Chris - #1 is, like, explicitly the point I was trying to make

Barack Obama also admitted he underestimated the deep partisanship of the Republican Party and that let to political mistakes assuming they would bargain in good faith early in his first term.

Barack Obama also left behind a party that is dominated by the GOP at all levels of government and is headed by a dangerous moron and the Democrats are almost comically inept beating any of that back.

Barack Obama has left behind precious little durable outcomes, and plenty of defeats: a Supreme Court seat stolen, health care legislation on entirely precarious grounds, civil rights like voting protections and privacy eroded. Not entirely his personal fault, but certainly perhaps the fault of Democrats and the ideological movement that is supposed to be underlying it unable to achieve that durability.

The idea Barack Obama's message and temperament is naturally good politics is a questionable assumption. See recent thread about LBJ (while perhaps not ideological, nakedly partisan and self-dealing and hard-driving) versus Obama (consensus-seeking) and who was more effective.

If you missed the thread: LBJ was basically deeply personally corrupted, in bed with tons of rich Texas oil people, and had cutthroat ambition. He did plenty of bad things (Vietnam obviously). But he was also able to lead getting the CRA/VRA passed, and social insurance programs like Medicare/Medicaid. Barack Obama (for me) seems to have great personal virtues, very little corruption, and sought compromise and bipartisanship whenever possible.

Who was the more effective President? If you are like me and ultimately values racially egalitarian outcomes like ensuring black people have effective enfranchisement, who values getting medical care to the poor and elderly -- I don't think it's even a question -- it was LBJ. I agree if your values are sorted differently and your paramount interest in politics is consensus-building and personal virtues and good governance then Barack Obama is probably better. We can all take on the pose of child-like wonderment and naivete and insist on both but to the extent our movement should embody a certain temperament and view of politics, I'm convinced we need far more cutthroat hard-driving people seeking power to enact meaningful change and far less people simply enamored with a certain pleasant context and adherence to technocratic bipartisan outcomes that satisfy everyone.

OF COURSE politics is the natural art and process of the give and take and I am under no allusions here. We are beholden to eventually deal some of our priorities away. But STARTING WITH the premise of your opponents are pure hearted and bipartisanship is a treasured value and Sarah Palin deserves the benefit of the doubt is giving away the store. The GOP is dunking on that mentality over and over and over.

The job of organizing is all the more harder when we don't have clarity and consistency. Obviously that too is an ideal, an aspiration -- one we'll never meet. But if Rococo and iron are set about with bouts of depression having to consider the possibility they might be wrong calling Sarah Palin a white supremacist because she shared an article which contained a white supremacist slogan only by happenstance, then I maintain what I said that they would be better off binging Netflix or playing video games or hanging out with family or whatever, catch up on a good book. And leave political activism to others. They might even agree; it's fine to continue to post here, to have thoughts on politics, or to start the Aaron Sorkin Political Party committed to Reaching For the Stars and not rushing to judgement or whatever. That's all fine.

But the ultimate end of the Clovis/Rococo posture that we give Sarah Palin the benefit of the doubt because she might just be dumb is precisely what right-wing Feral Child act is supposed to induce, and they've been given the benefit of the doubt for far too long. Perhaps a better pop psychologist than I might even build the case that their 'depression' over this is precisely the point of the longform right-wing charade here; that the right besieges people with doubt with the goal of inculcating that feeling of despondency that you have to assume bad things about people and act accordingly. We would all love nothing more than to have a Fact War and let incontrovertible truths win out. I'd love nothing more than to sit back and whap the right around with facts, see my views championed, and kick my feet up and have a beer and call it a day. Right wingers are dumb, but they ain't THAT dumb. That's not the game anyone is playing. At some point Rococo and iron and Clovis type are going to have to make tough choices in their lives or witness the consequences of another side that has made theirs and acted accordingly. They will state my point of view is all strident ideology, a slippery slope to the pits of Breitbart or something, but sitting around petulantly defending The Discourse and facts while the world crumbles around you and terrible people rule is no great moral act. History won't look kindly on it. Can't stay neutral on a moving train, etc.

Claim 1: you're a conspiracy theorist, assuming people are secretly acting with malice, race baiting with white supremacist code words, perhaps they're just dumb
Claim 2: actually come to think of it, I looked around their site and they pretty openly act with racial malice

Reconcile this for me.

Sure, you can be skeptical about Obama's approach to governance, but as a campaigner he was very successful. Your argument against Clovis is that he isn't paying sufficient attention to what is needed in order to gain and use power. I'm saying that at least the gaining of power doesn't require the kind of attitude you advocate.

I also think it is weird to criticize Obama for the Democrat's loss of power under his presidency, while at the same time praising LBJ, who took the party from the highest win percentage since 1820 to ushering in the conservative revolution in '68.

I think this is backwards. If they find that kind of talk distressing, then I would say they should consider not reading the 2p2 politics forum, but they shouldn't take it as a reason to stop being politically involved. Democratic party politics is pretty broad tent even still, and there are plenty of people who are very politically active who don't have that attitude towards politics. The things that are more important in winning elections and having influence on politicians are just work, and usually have little to do with our political ideas or view of our opponents.

I'll also just note that my experience in party politics is different from yours, much more about figuring out how to work with people you don't agree with towards common goals. Clarity and consistency are imo overrated.

Anyway, I'm moving on from this thread for a while. My advice to everyone on the left, anyone liberal, anyone aghast at the current state of affairs is that every even semi-questionable Republican take that even has the scent of race-agitation and meant to stoke the animosities of white people -- it is probably just that. Don't dwell on it too much. Look around, it's going to be the correct take basically always. When they whine and pout you concluded too much too fast, tell them not to vote for Donald ****ing Trump's reelection campaign if they would prefer more neutral default assumptions.

That happened precisely because he had the political courage to pass the Civil Rights Act. He even predicted it. He should have won a retroactive Profiles in Courage Award.

At least LBJ sacrificed the party for big ideals and big legislation that while under assault continue to endure. What did Barack Obama get the left in exchange for all those loses?

We should of course find common cause with like-minded people. Who the **** is the Clovis attitude of assuming Sarah Palin and the YoungCons inadvertently click-baited a white supremacist headline winning over, exactly?

This cuts both ways. I mean, remember what we're talking about here ultimately: Clovis tone policed the left!

Make it personal with a few simple examples. So on the one hand we have...

Fly, micro, me: alienating ChrisV, Rococo, Clovis -- and YoungCons/Sarah Palin fans and assuming the worst about them.
ChrisV, Rococo, Clovis: alienating me, Fly, micro -- and alienating leftists who assume the worst about YoungCons/Sarah Palin fans

Remind me WHO in this little anecdote here is bad at politics again? We're waging fights with the right. They're waging fights among ourselves. Really, bluntly: who the **** are you talking to here? Who should your lectures and lessons about politics be directed at, really?

I want to be clear, I ain't saying Chris and Rococo and Clovis gotta carry the left's water here, but don't ****ing tell me we're all allies, we gotta really come together and see past our differences and...put on the kid gloves for Sarah Palin, wait for all the facts to emerge. That's political wisdom?! That's the consensus we come together on? At least before we were navel gazing about truth and ethical conduct, now we're saying they've found the smart way to do this? I boggle.

Literally if the left can't start with the default assumption of assuming the absolute worst about Sarah Palin and the YoungCons, if that's distressing and depressing tact, if we have to submit our research to the blue ribbon bipartisan committee for approval before speaking out of turn -- for ****'s sake, there's probably no other starting blocks for us to agree on.

Like, if we need a counter example about what I'm asking people to do and not asking them to do.

If Bernie Sanders started sharing anti-vaccine articles coming from NoShotsLeft, I'd definitely fence jump and be like -- look, we're all partisans here, but beat up this guy for that. Vaccines are miracles, their utility and safety is a scientific fact, perpetuating myths about them is a danger, some things and truths rise about ideology. Tone and truth police that ****, absolutely, it's vital.

If Sarah Palin shares a YoungCon article praising Donald Trump for his speech with a bunch of allusions to white supremacist memes and the headline contains a potentially coded nod to a white supremacist slogan -- what's the common goal in tone policing criticism of that? There's no scientific truth to the intent of Sarah Palin and the YoungCons, their algorithms, their interns, their content sharing contracts. None of that exists in the realm of fact or fiction; only judgement. And there's the observational truism, that the whole movement is predicted on making money by selling fear and anxiety to white people about blacks, Muslims, immigrants, whatever. We all know that. That's a baked in prior. That is to say: even if we're wrong Sarah Palin shared a coded white supremacist message this time (an unknowable thing given the circumstances), Sarah Palin is a right-wing populist propagandist, a movement wholly devoted to sharing white supremacist messages. Even if we're wrong on the evidence, the conclusion remains.

Now, I can appreciate sort of the debate, just how far we go in letting a judgment create a stark moral claim. But that ain't ****ing "truth versus lie" although I understand the confusion. But now we're spit-balling a theory that the choice to tone police in FAVOR of Sarah Palin is actually the smart political play. The ****?

DVaut,

In general I agree (especially about vaccinces), but how is this that much different than the hand signal thing that ran a few months ago (I think clovis might refered to it already, but I guess I didn't understand the answer).

Like, no one doubts Stephen Miller is a fascist (among others). No one doubts the white supremacy groups like hand signals. There are pictures that one can potentially see as white supremacy hand signal.

Suzzer wrote the following defenses:
.

To which fly smartly responded:

I'm not trying to score a gotcha point. I fully agree with most of what you wrote in regards to Politics and ideological war. I just don't understand the emphasis on anecdotal **** that can easily be denied like the Palin one, where everyone is out in the open.

(If you don't understand what I wrote, please ask. I'm both an immigrant and a minority and shutting down a post for ESL reasons is not the LBJ way)

Sure, I agree, I don't criticize LBJ for Humphrey's loss. It was obviously a very weird election and LBJ passed a lot of very important and good legislation as President. But you are using him as a symbol for why we should be willing to demonize people for political gain. Maybe the best example of LBJ doing that was when he red-baited Leland Olds to gain credibility with Texas oil. I'm not inspired by that. After all, he was selected as VP in part because he was acceptable to the racist Southern Democrats, so I don't really see him as a paragon of clarity and consistency.

It is too early to know Obama's legacy. Much of it is in doubt or has already been destroyed because of Trump. But if Hillary had won, I would have pointed to the ACA, to Dodd-Frank, ARRA, to pulling us out of the recession back to sub 5% unemployment, to the Iran deal, TPP, Obergefell, the Paris Agreement, to a decline in the incarceration rate, EPA carbon regulations, and so on.

Your analysis of this situation is wrong. You are also alienating ChrisV, Rococo, & Clovis (I don't want to speak for them - I mean that they are being alienated approximately as much as they are alienating you). The post I was responding to was the one where you suggested Clovis should stop concerning himself with politics. So I don't see any advantage in this anecdote for your approach.

As a general approach, my very speculative guess is that your attitude is likely to be more successful for 2018 based on the current high level of polarization and the example of the last eight years of the GOP. However, I don't think the GOP and the Democrats are mirror images, and I do think this has been one of the differences, where Democrats tend to be less ideological and more open to compromise, so I'm mostly just agnostic.

EDIT: Regarding your edit, on the merits here regarding Sarah Palin I don't really care one way or the other. My response was to disagree with you about how people who don't enjoy a no-holds-barred approach to political discourse should go watch Netflix instead of engaging in political activism. My view is that political discourse on forums is one of the least important aspects of political activism. If someone doesn't like it, then do some other more important aspect of political activism - go join a political club, sign up voters, get signatures, donate money, etc.

I'm happy to emphasize and discuss the myriad of ways Donald Trump, right-wing click bait sites and infotainment celebrities and former GOP politicians like Sarah Palin form a nexus of white supremacist propaganda. That's fine. If the argument is simply that emphasis be put elsewhere -- fine, sure. No arguments there.

I agree he wasn't a great ideological steward of the party nor was he a good person, simply that he accepted politics for what it was (to acquire power and achieve specific ends) and what it wasn't (a morality play) and we should emulate that attitude. I'm not asking anyone to take a drastically immoral posture, but the game here is to achieve things, not simply come to agreements and reduce anxiety.

It was specifically to Rococo and iron who didn't have much to say on the merits of the argument, simply that it made them 'depressed.' I suppose I am perhaps assuming too much about Clovis but he seems in a deeply anxious state too. I do suggest that IF they are mentally anguished by unflattering assumptions about their political opponents and if they find strident, stark criticism of their opponents based on those judgements is distressing -- then they should find a new hobby. It's counter-productive to anoint themselves in a position of tone policing their allies. It's ultimately servile to their political opponents. As you said, politics is sort of mastering the art of finding the most amount of common ground with the most amount of people. Sarah Palin is deeply unpopular and everyone on the left can and should agree Trump's speech and the YoungCons take on it EVEN IF we assume the best about the 14 words -- all of it was full of ethno nationalist aggression anyway. That's where all the consensus is on the left, or should be: Trump bad, right wing click bait bad, Sarah Palin bad. Technocratic allusions to meta data and assuming Sarah Palin is a Feral Child is simply promoting dissonance to no specific end.

And so: I suggest we stop doing that for the sake of achieving the goals we want; they say it's gloomy and depressing. I say get over it guise, or go do something else.

And those ways aren't discussed in these threads?
The way I see it, Chris and Clovis (and myself) thought that the "14 words" is much similar to hand signals than it is to the core of GOP propoganda and political power achieving methods. That caused an amount of anger that made you question if they are your allies in a war that is very much real.

I mean clearly there's a "terrorist way" and there's the better way. It's almost certainly not Clovis' way, but surely it is possible that not agreeing on '14 ways' shouldn't alienate you and Fly?

Also, speaking of minor technocratic arguments: he was a consensus VP candidate because he was acceptable to racist southern Democrats, but LBJ had very little influence over racist Southern Democrats who had already started to bolt for the Goldwater GOP or George Wallace. Only 1 southern Democratic Senator voted for the CRA. Although LBJ did do his fair share of bullying southern Democrats; here's the famous picture of his meeting with Georgia Senator Richard Russell who was threatening to filibuster the CRA:



He couldn't get southern Democrats to vote for it; simply not to impede it too much.

Johnson spent most of his time bullying and horse-trading with northerners (Democrats and Republicans) because he knew it was pointless to hector and lobby southern Congresscritters and Senators. Again, the political wisdom here is that Johnson didn't bother extending olive branches to the YoungCons and Sarah Palins of his day and made prominent public appearances in northern districts where he thought the bill was popular but Senators might lack the will to pass it. He enforced discipline and made concessions to his potential allies; he didn't try to goad his hopeless opponents into compromise.

Related: white southern Democrats from LBJ to Carter to Clinton were effective at keeping white working class northerners in line far more than projecting any power across the south. A good article about this here:

https://agenda-blog.com/2017/07/03/p...working-class/

Very good synopsis. So what is the plan for winning more elections then since the vast majority of white america is racist and arguably aren't going to change their views anytime soon (as 2016 indicates apparently) ?

it's not a master conspiracy, it's just republicans doing what they do- throwing racist dogwhistles out there and then denying it, trying to cover their tracks, and generally failing in the end to do so.

that's cool, ill bet very substantial money against you

all day homie

I mean the grand argument here (forgetting all of the "how should the left behave" meta stuff) seems to be this:

It's bad form to assume people who act with open racial hostility might act with subtle racial hostility.

at the end of the day i'm really confused as to why chris is hanging on for dear life to this idea of hanlon's razor when sarah palin has been actively trying to court the alt-right for as long as anybody knew what they were in her attempts to start up a grifting empire

lets dispel with this notion that sarah palin doesn't know what she's doing, she knows exactly what she's doing

oh btw, the tweet is still up isn't it?

and like at the end of the day, we still dont have any substantive reason or logic for why hanlon's razor is in effect here. just that "we can't be 100% sure"

i swear, it's like some of you dont even poker...or you've just always been ****ing terrible at it

I can't believe someone actually extracted this many posts, what the **** is wrong with you?

The 'OK WP' is some 4chan nonsense but the '14 words' has it's own wikipedia and ADL page.

Uh, no, **** off.

WE'RE the ones being thoughtful on Palin's tweet. We're the ones with a ****ing knowledge base of the world and the relevant players and the complicated interactions of those.

YOUR side has a unshakable faith in the purity of the white soul and NOTHING ELSE.

And calling you a patsy who should drop politics is the charitable version of that.

In time, all language will lose all meaning but until that day, here's an example of a conspiracy theory: The YoungCons intentionally used the number 14 and did the ol' metadata trick because they knew Palin types would tweet it, thus creating a controversy that would overshadow the fact that, hey, guess what, the '14 words' are actually a pretty good goddamn summary of trump's speech.

Actually, I'm not even sure that rises to the level of 'conspiracy' but it's a far cry from what happened in this forum, that is basically people remarking, 'Lol, wow, 14 words huh?'

A fun ****ing introspective on whether you can patronize people is whether you're still struggling with something that has repeatedly been explicitly explained to you.

Chris, if you didn't know who YoungCons was on Thursday, and I did, maybe give me the benefit of the doubt you're currently giving them?

For ****'s sake.