-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
The reasons cited by the marchers varied with no single theme...
Certainly, the lack of coherence has something to do with the way in which the group outlines nearly twenty “values and principles.” Narrowness and specificity are a must if a protest movement is going to maintain the public’s interest for any length of time. I remember when the Tea Party movement was criticized for its generalized anger. Eventually, its leading figures were compelled to distill the movement’s sentiments into three parts: limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a stricter interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Yet even then, the movement needed something more concrete to serve as an effigy through which the public could understand the significance of the principles. Enter “Obamacare.” But I suspect the lack of coherence also has something to do with the moral impalpability of many of the protestors’ grievances—especially in the light of conditions in advanced Western societies. The global approach of the Women’s March forces them to paint with the broadest of brushes, such that unsatisfying “hook-ups” in the U.S. are conflated with the common, brutal gangrapes of preteen girls in India. Most sensible people whose emotions are well ordered cannot stimulate within themselves a genuine moral outrage capable of being applied equally to the two cases. If we refer to both as “sexual misconduct,” we immediately sense the injustice this sterile term does to the rape of a child; yet we also know it would be absurd if not unjust to categorize an embarrassing one-night stand as “sexual assault.” In addition, terms like “economic justice” and “environmental justice” may hold some sort of significance for those who attended thousand-dollar humanities classes at elite colleges, but most people among the masses have no idea what they mean. (Even educated people struggle to understand what is meant by something like “environmental justice.”) But perhaps nothing represents the group’s detachment from ordinary life more than its (1) tacit exclusion of pro-life women and (2) inclusion of “transwomen.” The former indicates a startling lack of real intimacy with those mothers whose love for their children is so powerful that it transcends their own experiences to become a universal posture concerning the sacred responsibility of motherhood generally—a feeling that is so far from being purely religious that we ought to call it natural. The latter not only adds to the insult of the former, but, in the minds of many women who consider themselves feminists, imposes an intolerable indignity on what they consider to be the true sisterhood: namely, real women seeking solidarity with real women. At any rate, if history is any prediction of the future, the Women’s March, if it is to secure any practical achievement, will first have to whittle its grievances down to one or two points, and, second, it will have to articulate points whose substance can in some way connect with the experiences or sentiments of the mass of ordinary people.
-
-
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Chet Ruminski Wrote:Schmidt Wrote:Chet -- You are a broken record. I've asked you before, take a look at the Democratic Party Platform and tell me what you do not like in it. What is missing, what would YOU add that is not addressed? 2016 Democratic Party Platform The platform is all softly worded ambiguous generalizations. The platform has to demand repeal of the CFMA, Commodities Futures Modernization Act, it has to demand removal of the Grahm Leach Bliley Act, it has to demand recriminalization of the gambling that was made legal after 2001, it has to demand criminalization of permitted front running where certain "sophisticated investor's" super computers are allowed to look at placed orders and execute transactions based on that information that buys , and then sells making profits in micro seconds, it has to demand trades be held for a certain time before selling. In a word it has to demand penalties for trades that take money away from jobs producing investments and reward jobs producing investments. Wow you sure are full of "demands". Is that how you view the Democratic Party's role...demand, demand, demand? And if they were to get Republicans to go along with their "demands" would there be no more poor people? It has to demand immediate access to care and medicine for people set to die because they cant afford care or medicine. It has to proclaim an interest in low income people by demanding laws that will accelerate the use of money. They can demand all they want, but if you don't have the votes in Congress it won't happen. Remember it was a whole bunch of poor people that helped elect Donald Trump. And they are standing by their man big time. The Democratic Party has to human rights and the lower classes as the focus of the party. Schumer had no problem pledging 20 billion for a wall. He needs to pledge money for mobilizing the economy. Schumer was trading money to build the wall for an agreement to save the DACA recipients from deportation. You hate that compromise? Should he not have done it and just "demanded" that DACA be extended. And pledging money to stabilize the economy? Pledges don't work unless you have the votes. Damn that Schumer -- he should do more pledging and demanding than compromising. Not handouts but legislation to put money back to work. Just what legislation do you have in mind that would "put money back to work". And how would it pass Congress? The financial sector is doing with money exactly the same as damming rivers preventing water reaching all the people living down stream. The Democratic Party has to focus on improving money access for the lower classes. That will make the economy better for everybody. You don't think that the Democratic Party is heavy on legislation that helps the poor and middle class? Look at the laws we have on the books initiated by Democrats, most recently by Clinton and Obama. You thumb your nose at it because the country still has poor people. It seems you are on a crusade to make sure there is not one poor person in America. The Democrats have proposals in their platform to help poor people, but short of passing a wealth tax and redistributing all the wealth in the country, there will always be poor people. That and the fact that many poor people vote for Republicans.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Lucas Wrote:The reasons cited by the marchers varied with no single theme...
Certainly, the lack of coherence has something to do with the way in which the group outlines nearly twenty “values and principles.” Narrowness and specificity are a must if a protest movement is going to maintain the public’s interest for any length of time. I remember when the Tea Party movement was criticized for its generalized anger. Eventually, its leading figures were compelled to distill the movement’s sentiments into three parts: limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a stricter interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Yet even then, the movement needed something more concrete to serve as an effigy through which the public could understand the significance of the principles. Enter “Obamacare.” Yes, the Democrats lack a cohesive message, unlike Trump whose promises to select Supreme Court judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade appeals to the Christian evangelicals in a big way. And his promise to build a "big beautiful wall" to keep out all the Mexicans...you know the rapists, murderers, drug dealers and terrorists. It's a simple message grounded in fear that resonated with certain segments of the American public. And for the military vote, he promised to rebuild the military to be bigger and better than ever before. Oh and he also said, "why can't we use nuclear weapons?" The gun owners and the NRA loved his message on guns. His message on crime? "Lock her up." That resonated well. All simple messages designed to appeal to the ignorant and one-issue voters. But I suspect the lack of coherence also has something to do with the moral impalpability of many of the protestors’ grievances—especially in the light of conditions in advanced Western societies. The global approach of the Women’s March forces them to paint with the broadest of brushes, such that unsatisfying “hook-ups” in the U.S. are conflated with the common, brutal gangrapes of preteen girls in India. Most sensible people whose emotions are well ordered cannot stimulate within themselves a genuine moral outrage capable of being applied equally to the two cases. If we refer to both as “sexual misconduct,” we immediately sense the injustice this sterile term does to the rape of a child; yet we also know it would be absurd if not unjust to categorize an embarrassing one-night stand as “sexual assault.”
Yeah, Trump had a more simple message that endeared him to another segment of the voting public: “You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.” -- Donald Trump. Hillary just couldn't compete with that or even use it against him. In addition, terms like “economic justice” and “environmental justice” may hold some sort of significance for those who attended thousand-dollar humanities classes at elite colleges, but most people among the masses have no idea what they mean. (Even educated people struggle to understand what is meant by something like “environmental justice.”)
Yeah talking "economic justice" to poor people just doesn't resonate. I agree. That's why they put their trust in Trump who said "believe me!" and they did. But perhaps nothing represents the group’s detachment from ordinary life more than its (1) tacit exclusion of pro-life women and (2) inclusion of “transwomen.” The former indicates a startling lack of real intimacy with those mothers whose love for their children is so powerful that it transcends their own experiences to become a universal posture concerning the sacred responsibility of motherhood generally—a feeling that is so far from being purely religious that we ought to call it natural. The latter not only adds to the insult of the former, but, in the minds of many women who consider themselves feminists, imposes an intolerable indignity on what they consider to be the true sisterhood: namely, real women seeking solidarity with real women.
I wonder how many of those pro-life women in public have privately had abortions. The statistics say they had. And for transgender people...did they say God created them or the devil? They must believe the devil hey. At any rate, if history is any prediction of the future, the Women’s March, if it is to secure any practical achievement, will first have to whittle its grievances down to one or two points, and, second, it will have to articulate points whose substance can in some way connect with the experiences or sentiments of the mass of ordinary people.
Yes just like Trump's talking points mentioned above. Tell them what they want to hear and never apologize for lying. It's also funny how "end ObamaCare" has suddenly brought people out to rethink ObamaCare. Do they remember the status quo before ObamaCare?
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:Lucas Wrote:The reasons cited by the marchers varied with no single theme...
Certainly, the lack of coherence has something to do with the way in which the group outlines nearly twenty “values and principles.” Narrowness and specificity are a must if a protest movement is going to maintain the public’s interest for any length of time. I remember when the Tea Party movement was criticized for its generalized anger. Eventually, its leading figures were compelled to distill the movement’s sentiments into three parts: limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a stricter interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Yet even then, the movement needed something more concrete to serve as an effigy through which the public could understand the significance of the principles. Enter “Obamacare.” Yes, the Democrats lack a cohesive message, unlike Trump whose promises to select Supreme Court judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade appeals to the Christian evangelicals in a big way. And his promise to build a "big beautiful wall" to keep out all the Mexicans...you know the rapists, murderers, drug dealers and terrorists. It's a simple message grounded in fear that resonated with certain segments of the American public. And for the military vote, he promised to rebuild the military to be bigger and better than ever before. Oh and he also said, "why can't we use nuclear weapons?" The gun owners and the NRA loved his message on guns. His message on crime? "Lock her up." That resonated well. All simple messages designed to appeal to the ignorant and one-issue voters. But I suspect the lack of coherence also has something to do with the moral impalpability of many of the protestors’ grievances—especially in the light of conditions in advanced Western societies. The global approach of the Women’s March forces them to paint with the broadest of brushes, such that unsatisfying “hook-ups” in the U.S. are conflated with the common, brutal gangrapes of preteen girls in India. Most sensible people whose emotions are well ordered cannot stimulate within themselves a genuine moral outrage capable of being applied equally to the two cases. If we refer to both as “sexual misconduct,” we immediately sense the injustice this sterile term does to the rape of a child; yet we also know it would be absurd if not unjust to categorize an embarrassing one-night stand as “sexual assault.”
Yeah, Trump had a more simple message that endeared him to another segment of the voting public: “You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.” -- Donald Trump. Hillary just couldn't compete with that or even use it against him. In addition, terms like “economic justice” and “environmental justice” may hold some sort of significance for those who attended thousand-dollar humanities classes at elite colleges, but most people among the masses have no idea what they mean. (Even educated people struggle to understand what is meant by something like “environmental justice.”)
Yeah talking "economic justice" to poor people just doesn't resonate. I agree. That's why they put their trust in Trump who said "believe me!" and they did. But perhaps nothing represents the group’s detachment from ordinary life more than its (1) tacit exclusion of pro-life women and (2) inclusion of “transwomen.” The former indicates a startling lack of real intimacy with those mothers whose love for their children is so powerful that it transcends their own experiences to become a universal posture concerning the sacred responsibility of motherhood generally—a feeling that is so far from being purely religious that we ought to call it natural. The latter not only adds to the insult of the former, but, in the minds of many women who consider themselves feminists, imposes an intolerable indignity on what they consider to be the true sisterhood: namely, real women seeking solidarity with real women.
I wonder how many of those pro-life women in public have privately had abortions. The statistics say they had. And for transgender people...did they say God created them or the devil? They must believe the devil hey. At any rate, if history is any prediction of the future, the Women’s March, if it is to secure any practical achievement, will first have to whittle its grievances down to one or two points, and, second, it will have to articulate points whose substance can in some way connect with the experiences or sentiments of the mass of ordinary people.
Yes just like Trump's talking points mentioned above. Tell them what they want to hear and never apologize for lying. It's also funny how "end ObamaCare" has suddenly brought people out to rethink ObamaCare. Do they remember the status quo before ObamaCare? Schmidt, what the hell is going on? This guy should have been banned from the site; why did that not happen yet. We don't need GOP trolls. Look at what they've done to this country. You can't change them anyway they are "brain dead".
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt, Many of your examples of rhetoric focus on Trump. Putting aside some obvious quibbles I have about your framing, I agree with the general point you are making: that Trump is clever at appealing to public sentiment. But the challenge faced by the Women’s March is largely a collective action problem. Getting the messaging right (i.e., making it clear, interesting, and persuasive) is very difficult when one’s voice is comprised of thousands of individuals. The reason interest groups fare better than protest movements is because they have a leadership structure that imposes a narrow objective on the group. For instance, it is probably safe to assume that many N.R.A. members are also strong proponents of traditional marriage; but the organization would stretch itself too thin if it attempted to rally for this and other non-gun-related issues. Better to leave traditional marriage arguments to Focus on the Family or some other such group. There is a kind of political efficiency that results from applying the division of labor to group-led issue advocacy. Note: You mentioned the Democratic Party at the beginning of your reply. I did not have political parties in mind when I wrote my OP; however, it is worth observing that political parties are like the plasma of collective action groups. Protest movements are like gas—full of agitation and often hot air. I will always remember a quote the New York Times obtained when it sent its reporters into the Occupy Wall Street fray. One activist was recorded as hollering, “It’s about taking down systems. It doesn’t matter what you’re protesting. Just protest!” This mentality is like the primordial germ inherent to all protest movements, regardless of partisan ideology. Interest groups, on the other hand, are much more solid. Some of them, like the A.A.R.P., are practically American institutions. But political parties fluctuate over time as they undergo internal realignments. Frankly, in terms of stability, the Republicans are not much better off—if at all—than the Democrats. The G.O.P. is still trying to figure out whether its blue-blood or populist elements will the more controlling faction. As for the Democrats, not only did the 2016 election scrambled their circuits quite a bit, but they overplayed their hand in various matters of social policy. So, both parties are currently searching for an identity.
|