This period of peacefulness is a recent phenomenon. One of the big pacifiers of democracy is that people accept the result because the majority voted for it. When you have a situation when 46% of the population is pushing an agenda that at least 48% of the population is strongly against. That group often starts to look for alternative ways to flex its majority power.
Especially when you realize that in large urban areas we are looking at 25% to 70% type splits in some cases.
46% and 48% of voters, not of the population. Neither voting block are a majority of the population.
I would argue this particular part of our current political climate is largely pushed by a minority, and is as much about them believing their own propaganda as it is about the fact that they lost the election. Keep in mind there was quite a bit of violence coming from the left long before the election was over (attacking people at Trump rallies, fire bombing a GOP headquarters). They genuinely believe the sky is falling, so to speak. It's unfortunate, because it makes it difficult for the rest of us to have a discussion about where we've actually gone wrong.
Is it really that surprising there is a fair amount of visible decent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states...
Where did you get that number from? Hillary Clinton got 65.8 Million votes. That represents 20.6% of the United states population.
>That group often starts to look for alternative ways to flex its majority power.
See above. They were the majority of voters but they defintely don't represent the majority of the US.
In Washington, DC Donald Trump won 4% of the vote.
Is it not surprising those people feel a bit underrepresented right now and might turn to alternative means of flexing their massive majority in the areas they specifically live?
There is no proof of that. "If this person who decided not to vote were a person who decided to vote then they would vote in a similar manner to the other people who decided to vote" is stupid reasoning because that person decided not to vote.
>In Washington, DC Donald Trump won 4% of the vote.
I am shocked, shocked! A city filled with people who's lives revolve around a big federal government voted for the most establishment candidate in history.
>their massive majority in the areas they specifically live
In D.C., Hillary got 282k votes. The population is 659k. That's not even half of the population. Cool it with the 'massive majority' crap.
The US operates on an election system reflecting the house and senate. This should be basic knowledge for most American citizens. Throwing fits because it didn't go your way is pretty childish since it's exactly how the electoral college works.
DC had a very small inaugural turnout and very large protest the day after. I was trying to give some perspective.
I believe it was about 90% in Chicago. San Fransisco was over 90%. New York City had a large margin. We are talking approximately 45 of the 50 largest cities in the country did not vote for Donald Trump.
I took high school civics. I know how the rules work. Im just telling you that civil unrest usually happens when people feel like the rules are unjust and they have little or no power to change it through the democratic process. So Im simply trying to shed some light on it to people who may not understand why people might feel that way.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://...
You would seriously have to be blind to not realize the the current path of policies is simply incorrect policies that will lead to harm. For example instead of paying for a wall, Mexico will just pay for better ports as Donald Trump and the fools that voted for him seem to forget they have coastal shipping access to both Europe and Asia. Not to mention all of South and Central America.
That's the problem. Replacing social security with private retirement funds is a debate about which is better. With pluses and minuses on both sides. And guess what? The combination of 401k's IRAs and Social Security kind of does that. See how that works? Its actually saner than people want to believe. Same with things like how health care is run. Its not like we have some kind of socialist utopian system. Its a compromise. Or taxation with our 15% cap gains. Both sides have different opinions but both are at least based in some kind of functional reality where they might actually work. And the reality is that they are both a little bit right so in the end we typically wind up someone in the middle despite how it looks.
Stupid crap like building a wall is just plain incorrect policy. I mean if you even asked experts in border security, they would not suggest just building a giant wall. Its like what a 7 year old would suggest. What you would actually have is very similar to what we currently have. Its pretty easy to see a group of people running across the open desert and intercept them with the technology we currently have.
That is the big difference between what is happening now and what is typical in US politics.
I share your discomfort with this in so far as we shouldn't normalize violence in daily life.
Evoking the sort of deep tribal behavior Mr. Spencer is engaging in, instinctively often leads to tribal responses (including violence). Which is unfortunate. I don't think Richard Spencer "deserves" to be punched, and I don't see punching as a noble act. Violence is only justifiable as a defense against violence, in my opinion. I actually think aggressor violence plays right into the hands of the "help we're being oppressed!" narrative, that seems to be a lot of the "drive" behind white supremacism.
I cannot see Mr. Spencer's philosophy to be anything but illogical and immoral to the rational mind. I therefore don't have any real good way to combat his (and other) tribalism, other than continuing to emphasize rational thought. Such is a much more difficult job in this current climate, when the current leader of the US got there half by exploiting tribal politics. But what else will work? I can't see the fisticuffs approach leading to anything other than deepening division.
To be fair, he says that it's an "antiquated term" and that it's "unfortunately tarnished" and that he prefers to be associated with ethno-nationalism... So it may be a distinction without a difference.
Interpersonally, I think we need to keep pushing the belief that there is more than unites us than divides us. At the core of it, we all really want the same sort of stuff (safety, purpose, love, fun, etc.) The more we allow ourselves to be divided (by media, by political rhetoric, by rumor and gossip, by hate) the less likely we will be able to hold those with real power and influence to task - the less we will be able to shape policy and investment in such a way that everyone in our communities benefit.
Big picture, we need to create communities in which all people - including disaffected bigots - can feel that they are thriving (rather than merely surviving). If we do that then these groups, and this repressible rhetoric, will find less support and fewer fertile minds to pollute.
That's my belief anyway.
OH wait, no it's the opposite, the only way to defeat them is on their own terms.
You keep on appeasing them hoping it will work this time though.
You punch someone, you are certainly not encouraging them to not hate you. You are not making your point that you are something not deserving of hate. If anything you are proving it and cauterizing their hatred for you in the process.
It achieves nothing positive save very brief catharsis.
This is especially disturbing because the epithets "nazi" and "fascist" have increasingly become synonymous with "somebody I really don't agree with", rather than a description of somebody who admires the tenets of National Socialism.
That isn't progressive; it's Jacobin.