We vote in this country. Someone up above, maybe you should listen to them, pointed out the surprising fact that the US has a democratic system of government. That means, in every election in which a citizen is part of the “qualified” electorate, that citizen gets to judge the particular proposals that are on the ballot on everyone else’s behalf. And everyone else who votes gets to do the same. If those proposals -usually binary decisions- require moral reasoning on my part, then yeah, I’m seeking to impose my moral sensibilities in relation to those issues.
If and when (happens in every election) more people vote another way on some of those ballot questions than I do, I don’t automatically change my judgement, and neither I suspect do you, and the collective judgement of the electorate does not validate the correctness of the result or invalidate your qualification to disagree. Nor mine.
Sorry, but I don’t think I can break it down into any simpler terms than that. Perhaps I’m not understanding the thrust of your question, but it seems like you’re trying to chastise people for hubris or arrogance or something for continuing to press the views which informed our votes. Have I got that wrong? What exactly is your point?
Sure, and how would you suggest we gain the support?
That’s what they want.
It’s what their pro-anorexia website says they need. Their news sources say that Broccoli killed those guys in Benghazi.
At some point, you are going to have to tell them that they are wrong. That what they want is harmful. How do you suggest we do that, without alienating them?
I am serious here. You are saying that we need to have a conversation with these people to figure out what they want.
I am saying that we do know what they want.
Some of those goals are mutual. We all want America to be great. We just disagree on exactly how to go about that.
Some of those goal are contradictory. I believe that immigration is good for our country. It always has been good for our country, and will always be a good thing for out country. We do not replace out population through breeding alone, we need immigration or our population and our economy will contract. Others believe that “America is for Americans!!!”
I am for universal healthcare, others have no problem with people dying of preventable issues that they could not afford to take care of.
So, you tell me. You are a conservative individual who saw Trump for what he was. How would you suggest we go about persuading your less observant ideological allies to eat their broccoli?
Nope, that is showing us a very flawed Trump supporter.
Does the lesson we have to get from it is to be quiet and not learn the obvious? The lesson to me is that we have to continue educating the people of why that is indeed a very foolish idea to follow, because this is not a government of god, but of the people and for the people. And the ideology there is like someone thinking that putting a bull in the china shop is a nice change to look for.
On reflection, though, as a tactic Pearl Clutching Provocateur does credit to the last word of his handle with that post: it seeks to derail a good examination of real issues with a slap against liberals and a bright battle line to draw; it’s a gunshot at the parley tent and a grenade during the cease fire.
I could do without this kind of help, for the record.
Pressing the view that the substantive policy decisions were wise is of course perfectly valid.
I’m suggesting that the tactic of insisting that no rational decision maker could possibly disagree with those policy choices, and that only iniquitous motives could possibly have been in play is both wrong and counterproductive.
To borrow an analogy from k9bfriender:
CLINTON: We need broccoli. It tastes bad but it contains vitamins and helps us.
TRUMP: We need fen-fen; it’s easy and then we won’t need broccoli!
THE COUNTRY: Fen-fen! Fen-fen! Fen-fen!
(afterward)
OPTION 1: Those fen-fen idiots are beneath contempt.
OPTION 2: How could we better explain the need for broccoli so that the fen-fen crowd is more amenable to it?
Okay, expand on option 2. That’s what I am asking. We’ve tried. They won’t listen.
I am not saying we’ve tried everything. I am saying we tried everything we could think of.
What are your suggestions?
You seem to feel that there is some magically way to treat these people that 'll convince them to come back to reality. I am saying that we don’t know what that is.
Also, in your Play, instead of “Country :Fen-Fen”, you should say “49% of Country:Fen-Fen”
Way ahead of you, although I think you did not check what I have posted before. I’m only pointing out what the focus the OP has.
It is indeed your turn to humbly recognize the supporters of Trump that made a difference in the close race we saw. And to realize that it is not only the liberals and progressives that have to deal with it, but also the reasonable Republicans that used that support to win.
Not doing so will indeed leave the bull in the china shop free to do more harm that just breaking a few dishes, some ropes are needed.
Well, how would you explain broccoli better? This wasn’t an election where the voters chose Romney’s promise to reduce taxes because they know best where to put their money (while Hillary promised to spend it for them). I generally wouldn’t have agreed with that policy, but at least it was a concrete plan.
It was an election where Trump didn’t tell anyone what he was going to do, except that it would be really good. And the voters chose that.
It wasn’t broccoli versus fen-fen. It was Viagra versus Extenze.
Got it, thanks. And I agree that’s a reasonable bit of counsel. With qualifications.
Suppose you (the generic “you” in either your hypothetical fenfen controversy, or in the real world election we just experienced) and your preferred candidate have tried throughout the campaign to respectfully validate and deal with the particular aspects of disagreement which are amenable to rational discussion, such as the relative nutritional values of fenfen versus broccoli, or how immigration policies work in relation to both practical economic impact and traditional national moral values, etc. Suppose also that you’ve rebuked the explicitly inunciated ‘iniquitous’ motives that are not amenable to rational discussion. Suppose then that the only responses to your effort have been no rebuttal on your policy proposals beyond “you’re a liar/crooked/corrupt” and “you’ve had thirty years/your entire adult life to fix things why are they still broken?” but reams of resistance to your rebuke of the iniquitous stuff.
Which issues would you then presume to be the actual points of contention which matter to that group of voters? Which issues were you even given the chance to contend with on any interlocutory basis?
I think it’s a myth that our population needs to be replaced and that our economy has to constantly expand. When I read this article, I thought it was wonderful how the declining human population allowed nature to thrive while the author wrings her hands about how Japan needs to allow more immigration. Maybe Trump voters are the true environmentalists.
As Japan’s population shrinks, bears and boars roam where schools and shrines once thrived
Here’s the thing I don’t get. Why did they need anyone to hate? I get the idea that people in dire straits want someone else to blame for their lot in life. We all do that to some extent.
But as I look at some of the Trump supporters I know, I think “You’re doing pretty well. Why are you so pissed off?” Take one young man I know. He and his wife have high school educations. Both of jobs that pay reasonably well for the work that they do. The man is an auto mechanic for a Ford dealership. Business is good. He is properly trained and equipped for his job and he is good at it. He has a couple of kids and they are healthy. All four of them have access to health care. What does he have to be angry about? His life is right where he wants it, as far as I know. Maybe he and/or his wife feel like they would be better off if they had affordable access to more education, but Trump sure isn’t the way to accomplish that. So what is their problem? I honestly don’t know.
I enjoyed your post. Thank you. Going to pick you up on the above:
It wasn’t apathy anymore than it was apathy with Brexit - a lot of people out there sat on their hands. Me included.
To wit, a lot of white working class non-voters these past elections did vote this time - and that might well be the tale of this election: In the past the choice was between two candidates who ignored the ever increasing problems of the poor - so the poor dropped out. The choice this time was between a friend of Wall Street and classical political class operative vs. an orange sociopath - so that group dropped out.
Fwiw, I do think Michael Moore did nail this a month out - see articles and youtube videos.
