Comment by ihsw2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ihsw2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The left has needed a scapegoat since election night.

It has ranged from:

* Bernie Sanders (second pick for Democrat candidate)

* James Comey (former FBI Director)

* Huma Abedin (deputy chief of staff for Clinton Campaign)

* Russian hackers

* Vladimir Putin (President of Russia)

* Wikileaks (ie: more Russian hackers)

* the Benghazi Committee

* the "Basket of Deplorables" (ie: white America)

* white women (ie: 53% of white women voted for Trump)

* white men (ie: universally reviled by progressive supremacists everywhere)

It seems the Democratic Party will never recover as it is more fragmented than ever, with ailing Nancy Pelosi and out-of-touch NYC urbanite Chuck Schumer being the only notable Democrats as of late. All they can do is respond with righteous indignation rather than form a coherent party platform, especially given extremists of all flavors left-of-center being unable to form anything beyond a rickety coalition under shredded banner of "Democrat."

Self-reflection and soul-searching is totally beyond the left's comprehension.

Clinton was just an awful candidate and the shrieking of the liberal media -- from WaPo to CNN to has-been celebrities -- was (and continues to be) tasteless. Whether Clinton's campaign was ever more than "shame on everybody that won't vote for me, also it's a woman's turn now" is irrelevant because that was the only message that got out there.

I would love to see a candidate campaign on, specifically, "tolerance, shared responsibility, and mutual respect." The Democratic Party has truly abandoned tolerance, shared responsibility, and mutual respect, and returning to it would go a long way to bridging the ever-widening gap between Democrats and Republicans.

Great comment!

In addition to "tolerance, shared responsibility and mutual respect" it would be awesome to see a candidate with a platform that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal (i.e. the middle) which is what I think most Americans have wanted for decades.

Unfortunately, wedge politics and the two party system has driven the electorate to a game of political ping pong for those same decades in a single file march toward an ever increasing indebted, imperialistic, totalitarian police state

It's really actually quite difficult to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

You can be fiscally conservative and socially neutral maybe or socially laissez faire but not socially progressive or socially liberal.

If you want social liberalism, money has to be spent on programs that enable social progress or has to be spent on enforcement of socially liberal laws and regulations, (history has shown it won't happen otherwise). This is the opposite of what we know fiscal conservatism to be in America.

I know this sounds nitpickish, but the closest you can get is to say something like I want liberal policies as cheaply as possible and unfortunately for those who want to claim the middle with that, that's essentially the policy of liberalism and the left. That's what liberals want too...

What socially liberal, fiscally conservative generally means is I don't care what you do but I don't wanna pay for it and that's not the middle, that's libertarian.

Sorry for the rant but I'm generally tired of seeing a claim for the middle being used as a substitute for I want socially liberal policies but I don't want to feel bad about not fully supporting them because I don't wanna give up any money...

This probably isn't you of course, but it sure is a lot of people who claim to be "socially liberal, fiscally conservative"

Your definition of socially liberal is quite different from most people’s.. every time I see this it just seems like arguing with yourself for the sake of arguing.

I don't buy that social liberalism and expensive welfare programs go hand in hand. It is entirely within the realm of possibility to broach society with progressivism sans nanny state sans righteous indignation.

While libertarian ideology may be akin to some brand of utilitarian nihilism, we don't have to lower ourselves to that level of impersonal cold distance. Government need not be devoid of personality for us to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

We don't need to give way to expensive social welfare programs in order to have a clean conscience.

This is a very reasonable comment.

The primary difference between being socially liberal and socially conservative is the idea of the government’s role in our lives (and more generally, collectivism vs. individualism). The socially liberal concepts of universal health care, social security, welfare, public schools and universities, environmental regulations and others all require funding in the form of taxation and then spending in form of government programs.

This type of taxation and the growth of government spending goes against the basic principles of fiscal conservatism.

Until robot-powered post-scarcity and UI changes the fundamental structure of society and government, social liberalism and fiscal conservatism is a paradox.

Yeah, by socially liberal I meant small government that stays out of my bedroom and wallet. I can see how the term can mean something else to others.

When I think of liberal, I think of people like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin. I realize my US-bias is showing, but when the country was founded the idea of a country where liberty was to be maximized was inconceivable. Currently, the people called conservatives are trying to conserve the liberal ideas of the late 18th century.

According to Wikipedia,

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom."

I think universal health care is fundamentally incompatible with both civil liberties and economic freedom.

What some consider progress, like more centralized power from elites that live X,000s miles away, others consider a regression. The biggest problem with monarchies was not their bloodline-based successions or validation by the Pope, it was their highly-centralized power.

This election proved that socially liberal fiscally conservative is far less appealing to most libertarians seem to think. Trump went back to “deficits don’t matter” - not just in office like Bush and Reagan and co but on the campaign trail!

> the "Basket of Deplorables" (ie: white America)

That phrase didn't refer to "white America"-- it referred to white supremacists.

The problem was that Clinton rankly speculated that half of Trump's supporters were made up of white supremacists, in a futile effort to divide his base. And later in that same paragraph she said this:

"He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million."

Even if Clinton's statistics were even close to correct, it was a counterproductive statement. Trump voters who were white supremacists were energized by being attacked directly by Clinton. Trump voters who were not white supremacists were energized by the likelihood that Clinton was exaggerating the numbers to spread FUD and misdirect from her own historically low polling numbers as a presidential candidate. And Bernie supporters who were on the fence wondered why Clinton was name-calling Trump supporters when a large part of Bernie's appeal had been the exact opposite kind of behavior-- instead employing care and caution when referring to the grievances of Trump supporters-- as a primary candidate.

But more importantly, presidential candidates don't just improvise new phrases like that in the middle of speeches. Has there been anything written about who authored that phrase for Clinton and why they did it?

Edit: clarification

And any white man who voted for Trump was labeled a white supremacist and went in the basket. Just like any vocal supporter is labeled a Nazi. It's a joke.

> That phrase didn't refer to "white America"-- it referred to white supremacists.

Actually, it was much broader than "white supremacists". Here's the quote:

They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it.

If someone is critical of arbitrary elevation of black and latino people above white people, are they racist?

If someone is critical of arbitrary elevation of women above men, are they racist?

If someone is critical of unrestricted immigration, are they xenophobic?

If someone is critical of violent political expression steeped in Islamic ideology, are they Islamophobic?

---

Let me be clear, I am by no means advocating that one particular race is superior over another and I wholeheartedly reject discrimination and prejudice based on race or ethnicity.

Furthermore, I am all for protecting women from sexual violence and ensuring women have the right to vote, right to hold public office, right have equal rights in family law, and so many other rights and freedoms that women (and men!) have fought for.

Additionally, I am all for legal immigration where (for example) high-value applicants are expedited.

And finally, I have absolutely no dislike or fear of Islamic cultures and peoples, nor do I regard Islam as a dangerous political force.

The "left" being the centre right Democratic party?

Understand "left" as a political marketing strategy rather than a political ideology, and referring to the Democrats as left wing will make sense to you again.

Wow, I guess both parties do have something in common afterall: they're both political marketing machines and less about political idealogy.

This is very complicated. In my country we do have a progressive/popular left wing and a liberal/conservative right wing, but people following the discussion in the US thinks the liberal right are left wing. It makes our political discussion go very low.

Well that's precisely it. The political spectrum is quite well defined. One doesn't become left in the absence of an actual left. It's not a wholly relative measurement. Blue doesn't become green in the absence of green.

I don't think the political spectrum is in any way well defined - you can come up with left- or right-sounding justifications for pretty much any specific policy you care to, and if you look back across the decades or to different countries, you can make left or right mean anything you want. The only consistency is that the left pretends to care about the poor, while the right pretends to be competent.

>out-of-touch NYC urbanite Chuck Schumer

NYC urbanite? Hmm that sounds like another politician I know.

> awful candidate

An awful candidate wouldn’t win the PV

> shrieking of the liberal media

You’re aware that the National Review had a cover story dedicated to stopping Trump right? Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, Goerge Will and David Brooks all opposed him through today.

> tolerance, shared responsibility, and mutual respect

That sounds a lot like “Stronger Together”, the slogan of the defeated candidate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com