February 19th, 2017
Dear Mr. Medford,
I read about your opinions in an article in the February 18th New York Times Sunday Review. It seemed like you wanted progressives to understand and respect your point of view, which is understandable, but I think the reverse is true, too. We would like you to better understand and respect our value system.
Let’s start with something we have in common. You say that you felt that you had to choose the Republican in the presidential election. There are many who felt that they had to pick the Democrat. Some things are about more than individual personalities, and whatever misgivings some of us may have had about Hillary Clinton, we didn’t feel like voting for a Republican was an option for us. This may have been particularly true when the alternative was Donald Trump, but it would have been convincing for most of us against any Republican nominee.
Moreover, it’s not unlikely that had Clinton won, some of her early moves as president would have made us uncomfortable.
Jeffrey Medford, a small-business owner in South Carolina, voted reluctantly for Donald Trump. As a conservative, he felt the need to choose the Republican. But some things are making him feel uncomfortable — parts of Mr. Trump’s travel ban, for example, and the recurring theme of his apparent affinity for Russia.
We share your discomfort with the travel ban and Trump’s affinity for Vladimir Putin, but that’s not why so many of us have trouble believing you’re not a bad person for voting for Donald Trump.
“We’re backed into a corner,” said Mr. Medford, 46, whose business teaches people to be filmmakers. “There are at least some things about Trump I find to be defensible. But they are saying: ‘Agree with us 100 percent or you are morally bankrupt. You’re an idiot if you support any part of Trump.’ ”
He added: “I didn’t choose a side. They put me on one.”
In choosing to support Trump, you must admit that you made a decision about your priorities. And the question really is how you want to make a moral defense of your priorities.
In a political sense, prior to becoming a candidate, Donald Trump was most famous for questioning whether President Obama was truly born in Hawaii, and whether he’d actually be eligible to be our president even if he weren’t. If Trump really believed what he was saying, he was too mentally unfit to be the president of the United States. And if he was only saying it to gather political support from some of the dumbest and most hateful people in the country, then what Trump was doing was fanning and exploiting racism for his own personal benefit.
That’s not an attractive alternative. Which one do you believe is true?
And since neither answer was enough to overcome your other priorities, what’s your moral defense in this case? What greater good “backed you into a corner” and allowed you to consider a Birther for president?
We’re not even to first base here, and yet we kind of need your response to go any further. Are there things about Hillary Clinton’s character that are even worse or more risky for our nation? It’s hard for us to even imagine what those things might be, but we’re fairly certain that using an insufficiently secure email server doesn’t suffice.
Now, we think you engaged in a little bit of hyperbole when you said that we think you can’t agree with anything Trump says, ever, even a little bit. Just yesterday, I pointed out that I sympathized with his desire to make our European allies meet their NATO obligations. In any case, none of us are saying that you have to agree with us 100% or you’re morally bankrupt.
But we do want to know why you thought it was not disqualifying that Donald Trump was plausibly accused of making unwelcome sexual advances on women, and even boasted about how he could grab their genitals or do anything he wants to them due to his fame and wealth. I know it’s hard to accept a defeat for your political beliefs, especially with things like the balance of the Supreme Court on the line. Believe me, I sympathize with the agony of that kind of decision. But when you say that you’re willing to overlook Trump’s treatment of women because you have higher priorities, then you shouldn’t be shocked when things like this happen:
Late last year, [you] hit it off with a woman in New York [you] met online. [You] spent hours on the phone. [You] made plans…to visit. But when [you] mentioned [you] had voted for Mr. Trump, she said she was embarrassed and didn’t know if she wanted [you] to come. ([You] eventually did, but she lied to her friends about [you] visiting.)
“It invalidated anything that’s good about me, just because of how I voted. Poof, it’s gone.”
Again, you’ve engaged in a touch of hyperbole. It’s not that your vote invalidated anything that’s good about you. This woman would not have been interested in you if you didn’t have positive qualities. But your vote told her something about your priorities that she really didn’t like. It shouldn’t be a stretch to figure out why a woman might feel that way.
And this isn’t the same kind of thing people experienced when, say, they voted for Bob Dole instead of Bill Clinton. It’s true that some women wouldn’t date someone who’s opposed to them having full reproductive rights. Some people might not want to be friends with a person who disagrees with them about environmental issues or the best way to provide health care. But we wouldn’t be having this conversation if Trump were not different in kind from other Republican presidential candidates.
I think we all, as parents, try to teach our children some of the same basic things about how to treat other people. It’s hard to find a single one of those lessons that Donald Trump doesn’t violate on a regular basis. Whether it’s being honest and respectful, or it’s admitting your mistakes, or it’s having some humility, or it’s being good on your word, or it’s how to treat women, or it’s judging people by the content of their character, Trump sets a bad example in every case.
These things are hard to overlook precisely because there are no known and accepted moral defenses for them.
Since you’re a self-described conservative, we don’t doubt that there are things about progressives and the Democratic Party that you find not just unwise but morally incorrect. In our minds, these must be some very powerful things to overcome the deficits in character that are so easily observable in Donald Trump.
Now, these aren’t your words, but the author of this article said that people like yourself are feeling “assaulted by…a kind of moral Bolshevism — the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one,” and that you’re upset with “being publicly shamed” simply for preferring Trump over Clinton.
We don’t doubt that you feel this way, or something close to it. But this isn’t about you agreeing with a liberal vision of the country. No one made you feel shame like this when you voted for (as I assume you did) Bob Dole or John McCain. It’s about you making the decision that it would be okay to have someone like Donald Trump as our president.
What distinguishes the current cultural environment from previous ones is mainly about character and only secondarily about policy. And the policy part (the Muslim ban, for example, or the affinity for Putin) are things that are opposed by many, many Republicans.
So, again, we know it’s hard to make the choice to vote against the party that best represents your value system. We would struggle mightily to make that kind of decision. But there was no shortage of Republicans who told you to do precisely that because they saw, in Trump, someone who was uniquely unsuited to be president due to flaws in his character and questions about his grip on reality. You didn’t listen to us, or to them, and you chose to prioritize other factors more highly than any concerns about Trump.
You are being morally judged for this decision. We believe that you will come to learn that you made a mistake, but what we’re really interested in is making sure you understand where we’re coming from.
We don’t think it is okay that Donald Trump is the president of the United States. We think this should have been obvious when it came time to vote. And we think that it tells us something about the morals of people that they would overlook his Birtherism and his race-baiting and his characteristics that we discourage in our own children and his treatment of women, and still support him because they have other priorities that are more important to them.
Now, if you want to make a moral defense of your decision, we’re all ears. Thank you for listening to our moral defense of our position.
Best regards,
The Judgmental Left
“someone who was uniquely unsuited to be president…”
This is the crux of the matter and precisely what this Southern conservative white male will never, ever acknowledge. Trump was a legitimate choice because he had the Seal of Tribe Approval, the “R” after his name. So Mr Medford’s choice was made and now he thinks it’s unfair that what was always seen as permissible somehow isn’t this time. “All I did was vote for the guy that made the most sense!” said the German citizen in 1933.
So, just more whining and phony grievance-airing by the Party of Victims, who incredibly are victims even upon winning a stupendous political triumph and setting themselves up to remake the country in Mr Medford’s disastrous vision. Forgive me for the lack of sympathy.
And as a committed Repub in the conservative mothership of SC, acting as though you are being isolated and disrespected by the mean lib’ruls is a bit much.
Why he cares what libtards think is something of a mystery until he pretends incredulity over the online NY lady’s unfairly “judgmental” attitude over his prez preference–if true, you really are clueless in just about everything, Mr Medford. Also, too, ixna on the home gun arsenal…at least til after the wedding!
And as a committed Repub in the conservative mothership of SC, acting as though you are being isolated and disrespected by the mean lib’ruls is a bit much.
Does Medford know that the GOP controls both the South Carolina state government and the federal government now?
Medford’s ramblings are nothing more than classic Republican Detachment Disorder. He’s just another embarrassed Republican looking to cover the fact he’s never voted for a Democrat and never will despite what he and his ilk have foisted on the country.
Note these “essays” never address the right wing wurlitzer, Faux “News”, Limbaugh, etc. These writers never bring up the fact that because of close to 30 years now of propaganda, the Repub base is radicalized and retrograde because they realize they’ll never win another election without them.
At the same time they try to sell to everybody else this notion of “I never had anything whatsoever to do with this madness during my career as a Republican Party functionary or water carrier, and I’ve never heard of this Limbaugh guy either!’.
Like the Trump Phenomenon just suddenly appeared one day, much like a mushroom cloud over the offices of the RNC.
It’s a cult, not a party.
Cultists don’t deal with facts they do as they are directed.
Trump voters are losers as people. They have no greater concerns than tax cuts and the permission to spew their hate in public, unbound by common decency and courtesy, I.e. Political correctness.
Boo – fucking – hoo.
Out here in the South, congregationists at many churches are taught by their pastors that voting Democratic is the equivalent of backing the Devil himself and those who do are going to burn in the fires of Hell. That observation seems to reinforce yours about how cult-like the base is.
It is in the best interests of both church and state that they maintain separateness. Among the reasons is that Christianity and Catholicism are damaged and made less popular by their association with fiscal conservatism, sexism, racism, hatred, immorality and lack of empathy.
I find it interesting that all of this has come out after the Trump brand has been losing money. The way Ivanka Trump is losing money hand over fist. I see this man is a business owner, it would be interesting to know if his business has suffered as well since voting for Trump? Most Republicans need more then the reasons he gave to cry out like this. The main reason that I have found is when their pocket books are hit for voting the way they do. Then they come out crying and hollering about how mean liberals are treating them.
You know if they do not like it I have one for them, “America love it or LEAVE it” and take Trump with you too boot.
Interesting point, since the story says his “business teaches people to be filmmakers”, and thus he likely has to deal with the demonic Blue cities of the nation. Of course he couldn’t have credited anything his lib’rul contacts likely said about Der Trumper during the campaign!
But this also indicates how almost unbelievably clueless the guy appears to be….
Steve M did this reporter’s work, checking to see how moderate some of these people are. Judging by Facebook posts, these people would NEVER vote Democratic. Why are we still hearing about them?
link
That list looks like the discussion topics of Booman Tribune during the primaries. If Clinton had won, they still would be.
.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Or really Marie, mino, Voice, Arthur, Brodie, etc. mouth.
Did they ever really stop?
Nope. They are doing a variation right now.
‘In order to win Democrats must support the exact policies I support…and no others’.
.
In other words, “I want my pony.”
And it MUST be a brown pony with three white socks…not four white socks, but three. And a white star on its forehead. No other pony will do.
.
And naturally we were supposed to read their minds and know that already before we got the one with four socks.
You need a chart!
.
Someone who has opinions that strongly formed and who obviously has been fed that crap for decades (quite possibly all they’ve known) is that there is no room for persuasion. Anything outside of an extremely narrow band of beliefs that in any saner era would have been banished to the fringes of society will be offering ideas, policies, and whatnot that are simply unthinkable. You? Me? We are The Enemy. No point even bothering with a dialog. It won’t happen. Speaking from experience.
This generic Republican letter is sort of a waste of attention and does not honestly raise the moral issue in a form that gets traction.
South Carolina became conservative (and Republican) at exactly the time in history that the Civil Rights Act opened up equal access to the public infrastructure. Republicans can paint moderation any way that want personally, but that political decision is the fundamental one, far beyond the moral distraction of abortion (which was reluctuctantly the issue for the 1980 campaign after Jerry Falwell was told that the Catholics were not excited about being labeled as sympathetic to Jim Crow revived.)
This guy is wasting people’s reading time just as Trump is. Mainly because both are unserious about politics. It is all about personal and team identity.
Trash talking them back does not restore politics to govrnment; it reduces it to sports teams in which winning and losing really don’t matter as long as you have bragging rights.
In the early 1960s, the Southern governors touted themselves as progressive governors, buiding infrastructure mainly. Even the brand spanking-new toll roads are not getting the maintenance attention. Private enterprise loves to take the money and run.
You think this is trash talk?
The commenters are trashing him.
I’m explaining why so many people on the left have difficulty accepting that a vote for Trump isn’t an endorsement of racism and sexism and behavior that we all (left, right and center) find disgraceful in our own family lives.
Are we trying to explain ourselves or convince him?
Or do we think it is pointless to convince him and need to explain why we think he is immoral.
The Clinton campaign bet the presidency on this type of argument. I must say I find the argument irrefutable. It didn’t win.
The New York Times piece was an epic trolling based on zero data. It is precisely the sort of anecdotal piece that parades examples in exchange for what is really just the author’s opinion.
There are two types of Trump voters:
Understanding the second group is rather important, and a simple “well they are all racists” doesn’t cut it since the voted for Obama, often twice.
Why they shifted isn’t some great secret at this point.
In places where the biggest changes occurred, you find economic stagnation, an opiod epidemic and rising hopelessness. There is a crisis in rural America, and many who lived in these communities did not feel their needs were important or being heard.
It is also true that some voters who simply could not stand Clinton on a personnel level. Since that is a personal reaction it is kind of hard to argue with., though it doesn’t make sense to me.
I will repost these pieces again. There is denial on the left in two ways:
*There are swings from Obama to Trump at the lower end of the income scale. If this is all about race why did they vote for Obama in the first place”
*Why did the young swing in some states so strongly from Obama to Trump
Win half of the vote back that is described in these two charts and you win 55% of the vote and take both houses.
I have no problem calling a racist immoral.
I am more interested in finding out how to win the votes lost back.
“It is also true that some voters who simply could not stand Clinton on a personnel level.”
THIS.
Actually, I can sort of understand it because I can barely stand her myself.
It’s true that a lot of Republicans bought into 25 years of lies about the Clintons. But probably not so much the Trump voters who formerly were Obama voters.
The reason I don’t like her is because she is the epitome of the neoliberal Democrat, the warmonger Democrat, the financialization, marketization, massive selloff and privatization of public property, selloff of American jobs kind of Democrat, not what I understand as the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
I have tried to explain this to Republican friends, and they don’t even get what I’m talking about. But I suspect many Democrats don’t get what I’m talking about either.
As a Democrat, and just as a New Yorker who can recognize an ignoramus and con-artist when I see one, I can understand that Hillary would have been better for the country than Trump. That was my judgment, just as it was Bernie Sanders’ judgment. But I can also understand why others, who for whatever reason didn’t grasp what Trump is (blinded by hope, anger, and the impossibility for them of voting for Hillary) — decided to vote for him.
And this has led us straight into disaster — for which I largely blame the Democratic Party. The GOP is like a mad dog you know is going to bite you, I despise them but I expect nothing good of them — the Democrats I would have expected more of. And if they had been able to give it, they really would have won — big. But they just couldn’t, Hillary is devoid of the ethos they would respond to, and that’s why they lost.
I don’t agree with those former Obama voters, but I do understand.
If we have any hope of getting through this mess and out the other side, it rests on thinking like this. “You’re immoral”/”you’re a racist” — in spite of the fact that they are not completely invalid statements — will not do it. Using those arguments only digs us in deeper and does nothing at all to help us grasp the dimensions of the problem.
There is this notion in the East – when you bow toward someone you do so in recognition of the divinity that resides within them.
About half of those who founded this country, maybe more, were more children of the reformation and not the enlightenment. They regarded the First Amendment as a moral commandment: to force someone to religion was a denial of the necessity of the a PERSONAL relationship with Jesus.
I think King would say it is profoundly immoral to give up on anyone. Barber would, and my own Methodist upbringing – which seems determined to re-assert itself in my household made up of a Jewish wife and children – commands that to give up on someone is sin.
So the challenge is neither to deny reality – the reality of racism and meanness – but rather to understand and convince others they are wrong.. This is, after all, what politics is, an act of persuasion. Maybe it is why I find Barber compelling.
It is a damn hard thing to do.
It is why so frequently you hear the cry of “it’s about turnout!”
But to really build the world the left should want to build there is no other way.
I don’t know in the end what is so hard to understand. For 30 years things have not gotten better for those in the bottom half of the country.
Are we supposed to be surprised that they are pissed?
Go here from 2:20 – Heilemann I think is mostly right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz9_6iXtt1o
And yet, people of color (who typically are poorer than whites) didn’t take that stagnation and decline as a reason to vote for Dampnut now, did they?
It was only whites who did that. Gosh, wonder why that is ….
Fladem’s got his narrative and he’ sticking to it. Who are you to question his brilliance?
To repeat what I have written before:
African American turnout was down significantly in the Blue Wall.
Michigan: In Detroit Clinton’s margin was 49 K less than Obama’s was. Clinton lost Michigan by 11K.
Wisconsin – the Trump margin was smaller than the decline in Clinton’s margin out of Wilwaukee.
In two states the decline in African American vote was dispositive.
Pennsylvania: Here is the data from the African American Wards in Philadelphia:
African American turnout was down 10% from 2012. If you extrapolate the African American vote from these wards to the rest of the state it was probably, though not certainly, decisive in Pennsylvania as well.
Clinton’s margin in Florida among African Americans was down 15 points from ’12 (O carried African Americans 95-4, Clinton 84-8)
In some there are clear signs of decline in African American support for Clinton.
Clinton’s margin was also down among Hispanics, thought the data is not perfect. The exit polls show Clinton’s margin’s was down 6% from Obama’s.
So no, this was not all about white people.
Chetsky’s point was that they didn’t vote for Trump, despite his attempts to woo the disaffected and the downtrodden and the left behind. That worked to win white votes; didn’t work to win black votes. That’s a different issue than whether they turned out at all.
In point of fact more DID vote for Trump. In Florida the shift, irrespective of turnout, is about the same as Trump’s margin.
I find it interesting so many are in denial about what at the end of the day are just numbers.
And yet, people of color (who typically are poorer than whites) didn’t take that stagnation and decline as a reason to vote for Dampnut now, did they?
It was only whites who did that. Gosh, wonder why that is ….
As I show above, you are in fact completely wrong.
Not that I expect data will matter to you.
at all.
For that, you’d hafta do more than simply throw out a table with a buncha numbers.
You’d hafta construct an argument from those numbers. You know . . . logic. Fact-based reasoning. At a very minimum, to spell out how you infer from those numbers what you claim they “show”.
Guess what! That’s not self-evident!
It’s not wrong to call your numbers “data”.
It’s ridiculous to pretend they “show” what you claim they show.
I think this is 100% right. Does this mean you are no longer befuddled?
Tribal loyalty dies very, very hard. I know. But a true understanding of our situation requires its death.
You can not expect more of the Democratic Party. Now or ever. It serves a slightly different set of masters but is every bit as corrupt and unprincipled in its service.
Responding here but it applies to your later posts on the topic as well:
The numbers you present do not show a single vote switching from Obama to Trump. That data might exist (and I’m sure with a population as large as the US some of those people exist) but that’s not what you’re presenting. Your analysis would only hold true if we were at or near 100% voter participation.
And this: “Former Obama voters who voted for Trump. This might have made up 10% to 20% of Trump’s total vote depending on the state.” is ludicrous. 1 in five of Obama voters switching to Trump? Show me. If this was the case it would be headlining every paper and political blog for months. (Also Trump would have won almost every state in the country.)
The numbers are perfectly consistent with some Obama voters dissatisfied with Hillary staying home and new Trump voters being activated by his unique style. You claim this isn’t the case, and maybe it isn’t, but you haven’t provided the data to butress your argument.
What he has posted is unserious trash talk. I don’t think that is capable of getting a serious response. Your effort in the current zeitgeist has no way of connecting. I’m not even sure there is even a Mr. Medford who wrote the New York Times, give the current information warfare coming out of the Trump camp and the turn that the former Clinton folks have taken.
Explanation is not where folks are at.
The Trump bunch are clear in their desire to be as racist, sexist, homophobic, and bigoted as they want to be and do so without either accountability or apology. That doesn’t get dealt with with explanation. As long as they are pretending to be listening to get off the hook, there is nothing political to say.
You intent might not be trash talk but it comes off as an eager explainer does when teams are actually trash talking. What might be behavior that you find disgraceful in your family life might not be the same for Mr. Medford. What made you think he was interested in anything but not being singled out for his voting for Trump as a likely signal for his own behavior? Or that he was just trolling the New York Times for the fun of it?
As for the character issues, they just make Trump colorful and give the coffe-klatch hangouts something to gossip about.
Save your breath until they get hurt and they unmistakably are clear how it happened.
It was an admirable effort anyway.
The only game in town now is new policies and real resistance. That means that a lot of the professional political class in DC will have to find new and honest employment. And a new grassroots political movement will have to establish its bone fides at the grassroots and fight the dirtiest information war that we have every seen if we are going to succeed in re-establishing peace and prosperity as the goals of the US government and its policies.
I don’t envy you young folks. Your self-proclaimed betters have ensured that the Democratic Party will not bounce back soon. They still are playing the DC and state capital games not understanding that they are going to have to take over the casino and make it honest again if the public is going to restore their trust in any opposition party, especially the Democrats.
Trump has succeeded in delegitimizing both parties, hijacking the US government (with the GOP Congressional caucus) and set of on a rapid march of folly while everyone else sits with their thumbs in their mouths. Polite debate will not deal with it because for them there is no debate; they seized power fair and square. And they now how the executive and legislative levers of power and have had corporate lawyers tell them exactly how they can best use them. It the populists of the former Tea Party get too restless, there is that Constitutional Convention ready to go.
And you want some small business owner from South Carolina to understand why he is not getting what he wants from a New York woman. There are any number of Trump-supporting “country”, “redneck”, conservative ladies who would cheer his liberal-baiting until he tried his act on them. The most forceful would set him straight quickly; the least forceful would bear his kids for him.
Maybe it time for a field trip through Trumpland to see what going on and how much is fakery and trolling and just wanting to see civil rights gone. Yes, the “progress” of the 1970s is both close to reversed and more personable at the same time–the continuing race paradox of the South. “We get along.” is the line. (As long as the right people go along is sub voce.) The reality of hate is when the “right people” don’t go along to get along. Right now, that’s increasing as folks say they are not going back. And so much law is poised ready to swing back.
Polite letters just won’t be sufficient.
At this point the only person I find with an effective understanding of the moment and the ability to move people is Dr Barber, a man I did not know existed 7 months ago.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a47153/reverend-william-barber-democratic-convention/
Excellent point. And he does not operate himself in his church from the blue areas of North Carolina. He’s from the Kinston-Goldsboro area.
Locally the Democrats seem to have multiple caucuses going on, the women of all races, the black Democrats of both sexes, the good ole boys (business class) of both races. There is a good amount of meeting and planning–not sure who’s holding the donkey brand at this point–probably the current elected officials regardless of who they are meeting with otherwise.
It’s really on Roy Cooper and Josh Stein to hold it together statewide without any power in the legislature but enough legislators to make publicity. And the executive departments that are in Democratic control are working how to out-maneuver Republican legislative overreach and federal interference.
Roy Cooper, if successful, is likely to find himself on the National Ticket.
Three races were won in tough states: Senate races in Nevada and New Hampshire, and the Governor’s race in North Carolina.
In many ways the North Carolina Democratic Party is in the most important position of any single state party.
Thanks so much for posting Reverend Barber. No, I did not know who he was either. But that is somebody who makes me proud to call myself an American.
Reverend Barber is enormously inspirational, and has a keen understanding of how to organize effectively.
You state that you find him “…the only person I find with an effective understanding of the moment and the ability to move people…”. Yet not enough voters heeded his call during the Convention speech for which you provided a link. From his speech:
“In times like these, we have make some decisions and I might not normally as a preacher, an individual, but when I hear Hillary’s voice and her positions, I hear and I know that she is working to embrace our deepest moral values — and we should embrace her.
But let me be clear, let me be clear, that she, nor any person, can do it alone. The watchword of this democracy in the watchword of faith is “WE.” The heart of our democracy is on the line this November and beyond.”
I join you in wishing more had heeded Dr. Barber’s call. Now we are in the beyond.
Well done, Booman. I am sure that many people like Mr. Medford are upset because they are being “publicly shamed” for supporting Trump. Unlike the Times I think this is a good thing, not a bad one. This is the approach to take. And in fact, deep in his heart, I think Mr. Medford is ashamed of himself.
The alt-right cannot be reached. They do not feel shame. Many on the left can’t be reached either, but there are plenty of them who, like Mr. Medford, deep in their hearts feel ashamed today. So they should. They are – on both the left and right – upset about being publicly shamed not because it is unfair, but because it is too fair. If shaming them hardens the political discourse even more, well, too bad.
Me, I don’t bother much with politics these days. The few family members who support Trump cannot be shamed. I don’t talk politics any more with the friends and family members who were Bernie or Busters. I don’t want to be on the same side of any political fight with them ever again. I don’t want anything to do with them politically speaking.
I can’t help but watch the car wreck, but I see little reason to hope let alone actually invest emotionally in a fight. During the Bush years I gave up on all optimistic scenarios. Barack brought me back. Bernie Sanders reminded me again why the left always loses. I give up.
I’m going to be okay. My family will be fine. I can be happy with baseball and books and laughing at the clowns political circus. I survived Bush porn and I’ll survive Trump porn. Many, many people live happy lives without caring about any of this shit. I’m going to try to do the same.
I’m not proud of my attitude today but hey, maybe we should all be ashamed to some degree or another. I’m ashamed to say, “I’m done with it. Que sera, sera.”
RE:
For now. In the short term. While it remains possible for some folks to insulate themselves from the breaking shitstorm.
Until that’s no longer possible.
The short term. How short?
It’s been a few decades since I read it, but the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was a fascinating book. One little tidbit I recall was how various subsets of the better off thought they could ride out the collapse and go on as they always had. Did not work out so well. Seems to be a lesson there. If one has no patience for that, there’s always fiction: World War Z offers a fun chapter about a group of rich folks who live it up for a while as the zombie apocalypse rages out of control. Turns out the zombies aren’t what does this bunch in: it’s the other pissed off folks who got sick of fighting off zombies while a few got the luxury of living as if all were still normal. If one has no patience for books, the film Land of the Dead offers a similar morality tale. A shame that this current government gets me thinking about zombie books and films. A shame. I used to enjoy that genre. Seems too real these days.
Gee, if you don’t want to be shamed or feel uncomfortable about your decisions, don’t make shameful decisions. And when you do make poor decisions, do not whine or cry about being criticized for it. We all had choices and we made them according to our beliefs. They believed in a lousy candidate and a disgusting excuse for a human being.
I agree that a certain percentage of Trump voters will never criticize him, and therefore will never be ashamed or unhappy about him. Diehards will be diehards and let’s face it, if Trump literally caused a nuclear war, they’d be squealing with glee, because they have bomb shelters and canned goods just waiting to be used. And the others who just love the man who speaks his mind would be happy to see the world scorched and bare because that’s what winning a nuclear war looks like. And Trump is a winner!
So while the rest of us suffer because of other people’s terrible choices, we can at least say we’re fighting back and will continue to speak out against this garbage administration. No apologies accepted, no ridicule spared.
As I (and a depressingly small number of others) have been saying for a long time, this is about one thing and one thing only: the decades long propaganda campaign against Hillary Clinton.
When you borrow advertising techniques (as started with Nixon in 1968) and the powers of an owned-and-controlled news media, this is the result. Spending 25 years using every possible trick to convince the public that a specific person or family is bad (including millions spent on fatuous investigations and an impeachment) it turns out that, surprise, it works.
On the less substantive, more subjective level, of the effort to smooth over the awkwardness/inarticulateness of Reagan, Bush, Dole, McCain, Bush and every other Republican candidate had been used to bolster Hillary Clinton’s personality rather than attack it, the same people who saw her as shrill and “plastic” would see her as “heartwarming” and “genuine” (the way they regard imbiciles, nils and monsters like Barbara Bush, Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan).
The result is millions of people who said “I just can’t trust her”/”She’s dishonest” to such a Pavlovian degree that they voted for Trump.
That’s it. That’s all this is about. There isn’t anything else to discuss. The ad campaign worked. They usually do–that’s why PR/advertising/promotion people make billions.
Though I don’t disagree with the anit-Hillary history you cite, Medford didn’t vote against Hillary. He voted for (R). The essence of the article is that an (R) candidate, no matter how awful, is better than any (D) candidate for these people, not matter how good that Democrat is.
But I think you’re on the right track, but it’s not the decades+ anti-Hillary propaganda that is the culprit, it’s the ever-increasing anti-Democrats propaganda. Some very vile stuff that started with the Republican co-option of anti-feminists and anti-abortion voters, and, of course, racists. Baby killers. Femi-nazis. We murder our political enemies. 9/11 is Bill Clinton’s fault. I hear Limbaugh’s voice when Trump supporters speak.
So maybe not this guy specifically (or, overtly/consciously) but I’m saying, the “Hillary = no” dealbreaker concept was put there deliberately, with great malice aforethought, and, cumulatively, got Trump into office.
You are onto something. Rush Limbaugh possibly has now irreparably hurt this country in exchange for the hundreds of millions of dollars that he has amassed as “an entertainer”. (Hey, I’m not a bigot, I’m just and entertainer, just like Bill Maher. I just do it three hours a day, every day, for thirty years.)
What discouraged me most was the extent to which the left bought into the right wing war against Clinton. Well beyond their usual propensity to circle the wagons and shoot inwards. The whole thing has made me sick to death of politics. It’s all I can do to look at the paper now.
That’s a misunderstanding on your part. The left did not buy into the “whole right-wing war against Clinton.”
The left had its own legitimate reasons for not wanting Clinton. And in the end they voted for her anyway.
So it wasnt “the left” that lost this for Hillary anyway. It was those former Obama voters.
Unfortunately, I am still acquainted with a few BernieBros and Greens who would beg to differ. Heck, they’re wallowing in the aftermath of the election still. I hope they’re enjoying their “revolution.”
A few, no doubt.
Dear judgmental liberals,
It’s time to get over being judgmental and start being strategic. The election is over and the time for denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and all the other forms of crying in your beer about it all ended on January 20. That includes barfing at Donald Trump’s press conferences and writing more “ain’t it awful” articles in blogs and Facebook and Twitter and all the other forms of social chatter. We are fighting for our lives and not just in the figurative sense; we have to turn this situation around fast before it congeals.
Cherry-picking an article out of the NYT meant to concern-troll the genteel elite who are oh-so-worried about the divisive level of political discourse these days isn’t productive. Using the setup of the article to respond to the poor schlubs it quotes to “prove” that yes-they-are-too morally bankrupt isn’t productive either. The whole discussion about morality in elections isn’t productive, in fact it’s a terrible way to look at elections because it leads people on both the right and the left to idiotic conclusions. From the right, you get idiotic conclusions like the ones on display in the article; from the left you get Jill Stein.
Elections are about power, and we don’t have any. If we don’t get some, and damn quickly, we are going to be rolled but good. That means we have to unite the people who agree with us, win over the large number of generally confused people who float back and forth in the middle, and isolate the 25% or so of the population on the right that will never be convinced. Like others commenting here I would estimate that the good Mr. Medford belongs to the latter group and is therefore not worth a great deal of my consideration relative to others who may be more persuadable. But the article makes a fair point: even if it were more worthwhile to engage, lecturing him and the many other people who don’t agree with you about their moral shortcomings would not be the way to go about it. That’s just basic common sense. Your moral authority does not extend beyond the space between your ears.
You liberals have a big problem. People walked away from your party and your program and your candidate in droves this time. Bickering with Mr. Medford isn’t going to fix that. Unfriending him on Facebook isn’t going to fix it either. If you want to persuade these people who float back and forth in the middle — people in Crawford County, for example, or people in Pepin County, for another example, or even poor people in Milwaukee who aren’t impressed with you either, you are going to have to do better. These are not people who are spending a great time considering their moral problems vis-a-vis the election. These are people who are living in a political structure that is failing them. Do you have one. single. useful thing to say about that? Because the Democratic Party here sure as hell doesn’t. Maybe that’s the reason it lost.
There are two important jobs right now. Short-term we have to stand up a resistance as soon and as broadly as possible to defend the people who Trump has promised to attack. Long-term we have to put together a political program that takes on the consequences of neoliberalism, in the spheres of economic justice, social justice, peace and internationalism, and environmental sustainability. If you want to help build the resistance, that’s great; we’re happy to have you. If you want to help create that kind of program, that’s great; there’s a tremendous amount of work to be done. If you’re not interested in either of those things just sit down and shut up because right now you are not helping.
The Rest of the Left
I wish I had read this before I posted, since you have said what I wanted to say far better than I did.
Thanks. You ran the numbers, I ran the rhetoric. Numbers are what count.
“Rather important” as in “life and death”.
Can’t anybody else here see that?
They can see it: but where the answer leads scares them.
So if it’s all about democrats failing the working class why do the republicans never pay any price for their policies? Kansas is supposed to be a disaster yet no one holds the republicans responsible.
Please pardon this short answer, I’m at work right now.
In an attempt to understand how the Democratic Party of Wisconsin came to be in the broken state that it’s in I recently read Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter With Kansas?. I recommend it as a place to start understanding the answer to your question.
To simplify greatly: for the Democrats to be able to hold the GOP accountable politically would require a combination of strong organization and popular credibility. They have neither.
I don’t have to understand him.
He voted for THAT MAN.
That says more about his LACK OF CHARACTER than anything else he’s done in his life.
I’m done trying to understand the Mr. Medfords.
PHUCK Mr. Medford and everyone like him.
Truth is that those with whom I am acquainted who did vote for SCROTUS will evade any questions regarding why they voted, when it gets down to specifics. If they have to, they’ll try a Gish Gallop or just simply block me on social media (which is probably the most likely outcome). I just eventually came to the conclusion that there is not motivation to be understood. No dialog is possible. Not exactly ingredients for maintaining a healthy democratic republic, but it is reality. And that reality is a troubling one for the rest of us.
Unwilling to deal in politics as conversation on a serious level. Willing to excommunicate huge parts of their personal networks to conform with other parts of their personal networks. Polarization is going much further than politics.
At this juncture, we have a significant subset of the population that has been cultivated to fear and hate anything or anyone that is different. The technology may have changed from AM talk radio to sub-reddits, but the song remains largely the same. Add to that a general bias against anything that can be associated as “the establishment” – including the output of mainstream scientists, reporters, educators, and so on, and we have the makings of a significant breakdown in communication. A breakdown that makes it darned near impossible to hold a rational conversation any more. As much as the good old days sucked, I will say that there was a time when I could share a beer or two with folks who were Republican and hold a rational conversation. The YAFers and Birchers? Not so much, but they were the fringe weirdos. Those days are long gone. We are truly in Night of the Living Dead territory now.
Booman,
Thank you for this. You said what was in my (and, I’m sure, others’) mind, and far, far more eloquently that I could have managed, even if I weren’t sputtering in white-hot incandescent rage every few hours.
Medford is loyal to a party that has gotten where it is, to a large extent, by channeling fear, hatred and violence. Its base has carried out armed “protests” designed to threaten and intimidate. For years, their base and leaders alike have publicly engaged in, as a matter of course, ugly name calling and racially driven rants and a campaign of lies directed at democratic party members as part of a concerted effort to de-legitimize a duly elected president while “establishment” GOP leaders remained relatively silent.
Their current standard-bearer is a man who, for years, savaged an elected president with a racist birther campaign, and ran openly on racist rhetoric to the extent that he has invigorated white supremacy. His closest adviser is a recognized white supremacist. Trump supporters have celebrated their victory by attacking those they have been advised to hate, which is anyone who doesn’t look like them, resulting in an upswing in violent attacks, of which in many cases the perpetrators readily acknowledge that its being done in the name of or support for “Trump Nation.”
This is what Medford and other “moderates” voted for, and there is simply no way to sugar coat the immorality of their choice, which is what Medford is asking for, the pretension that what he did is “okay.” Here’s a clue, Medford: Its not okay when you and the likes of David Duke are in agreement in your choice of leaders.
If Medford has the right to set aside any sense of morality to vote for someone out of selfishness, then I have the right to call Medford an immoral moron for doing so.
“It invalidated anything that’s good about me…”
Oh lord. I don’t where to start. It’s like, how do you explain dating to a toddler?
Mr. Medford,
I thought the GOP was the party of responsibility – so why can’t you admit that you made your own choice and own it?
What exactly does the Democratic Party do that turns you off?
Maybe you can explain to us what is moral about denying healthcare to the sick, food to the poor, and shelter to the homeless? What’s so moral about poisoning my air and water in the pursuit of money? What is moral about discrimination and hatred? I sincerely hope that after your vote for Trump you don’t lie to yourself and call yourself a Christian. I would love to smite your right cheek and see…
From my own experience with Trump voters, the question of why Clinton was not acceptable amounts to something along the lines of “because she belongs in jail” which is very similar to what these same people said about Al Gore, that is, “because he’s a fat asshole”: it’s irrelevant to the question asked.
Asking further questions about those views is pointless, because they never really made those choices themselves, but had someone (like Faux Snooze or Billo Smiley) make those decisions for them.
I know, I know, it’s tough to make decisions and life is just jammed packed full of them: Pepsi or Coke? PLEASE STOP IT HURTS!