I’m not interested in waiting and being reactive and then criticizing. I would rather not import voters who are going to create more young voters in their mold who are against my interests. (Which is why I don’t really blame Republicans for being unhappy about Hispanic immigration, for the same reason I’m tickled pink about it.)
What exactly do the Democrats and Republicans stand for? And why is it that the Democratic Party has moved rightward? Hillary Clinton that different from a 1980 Republican?
You confuse “defending Islam” with “defending the right to believe in Islam”.
Islam is just as backwards and medieval as any other ancient religion, and it can be used to defend abhorrent beliefs. But in America, we believe in freedom of thought, and freedom of religion, and that means respecting that people have the right to believe things we find abhorrent.
I might think that people who misgender Caitlyn Jenner are ignorant or hateful or evil, but I’m not going to insist that we should therefore round them all up and send them to reeducation camps, or pass legislation forbidding them from using the wrong gender pronoun. Likewise for someone who practices a religion I don’t agree with.
I’m not exactly pleased to find myself in agreement with Bill Maher. (;)) But in this case I am.
From my perspective it’s Anglo-American liberalism that isn’t exactly good. It accomplishes some good things, but it seems they usually only get accomplished about halfway and are often accompanied by ten other things that get made much worse.
Still, I have to admit that I’m just conservative by nature. My instincts and the way I look at things have been in line with conservative thought since I was young enough to begin to form opinions about them. I’m more pro-business than pro-worker, more pro-democracy than pro-socialist or pro-communist, and in my younger days more suit and tie than bell-bottoms and tie-dies. I think to a large degree most people are just hard-wired to gravitate toward certain ways of looking at things.
Still I’m aware that neither side is always right nor always wrong. And often the things they argue about any given issue are correct even though they’re on opposite side of the fence. The benefits to the impoverished that liberals claim through government benefits for example are real, but so are the downsides of entrapment and dependence that conservatives raise. And that’s just one example of many.
The problem on this board is that the merest hint of conservative thought or opinion is set upon instantly and viciously with the underlying assumption that nothing liberal is deserving of question and nothing conservative worthy of merit.
This is one case where I just gotta agree with the more liberal-minded here. Some issues you can triangulate on. Others are either-or. This one is either-or, black and white, no gray area. It is either the right thing to do, despite the risks, or the wrong thing to do, we need to prioritize Americans first.
Politically, triangulation on issues like these is worse than taking the wrong stand. Voters can respect a strong moral stand even when they disagree: “Bully for you, you’re a great person, but I just can’t do it.” But when you split the baby on an issue like this, voters just think, “Cowards. They morally upbraid me for wanting to protect my family, but think they are virtuous for wanting to protect their political careers.”
I’d argue that by accepting only minimal numbers of refugees, Obama has already attempted to triangulate and thus lost any authority his very public, angry scolding might have.
She’s certainly much more progressive than Ronald Reagan. But it’s true that there were more moderate Republicans like John Anderson around at that time. Were they pushing for paid family leave? For increasing the minimum wage? Debt-free college? I kinda doubt it.
If that’s all so much more important then you may as well be safe and just agree to no immigration, especially given the electorate’s xenophobia.
If it’s true that white people don’t like welfare and government programs partly because they don’t like their money going to “the wrong kinds of people” then bringing in hundreds of thousands of Syrians won’t help on that front either. It’ll be interesting to see if Europe dismantles their welfare states as they become more and more ethnically diverse and right wing parties become more popular.
I know your tongue is probably at least partially in cheek, but I just want to be crystal clear that there is no way I would ever support any restriction of Latino immigration. There is no net political upside to that.
maybe this is Obama’s plan to replace the working class white voters and Jewish voters who have been leaving the party since he took office.
Here’s another gem that I believe is part of this refugee story: The left has an Islam problem: If liberals won't come to terms with religious extremism, the xenophobic right will carry the day | Salon.com
Slacker:
Again, would the complete prevention of migration have prevented the attack in France?
The answer is clearly no. The major planner (I hate that the media calls that “the mastermind” as if this requires or reflects some genius) came from elsewhere within the EU, most of the perps were EU citizens.
We need to try to make driving as safe of a process as reasonably possible but we cannot guarantee that there will be no drunks running red lights on the road. Rationally we accept the quite significant risk to each of us associated with the over 200 deaths every week caused by drunks on the road.
Yes, responding to the French terror attack by making sure your door is locked or driving rather than taking the train are irrational emotional responses. They are understandable irrational emotional responses.
Pandering to those responses, stoking the flames of those irrational fears, by promoting actions that not only cause major human suffering to many others, but in a very direct way harm our interests, our own safety, and serve the interests and goals of the terrorists, putatively in the interests of political advantages, is both stupid and disgusting.
Derek, it helps if you do more than just drop links.
The point is readily accepted that immediately after 911 most voters, including Democratic ones, endorsed strong and aggressive (and ultimately stupid and counter-productive) responses. Bush enjoyed an over 86% approval rating soon after stoking those fears, and was at 75% when he announced “Mission accomplished.” for the Iraq War. (He at least did that without pandering to the perception that the heart of the hydra is Islam and that the problem is Muslims.)
And many do now.
Some who jumped into the pitchfork and torch carrying mob last time came to regret it. Some have learned that leadership is more than pointing yourself to where the mob is rampaging in the moment.
That the clown car wants to position itself honking the mob along with “Be afraid! Be very afraid!” does not surprise.
That some otherwise rational people, in the immediate aftermath of a terror attack, become, as intended, terrorized, and respond irrationally, and endorse irrational responses … expected.
The otherwise rational people … who I do believe are the majority in this country, even if only a slim one … will come to their senses in a month or so if leadership leads with any wisdom at all.
Imagined and ultimately ephemeral political expediency does not justify idiocy and serious harms, harms to both humanitarian needs and to our own interests. It does not justify amorality.
That Salon op-ed is shockingly good.
DSeid, do you express the same actuarial equanimity after mass shootings, or do you rage against the NRA? Just curious.
I wish your fellow travelers thought more like this. Honestly, the best chance we have for political compromise is to find issues where each side can be convinced to support the right approach for their own reasons.
To say that he coddles Muslims, or protects radical Islam from criticism, or anything like that has been consistently bullshit. Just because he chooses not to talk like Donald Trump doesn’t mean that he hasn’t consistently opposed violent extremism, including radical Islam.
He doesn’t even use the word “jihadism” and never has. Nor does he use the word “Islamism/Islamist” which even Hillary also has. While I do wish they’d both use “Islamic terrorism” or some variation of it, fact is Obama is what Salon described.
And Lord knows we can’t defeat the enemy unless we recite the right Magic Words to describe them, right?