actually agree on something.... He is not the only one who thinks like that, but he is the latest example...
THAT epitomizes the problem with the Left/Right..
Take Donald Trump for another example. If you get past one MINOR issue (the illegal immigrant issue) and get past one MAJOR issue (the -R after his name) Trump has a LOT of ideas that Democrats have said in the past that they LOVE..
But because of that '-R' Trump is Lucifer incarnate and must be destroyed by the Left...
No, my friend, the battle lines have been drawn... The people like that HuffPo commenter above are the ones drawing them...
So get real, Michale, and put an objective, measurable metric (or two) on the table and what you, personally and with us, can do to improve that metric for the people you interact with. If you put a good faith effort in that, I'll be happy to see how I can help.
I did and I have.. You have as well, by putting out your thoughts on the incessant personal attacks...
But, to paraphrase Spock in DAY OF THE DOVE
"Those who hate must stop it themselves. Or it is never really stopped."
Until then, I reject your claim as unsubstantiated rabble rousing.
That's your right and I wouldn't dare intrude on that right..
But unsubstantiated???
We should promote a civic atmosphere of civility and understanding."
~~~~~
I agree. But we'd have to first ban Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, along with ALL the gotp candidates AND foxnews before we can ever attempt to return to a civil nation.
I can provide MANY MANY MANY more instances to substantiate my claims...
The "problem" is my claims are ALL perfectly and 1000% factual.. But they are largely ignored (present company excepted, of course :D ) because A> They ARE dead on ballz accurate and 2> To acknowledge the comments, Lefties would have to acknowledge their responsibility, their culpability in the problem..
They could NEVER do that and, as such, they are part of the problem.. NOT part of the solution...
"Good talk..."
-Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE: ATLANTIS
Michale
He just can't BEAR the fact that we actually agree on something.... He is not the only one who thinks like that, but he is the latest example...
To be fair to BigAl....
(see!? The guy treats me like dirt at EVERY opportunity, yet I am still fair with him.. Another example of me not just talking the talk but walking the walk..)
... I am not the easiest guy to agree with.. And yes, I do have a tendency to gloat somewhat when facts and circumstances prove me right...
But that's kinda my point.....
*I* can admit my culpability and responsibility for the problems..
If the totality of the Left Wingery could follow that example then there wouldn't BE any problems..
You wanted an "objective measurable metric" on the table??
There it is...
Count the number of times that Weigantians in particular or the Left Wingery in general have said, "Ya know?? I think I might be wrong and Xxxxxxx is right. I think I might actually be part of the problem and not part of the solution.."
The fact that you would be hard pressed to find such an example around here (sans the Grand Poobah hisself, I can only think of two for the first part and NONE for the second part) is all the objective proof someone needs to substantiate comment #7...
The first step in fixing this mess is to admit 1> the other side are not monsters and B> one's Party doesn't have all the answers....
Sadly, you will find very few who can admit that and has the stamina to go the distance....
Michale
In other words, there aren't many, around here or in this country, who have the ability to self-examine and the patience and stamina to encourage such in others...
But I'm trying! :D
Michale
Hard to say if wingnut trolls like Micha are missing the point, or choosing to miss the point, eh?
Technically speaking, it was Bleyd who was missing the point..
I was asking why the Left Wingery is so full of hate and anger...
Bleyd gave me a link about the Right Wingery.....
Which, if you look at it, kind of illustrates my points made in comments 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14 quite perfectly.....
Those who can NOT take a step back and honestly assess themselves and their positions... They are part of the problem...
Those who can.... They are part of the solution...
Michale
There you go lying again Micha.
Wingnut trolls can't help themselves.
We agree about a few things about Hillary, but I have specifically lambasted most of your wingnuttery about her.
Most importantly, you insist on lying about her being representative of the Left, when she is a right wing corporatist lying about being progressive just to get elected.
Being slightly to the left of your wingnut ilk does not Left make.
On unemployment, we were talking about two different aspects... and my six year old niece was better at One of These Things Is Not Like The Other than you are if you're still trying to jump my train.
But, if you had actually been agreeing with my point rather than claiming validation for your very different "point", I would have no problem with it... as I've stated several times now... yet you keep lying about that too for some reason.
As far as your claim about "personal attacks", my apt description of you is based on the content and character of your comments. And you are most certainly a wingnut troll.
I get that you take it personally, but it's simply fact.
You constantly spew right wing nuttery.
And you constantly engage in trollery.
"Those who can NOT take a step back and honestly assess themselves and their positions... They are part of the problem".
Maybe you will eventually come out of the closet and admit it and own it.
I understand that it will be embarrassing to openly associate with the other wingnuts whose talking points you regurgitate as if they are independent thoughts, but that is the cross you've chosen to bear.
BTW, as for your response to rdnewman, you clearly have no grasp of what either a metric is or what substantiation means. You did not offer a metric and you did not substantiate your claim... but then, you never do.
And, you clearly missed Bleyde's point.
Typical wingnut troll.
@Michale [#12, #13, #14]
Thank you for your replies. Just to be clear, I was writing most about your claim that the level of hate is more propagated by the Left and less about the tenor of yours or others' specific replies on this forum.
The false accusations of racism and the ridiculous accusations of terrorism is all the proof that is needed...
No, it's not. This isn't a rigorous metric that can objectively be examined, and as stated, I doubt its falsifiable.
The metric I'm looking for would require, at minimum, at the first of two parts: an objective criterion that is can be measured (even if indirectly; quantitative is usually more convincing than qualitative but not always) and data that measures results with respect to that criterion (that the data could be verified regardless of who is examining is of course preferred over unverifiable data).
For instance, highest number of goals scored in a soccer match would be a criterion. The specific data of 4 goals for the green team and 2 goals for the yellow team would be measuring data. Even if you don't have the data available for measuring, you should at least be able to state a reasonable criterion that could theoretically be evaluated objectively even if the data weren't available at the moment.
So, I'll return to your claim:
Granted, the Right has it's fair share of nasties and haters as well, although not to the level of the Left.
As I said, I believe your claim is unfalsifiable and so is just pejorative rather than constructive. From the most generous point of view, it does allow the start of a earnest discussion about what we all can do reduce the nastiness regardless of what side we might sympathize with. At worst, it merely means to defensively point blame at others without taking responsibility for it by oneself.
The false accusations of racism and the ridiculous accusations of terrorism is all the proof that is needed...
Your response though was to make two more claims. First, that the Left is more likely (by way of extension from the first claim) to falsely accuse the other side of racism, and two, that the Left accuses the other side of terrorism, apparently at a "ridiculous" degree.
Those are both very serious claims. If you leveled such charges at an individual without cause, it could be grounds for libel if you couldn't prove them. Pointing vaguely at some unidentified group merely lacks courage -- I characterized it as "rabble rousing" last time.
So is it that you intend the metric to be that there are more people on the Left that engage in unfounded claims of racism or terrorism in their opponents than say people on the Right that do? We could, at least potentially, measure that. That might rise to a criterion for substantiating a metric. Was that your claim?
But you went further, Michale. You didn't just hypothesize that it might be true -- you claimed it indeed was. If that was your criterion, where is the specific and objective data to support your evaluation with respect to that criterion?
***
I'm considering another hypothesis. Back in his heyday in the early in mid 2000s, Karl Rove was known for preaching to "attack an opponent on their strengths." It was considered an innovation in campaigning strategy. Perhaps the purpose of claiming the Left spews a level of hate beyond that of the far Right is a demonstration of that Rovian ethic.
Or was this just idle chit chat, Michale, to fill the comments section of a wonky blog before CW obviates this column for the pending Friday Talking Points?
@Michale [#13]
Count the number of times that Weigantians in particular or the Left Wingery in general have said, "Ya know?? I think I might be wrong and Xxxxxxx is right. I think I might actually be part of the problem and not part of the solution.."
If this was your intended metric for measuring and improving civility, I argue it's one-sided and lacks objectivity.
First, its a bit like saying we'll only decide who won a soccer match on the basis of the number of goals the yellow team scores without regard to the number the green team scores. An objective criterion would be to count the number of times the specific (ok, near) phrase "Ya know?? I think I might be wrong and Xxxxxxx is right. I think I might actually be part of the problem and not part of the solution.." is written by both sides. I don't see it as a particularly convincing metric in response to your specific claim that the Left has more "nasties and haters", but at least its a potential objective criterion and could be the start of interesting conversation.
Second, you're begging the question when you start with "Weigantians in particular". The blog has a stated and transparent bias toward liberal policies. In general, its population will expect strong evidence that to claims by opposing viewpoints. In other words, there's a skepticism of opposing viewpoints even when open minded to listening -- it's not a blank slate. The site has a small number of commenters, and so isn't compelling as a sample size for statistical analysis. If you want to challenge what you perceive as liberal dogma, you'd probably want to come prepared with rigorous evidence that could convince a skeptic (note I said "skeptic" -- that doesn't mean unpersuadable). I know I would if I participated in Red State or GOPLifer comment sections.
Even so, what does integrity with regard to admitting one's mistakes or changing one's mind by the few commenters here have to do the Left's "haters and nasties" or, as you later claimed, "false accusations of racism" or "ridiculous accusations of terrorism"?
And, if we Left are so bad or so stubborn, why do you bother with us in the first place?
Thank you for your replies. Just to be clear, I was writing most about your claim that the level of hate is more propagated by the Left and less about the tenor of yours or others' specific replies on this forum.
It's not so much that the hate is "MORE" propagated by the Left so much as the hate used to be anathema to the Leftist ideology..
No, it's not. This isn't a rigorous metric that can objectively be examined, and as stated, I doubt its falsifiable.
Sure it can examined... Would you like the multitude of factual examples that are available?
But you went further, Michale. You didn't just hypothesize that it might be true -- you claimed it indeed was. If that was your criterion, where is the specific and objective data to support your evaluation with respect to that criterion?
What exactly are you saying?
Are you claiming that the Left HASN'T referred to Republicans as "terrorists"??
Are you claiming that the Left HASN'T leveled false accusations of racism against the Right??
Because there is ample facts to prove otherwise..
If you doubt my facts, just say so.. :D
I'll be happy to show you... :D
Michale
Michale [6] -
OK, I'm going to attempt an answer before I read the whole thread.
Actually, from where I sit, you've got it absolutely backwards. The Right perfected this technique a LONG long time ago. See Barry Goldwater, for instance. Or any commie-hunter from that era (Nixon, Reagan, McCarthy, etc). See the language they used against the Left.
This continued through the 70s and 80s, where brutal language was used by the Right against the Left (mostly about being "soft on crime" and not "law and order"), while (as you point out) the Left was trying to be inclusive.
Finally, after 12 years of Reaganomics and Bush I, Dems began learning the lessons of the GOP's success. In a word, they started fighting back, using the same rhetoric that had been used against them for decades. They weren't very good at it at first, and didn't really come into their own until the late 2000's (the decade, not the century). From that point on, Dems have been the ones in Congress (under Pelosi, for instance) who have hung together and directed their attacks on the Right, while the GOP has collapsed into in-fighting -- where they're using the same rhetorical weapons against each other (and the Republican Party) that they've always used against the Left. See: the entire 2016 campaign, so far.
So maybe the Left is a wee bit harsh these days, but they learned at the feet of masters.
That's my take on it, at any rate. We're just catching up, not leading.
Ciao.
-CW
One more thing, Michale -
The Left still has disagreements among itself with far more regularity than the Right. Here's an article you'll actually enjoy, by way of example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-men-project/liberals-deeply-disturbed-political-correctness_b_8537946.html
-CW
altohone [9] -
It's also a generational thing. 18-year-old voters next year will have been born in 1999. That's a decade after the Berlin Wall came down and the end of the Cold War. "Socialist" has about the same emotional punch to them as "Federalist" or "Whig" -- it's a dusty term from a history book they didn't read.
-CW
rdnewman [11] -
I also think the Internet has much to answer for. The anonymity of commenting online means any drunken fool can type out what he (or she, to be fair) thinks is clever at midnight some enchanted evening (wait a minute... checks clock... heh...).
This has led to a lot of snarkiness (and worse) that, previously, never would have had a platform others could read. So maybe this sort of thing has always been with us, just in a very localized way. The Internet opens it up to a much wider audience, so maybe we all just think things are getting worse?
I am always reminded of the vicious things the Federalists said about Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800. You think things are bad now? Check out the historical record -- they've always been pretty bad, in American politics.
-CW
Finally, after 12 years of Reaganomics and Bush I, Dems began learning the lessons of the GOP's success. In a word, they started fighting back, using the same rhetoric that had been used against them for decades
And THAT is my point..
The Liberals of our childhood are gone...
They have become just as mean and nasty and hate-filled as they accuse the Right of being..
That is EXACTLY what I am saying..
In other words, mean and nasty and hate is something expected of the Right..
Until recently, it was the SOLE purview OF the Right..
As you point out, this is no longer the case..
Michale
Michale [12, 13] -
I remember when a Bush (II) cabinet official called all teachers and their unions "terrorists". Was about 2006 or so. So of course you denounced that, at the time, right?
Because, as we all know, you're ever so willing to accept responsibility for viciousness from the Right... [pause for audience laughter]
Admit it, you're just as bad as anyone else. When someone on your side says something hilarious (even if untrue) and snarky in the extreme, you laugh loudly and cheer them on. So why are you so annoyed at the other side doing exactly the same thing? As Pogo Possum said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
As for Trump, it's not the Left that's trying to destroy him. It's the Right. The Left is bemused, at best, and at worst in a state of "orgasmic schadenfreude," as I pointed out.
What you apparently want (and I totally sympathize, it's a reasonable thing to wish for) is a return to the era when the Right beat up on the Left with absolute impunity, because the Left would not fight back using the same gutter tactics. Now that they are matcing the Right in viciousness, you want to call "foul" and institute new rules... but only for the Left. I hate to say it, friend, but those days are gone.
But I do have to thank you, as I believe that's the first time in my life I've been called a "Grand Poohbah" of anything....
Heh.
-CW
rdnewman [17] -
Damn, you certainly are doing a great job of raising the level of erudition around here, just had to say that!
I mean, in this particular case, I think you're wasting your breath, but rest assured, there are lots of folks here who truly do appreciate your efforts.
Good point about Rove, his major contribution to political history may indeed be "attack your opponent on the issue where you are the weakest." It seems so counter-intuitive, but when done right it works brilliantly (see: Swiftboating John Kerry, for instance).
As for what Michale calls "Weigantia," you're right, we're really too small to form any sort of proper statistical universe, whether biased or not.
Which leads me to a plug to all the "lurkers" out there, who read these columns but never comment -- hey, folks, jump in! Write your first comment! Join the party!
As for Michale putting up with Lefty stubbornness, well, my theory is that he's trying to prove he's more stubborn than the lot of us!
Heh.
-CW
Michale [24] -
So, we've achieved parity. How is that a bad thing? You yourself used to ridicule Dems for being ineffective in Congress. Nowadays, not so much, eh?
Maybe the Right was just getting too comfortable being the only ones on the block to bring a gun to a gun fight instead of a knife. Now that things are more equal, they're whining about it. Pretty pathetic, when you think about it.
-CW
Michale -
A quote I'm reminded of, but have no idea where it came from (could have been Doonesbury, but probably not):
"...so they were supposed to fight valiantly, like Harvard, and then always lose."
Maybe Dems just got tired of that, eh? You can only be the Washington Generals for so long before you want to actually win a game or two...
-CW
So, we've achieved parity. How is that a bad thing? You yourself used to ridicule Dems for being ineffective in Congress. Nowadays, not so much, eh?
It's NOT a "bad" thing, per se..
It's only bad when the Left tries to deny that they are as nasty and hate-filled as the Right..
As is usually the case, it's the blatant hypocrisy that bugs the crap outta me..
If the Left Wingery wants to stand and say (as you just did) that the Left is as mean and nasty and hate-filled as the Right, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me about it.. :D
Now that things are more equal, they're whining about it. Pretty pathetic, when you think about it.
I completely agree.. It IS pathetic that the Right complains..
Michale
I remember when a Bush (II) cabinet official called all teachers and their unions "terrorists". Was about 2006 or so. So of course you denounced that, at the time, right?
I am sure I did.. And, if I didn't, I SHOULD have...
So, you agree with me. You agree that calling political opponents "terrorists" solely over political differences is pathetically beyond the pale...
Right??
"Right?? Buddy??"
-Woody, TOY STORY
:D
Michale
Maybe Dems just got tired of that, eh? You can only be the Washington Generals for so long before you want to actually win a game or two...
Again, I am not faulting Dems for being that way..
*MY* bitch is that they claim they AREN'T that way...
See comment #29...
Michale
What you apparently want (and I totally sympathize, it's a reasonable thing to wish for) is a return to the era when the Right beat up on the Left with absolute impunity, because the Left would not fight back using the same gutter tactics. Now that they are matcing the Right in viciousness, you want to call "foul" and institute new rules...
No, I don't want to call "foul"...
What I DO call "foul" on is the hypocrisy.. The airs that the Left Wingery puts on whenever they respond to the Right's attacks...
But the facts clearly show that the Left is as mean, nasty and hate-filled as the Right..
In short, I don't mind that the Left is as much assholes as the Right...
But, since we ALL agree that the Left IS as much assholes as the Right, the Left should admit it..
That's all I am saying...
"Hi, my name is Left Wingery and I am an asshole.."
-AssAnon meeting
Is that too much to ask??
Apparently, it is...
Michale
The issue of racism is ALSO a big hypocrisy-based pet peeve of my with the Left Wingery..
Life at the New and Improved Mizzou Campus: White Students Asked to Leave “Black-Only Healing Space”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/life-at-the-new-and-improved-mizzou-campus-white-students-asked-to-leave-black-only-healing-space/
Call me silly, but it's always been my understanding that *ANY* race-based criteria is the very textbook definition of racism..
Apparently, it's ONLY "racism" when it's the Right who is doing it....
Hypocrisy... Pure and simple...
That's why it's always so hard to take ANY accusations of racism from the Left seriously...
Michale
The Left still has disagreements among itself with far more regularity than the Right. Here's an article you'll actually enjoy, by way of example:
EXACTLY!!
That guy gets it!! And from HuffPo no less!!!
What *I* don't get is why we don't see more of that from Weigantians in particular and the Left Wingery in general??
Why can't anyone here JOIN me in condemning the acts at MU as outlined in many of my recent comments??
Only two reasons come to mind..
1> No one here wants to be seen agreeing with me.. :D
or
B> Everyone here agrees with the Wanna Be Pampered And Parented College kids...
Frankly, I think the guy that advocates raising the voting age to 25 has REALLY good points..
As Reason’s Robby Soave notes, student demands for “safe spaces” boil down to a demand that universities fulfill the role of Mommy and Daddy. In the old days — this practice, interestingly, ended about 1971, too — colleges stood in loco parentis (in the place of parents) and, as Soave writes, exercised extensive and detailed control over students’ social lives, sleeping hours, organizing and speaking. Now, he observes, the students are “desperate to be treated like children again.”
Well, OK, I guess. But children don’t vote. Those too fragile to handle different opinions are too fragile to participate in politics. So maybe we should raise the voting age to 25, an age at which, one fervently hopes, some degree of maturity will have set in. It’s bad enough to have to treat college students like children. But it’s intolerable to be governed by spoiled children. People who can’t discuss Halloween costumes rationally don’t deserve to play a role in running a great nation.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/11/raise-voting-age-25-yale-missouri-protests-political-debate-column/75577468/
Let me put it this way, CW... I'll believe that it's an actual conflict within the Left Wingery when Weigantians start to actually rationally debate and discuss the issue..
Until that time... "Silence gives assent"
Michale
As for what Michale calls "Weigantia," you're right, we're really too small to form any sort of proper statistical universe, whether biased or not.
Perhaps..
But, for better or worse, Weigantia is the totality of my political world.. :D
Michale
"They want complete control over their personal lives, over their sex lives, over the use of drugs, but they want mommy and daddy dean to please give them a safe place, to protect them from ideas that maybe are insensitive, maybe will make them think."
-Alan Dershowiz
Well said...
Michale
@CW [#23]
I am always reminded of the vicious things the Federalists said about Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800. You think things are bad now? Check out the historical record -- they've always been pretty bad, in American politics.
The only thing I've read on this is John Ferling's book, but, yes! Then add in the barely contained animosity between the northern and southern states (also reflected in the 1800 votes) papered over by the compromises of the Constitutional Convention, only to spill out into war 60 years later.
So, yeah, its a bit worrying, especially as our blue and red jerseys seem to becoming more geographically separated as people self-select into like-minded regions. Gerrymandering could become the least of our problems.
The Internet opens it up to a much wider audience, so maybe we all just think things are getting worse?
Agreed, but there is no way to go but forward. Since we are the Internet then we also have the means to improve it.
Instead of behaving like we're in traffic, yelling at other cars and flipping birds as though their drivers aren't humans we might actually enjoy lunch with some day, we might try being a teeny, tiny bit more civil. You know, those fender benders get expensive after a while (cite: "Why Johnny Can't Speed" by Alan Dean Foster)...
@CW [#26]
...in this particular case, I think you're wasting your breath...
Quixotic it may be, but the alternatives are to leave it stand unchallenged or to respond with incivility. And I'm sure I'd enjoy having a beer or two with Michale (at least that's how I imagine our conversations when I reply), as I'm sure I would with many of you.
...I'm not sure if that's more a comment on my friendliness or my love for beer, but such things are best left unexamined.
...there are lots of folks here who truly do appreciate your efforts.
You're very kind.
...my theory is that [Michale]'s trying to prove he's more stubborn than the lot of us!
I suspect you're right. In fact, I think he likes us, enjoys the sparring, and, secretly, actually agrees with us (*grinning mischieviously*). You know, kind of like pulling pigtails in class...
I suspect you're right. In fact, I think he likes us, enjoys the sparring, and, secretly, actually agrees with us (*grinning mischieviously*).
"Now yer just being nasty.."
-Indiana Jones, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
:D
Michale
@CW [#23]
The anonymity of commenting online means any drunken fool can type out what he (or she, to be fair) thinks is clever at midnight some enchanted evening...
(http://xkcd.com/386/)
@Michale [#35]
But, for better or worse, Weigantia is the totality of my political world..
Dude, not healthy. Nothing against the site, but you gotta get out more... ;)
Dude, not healthy. Nothing against the site, but you gotta get out more... ;)
Yea, that's what people keep telling me.. :D
Michale
But, for better or worse, Weigantia is the totality of my political world..
Dude, not healthy. Nothing against the site, but you gotta get out more... ;)
What I mean is, with the exception of a few Israel comments on Yahoo and Gun Control discussions on DISQUS, Weigantia is the only place where I have ongoing discussions and debates..
I read voraciously from anything and everything... CNN, FNC, Drudge, Reuters, HuffPo, Al Jazeera, etc etc..
But here is the only place I can actually talk about the things I read..
Aren't ya'all just the luckiest ones!! :D
Michale