Code pink did, but the activist crowd in San Francisco Bay Area generally piped the fuck down. Started celebrating the end of the Bush Administrations policies, without actually noting that the Obama administration’s were remarkably similar. My point is not that no one maintained the critical progressive critique, regardless of who is in power, but that for many, dare I say most folks, its a case of “let’s compare our team at our best, to their team at their worst.” It’s a morally dishonest calculus. White supremacy, misogynist harrasment, institutional racism and patriarchy: these things weren’t invented on November 8th of this year.
Well said, Mindysan33. There’s this trope I hear trotted out in defense of the Dems’ pick/behavior when in the Oval Office: the president can’t just change the policy landscape. It’s part of the “lack of critique of Our Team” that I am railing against in my comments here: the trope is dishonest because it ignores precisely the GWBush, Reagan, and damn, Rooselveldt administrations doing precisely that: foundationally changing the direction of policy through the power of cabinet appointments and the Presidential Office.
Not really. The things we agree on I think are too little too late. Technically there’s an agreement, but I don’t think they go nearly far enough. They’re better than the Republicans for sure, but I would only vote Democratic if it’s a lesser of two evils situation, or if the Democratic candidate promised something beyond the same old same old.
TPP pisses me off, as do Standing Rock, mass deportations, NSA surveillance, drone warfare, the overall atmosphere of extreme hawkishness, the War On Drugs, and all other Wars On Abstract Concepts. When Democrats take conservative positions on these things, the left goes to sleep. Rah Rah Team Blue is doing these things, so we guess it’s okay. It’s not okay. True progressives need a voice in American politics, but either a strong third party or a more receptive Democratic Party are both way too much to hope for.
And instead of pushing the Dems forward,we have to fight for what we had.
The GOP votes for their beliefs, we want to believe we don’t have to.
1 Like
Since when is the Bay Area the only place where political activities happen? Yes, I’ll agree that partisans backed off the anti-war rhetoric, in part because Obama ran on an anti-war platform, which was not remotely implemented. The expected changes did not happen and the democratic part of the anti-war coalition lost steam. Meaning much of the mainstream part of the anti-war movement lost steam. the mass media is not going to focus on socialists, anarchists, and non-Democratic progressives otherwise, UNLESS they are causing huge disruptions or committing acts considered “criminally” disobedient.
Yes. I know. Historian here. I actually realize that. It’s getting a little tedious having to remind every one that I actually do possess a bit of historical knowledge.
I do think you’re ignoring my point, which is that an anti-war movement existed outside of the democratic party and shouldn’t be held responsible for what the the democratic operatives actually do. I’m not making any sort of defense of the democrats, who have historically been just as bellicose as the GOP.
You sort of assuming that all people on the left are democrats or that the only ones who matter are. That is also a trope often trotted out that is quite disingenuous. I’m not conflating the actors here, rather that acknowledging the complexity, and relative small size of the left in the US.
2 Likes
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not some Millennial living in my mom’s basement and not voting. I have not missed an election in twenty years. Any election, including the little local boring ones that aren’t powered by a big sexy two year horse race. I vote Democratic probably about half the time, because I’m being pragmatic. The other half the time I am voting my beliefs, which are beliefs the Democratic party considers extreme.
Besides, “you don’t like it, vote” is what people of privilege say. It’s what people say if they’re fine with the way things are, and they maybe have one candidate or party that they prefer over the other. Once you understand how fundamentally broken the system is, you understand that voting is not enough to fix it. Democracy is participatory. It takes a lot more than voting to make it work. It takes strong unwavering activism, not just a four year set and forget.
3 Likes
And it takes more than ranting about the Democratic Party and not voting, which is why we find ourselves with less rights than we ever had.
Destroy change.org and all manner of slactivism.
3 Likes
Preaching to the choir.
But I’m going to rant anyway. If you’re not ranting, you just don’t care.
1 Like
Thanks. Nice.
1 Like
You sort of assuming that all people on the left are democrats or that the only ones who matter are.
I am assuredly not making that assumption. And not accusing you of this. Apologies if it came off that way. It’s the partisan progressives I am chagrined with. (The Bay Area was where I was geographically during the 2008 election…)
Do you really consider it a vile act? I’ve never understood the whole flag thing. It’s just a bit of cloth, IMO. If you’d come out of a different birth canal, it’d be a different bit of cloth. And pretty much all of them have some reprehensible actions twisted into their weft & warp. Give me a recalcitrant barbecue and a cheap-ass Union Jack, and I’ll produce you some hot charcoal in short order. Volatile hydrocarbons is volatile hydrocarbons. Those people getting fucked over under other flags are our Comrades. I might be sad if someone burnt this one, but it’s pure tribalism if you look at it a certain way, I guess.
10 Likes
People are more concerned with interpreted symbols than the freedoms they represent.
3 Likes
It’s a symbol. A symbol can mean different things to different people and illicit different responses. Context can also play an important role. Everyone has something in their lives that have personal meaning and illicit reverence, disgust, and every emotion in between. Each response is valid for that person. I personally would never burn an American flag, but I support others to have that right.
It is tribalism to a degree, but it can go much, much deeper than that. You’re right, its just a bit of cloth, but a dead body is just a blob of organic matter. Yet we generally show a lot of reverence for them. If it is someone you knew and were close to, you may have a problem with someone mutilating said body. Or if you are a doctor harvesting an organ, you are saving a life. Or if it is the body of a despot dictator you may have mixed feelings about it - or even out right glee.
Your opinion of the flag is valid, and so is mine, and so is anyone else’s.
2 Likes
One is a pile of burnt material, the other is a snuffed out life. One matters more than the other, IMHO. I’d hope you’d care more about the dead person than the flag, no matter how you feel about flag burning.
7 Likes
Nah, it’s just that deep.
It’s a symbol, but people treat it like something much more. Almost like a horcrux
Sure - they are different. I was trying to illustrate that the other poster’s opinion that the flag was just a cloth was true to some people, but that for others it has deeper meaning, and neither view point is necessarily wrong. My body comparison wasn’t to say they were the same thing, but to take something that most people would assign SOME emotion and reverence for, and illustrate that even that isn’t always so.
2 Likes
The solutions that they suggest to their offense are most certainly harmful.
1 Like
Not everyone!
4 Likes
Uh - except not everyone who reveres the flag thinks you should lock people up for burning it.
The issue is isn’t what one thinks of a symbol, but rather their opinion if free speech covers desecrating certain symbols. I think it does, and so do many other people who are still attached to their flag.
I am aware of Sky Burials - they are still a form of reverence, even if it is foreign to western culture.
