Reading through the ongoing barrage of tweets that flow through Twitter brings about a fascinating, if bizarre observation -- how vitriolic the partisan supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have long-become. It's as if the candidates were polar opposites. I certainly understand high passions during a political campaign, when you believe so much is at stake and know only that one candidate can win. But a couple of oddities are mixed into the exchanges.
The first is that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are not even remotely polar opposites. They don't agree on all issues, and sometimes completely disagree. But when they do disagree, most usually it's a matter of degrees (like that Sanders wants Single Payer health coverage, and Clinton wants a strengthened Affordable Care Act -- or he is for raising the hourly minimum wage to $15, while she wants to raise it to $12), not the overriding principle. And the larger reality is that they actually seem to agree in general on the majority of matters. The second is that when sending blistering broadsides at their favorite candidate's opponent, there seems to be an blissful unawareness (or forgetfulness) that one of these two is going to get the nomination. So, to say that one of them is just negative and doesn't support America, and the other can't be trusted seems wildly counterproductive, especially given that it's a fair bet that both Clinton and Sanders supporters likely would be sickened by a Trump or Cruz presidency. I understand harshly criticizing your opponent, even within a party, But when your "anger" is fulled by your diehard support of one person, rather than the substance of the other, and when you';d probably be just fine supporting the other, if that's the choice, it seems wildly counter-productive I read a comment, for instance, how it was "absurd" that one of these two (it doesn't matter which one here, since the concept can flip on a dime over another matter) didn't support what 58% of Americans on for a particular issue. Now, it might be short-sighted, or bad politics, or surprising...but when you support a position that 42% of people do, that is not actually "absurd." It's reasonably rational. It might even be noble and proper, depending on the issue. Of course, it's not just the Twitterverse. On Monday, the outgoing progressive Susan Sarandon appeared on MSNBC and explained why so many Bernie Sanders supporters might not vote for Hillary Clinton in the face of Donald Trump, if those two were to become the party nominees -- and wouldn't herself commit to voting for Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump. “She’s accepted money from all those people," Ms. Sarandon said of Clinton's fundraising.. "She doesn’t even want to fight for a $15 minimum wage," Right, she only wants to increase it to slightly less. At the expense of seeing Donald Trump as president. All in the Name of Impassioned Principle. The thing is, life is full of principles. And choices. And myopia. And results. Is the Principle who gives you money -- or how you govern? Is the Principle raising the hourly minimum wage to $15 or raising the minimum wage? (All the while keeping in mind that the cost of living varies significantly across all corners of the country, as does the current minimum wage. In some states, a $15 minimum wage is critical for that local economy. In others, it's irresponsible.) Indeed, for any issue, is it problematic to push for somewhat less and get it, or push for more and not. That's not a pejorative question -- sometimes you go for the unattainable to make it easier to get the next time. And sometimes you go for what is attainable in order to create a foundation on which to build even higher the next time. But the most important question is whether inflexibility on any issue worth a Donald Trump as Commander-in-Chief and leader of the free world? Especially when on most positions the two candidates are respectably close. This antipathy bordering on hatred tends to be coming more from the most overly-fervent Sanders supporters, though it does exist in the far-edges of the Clinton partisans, as well. I suppose that's to be expected when you have one candidate with a more missionary appeal. But with a candidate who would be a "first-ever", that also brings with it its own zeal. In the end, I completely understand why Bernie Sanders supporters perceive nobility in their candidate and love him in favor of Hillary Clinton. And I understand why supporters of Hillary Clinton love her career, achievements and qualifications over Bernie Sanders. I also understand whey they each have reasons they strongly disagree with the other candidate. It's all fair. But the two candidate really, actually are on the same side, no matter how much they have different ways on some issues for moving society forward. And hatred of the "horrific" is another matter entirely. You want absurd? That's absurd. I wrote that among most Democrats, if not pretty much all, neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton are really, truly horrific candidate that their opposing Democratic partisan supporters are painting in their frenzied passion. And if any of them thought that why I'm saying here is not true, I suggested that they simply look across the street and see Donald Trump and Ted Cruz -- who are, in fact, horrific. Actually horrific. So much so that the Republican Establishment and much of the moderate party supporters are going nuclear ballistic total freak-out over. That is horrific. And being able to step back, taking a breath, and having some perspective is A Good Thing.
0 Comments
This week's contestant from the archives is Rebecca Butler from St. Simon's Island, Georgia. What I wrote the time before was, "And it's one of the more interesting of the compositions they've had. For starters, it's a really charming piece that Bruce Adolph wrote. And the hidden popular song is extremely well-known, and the classical composer is, as well. Yet...I didn't have a clue what it was. I should have gotten the composer style -- one of those 'slap yourself in the head, oh-yeah, of course,' things -- but the closest I came wasn't close enough. But the song was deeply hidden. Interestingly, when you do know the song and go back to listen, it's gorgeously woven into the composer style and almost more of a pleasure to listen to.
As I've written here in the past, I'm bemused (the polite term) by Republican analysts on TV who months ago were understandably and properly deriding Donald Trump loudly, but now that it appears he could likely be their party's nominee for president, they have begun twisting themselves in pretzel knots to explain the positive aspects of his support. What they seem to have come up with is that the Trump popularity is due to him being the "Voice of the People," and a Good Thing that expresses dissatisfaction of "Politics as Usual." (Alas, the once-wonderful Steve Schmidt and the rational, but less-wonderful Nicole Wallace are among those analysts falling into this category.)
With the Sunday morning talk shows doing some more of this pounding, it led to a tweet I left which expresses one way in which all this faux-observation is so deeply disingenuous.
By the way, Republicans in Congress may, in fact, have a hard time this year, though not because of getting rid of "Politics as Usual." If it occurs, it will be because so many Republicans can't bear to vote for either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the general election that they stay home. Or they're disgusted at their reps supporting Trump or Cruz, and so vote against them for that reason. Mind you, "Politics as Usual" has long been been a shibboleth of the Far right that gets twisted in its meaning, along with things like "Original Intent" and "Advocate Judges." As I've noted, as well, whenever Republican analysts try to justify their general position of how "The People" are upset at Washington and at "politics as usual," it misses the larger point that it isn't "The People" who are upset at politics, but conservatives who are. Democrats and liberals have their disagreements with politics, to be sure, but they aren't the one who follow the Grover Norquist credo of drowning government in a bathtub until it's too small to function, or pushing for term limits (better known as, "Dear God, save us from ourselves"), or try to filibuster to shut down government, or state publicly how compromising to get a fair settlement (which is considered the "art of politics") is anathema to their views. So, no, The People don't hate Politics as Usual. The Far Right does. And pretty much always does. Except when they're in power. And even then it's not a certainty they'll be happy about it... It was a quiet week back in March, 2014. From the archives, thoughts on the sin of sloth and the 1965 World Series, Carl Krebsbach considers robbing a bank and receives a mysterious phone call, and Darlene worries that her cat may have rabies.
I don't know who made this, but it is just too funny, whatever you political preference might be. Click the Play button.
On this "Not My Job" segment from the NPR comedy-quiz show Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me!, the guest contestant is country music star Trisha Yearwood, who plays along with host Peter Sagal, asking questions that have nothing to do with her profession (though have an odd, meaningless connection.)
|
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|