Third way delusions

Trakar

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
12,637
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/on-safari-in-trumps-america/543288/

Interesting article regarding what passes for research among some hard-core ideologues.
picture.php

Not to diminish the important and revealing information throughout the rest of the investigative reporting by this Atlantic author, which I encourage all those on the Left and Right to read and include in their calculations for 2018 and 2020, but it is amazing how little weight accurate facts are given when it comes to changing pre-existing biases and how easy it is to deny reality as it pertains to the analysis of evidence and "open-mindedness."
 
tl;dr - ideology-driven organization concludes the problem is not enough of their ideology, small-town americans are myopically tribal, but above all they just want to be listened to.
 
While I admit to being a little amused at some of these excursions to deepest, reddest America, I do have to have a little sympathy for those who at least seem to be listening to the other side, not just writing them off. I am struck by the dramatic difference between this article and a one written by the former head honcho at NPR.

This may seem like an unusual admission from someone who once ran NPR, but it is borne of recent experience. Spurred by a fear that red and blue America were drifting irrevocably apart, I decided to venture out from my overwhelmingly Democratic neighborhood and engage Republicans where they live, work and pray. For an entire year, I embedded myself with the other side, standing in pit row at a NASCAR race, hanging out at Tea Party meetings and sitting in on Steve Bannon’s radio show. I found an America far different from the one depicted in the press and imagined by presidents (“cling to guns or religion”) and presidential candidates (“basket of deplorables”) alike.

I spent many Sundays in evangelical churches and hung out with 15,000 evangelical youth at the Urbana conference. I wasn’t sure what to expect among thousands of college-age evangelicals, but I certainly didn’t expect the intense discussion of racial equity and refugee issues — how to help them, not how to keep them out — but that is what I got.

The writer from the Atlantic (it's amusing that the OP refers to him as an investigative reporter) apparently found quite the opposite; he found that his prejudices about flyover country were true. Hence, appealing to the basket of deplorables is out, and Democrats should forget moderation and focus on a shift leftward instead.

In short, the writer concludes that the problem is not enough of his ideology.
 
As a person with a graduate degree in political science, I am not at all surprised that politics is so unyielding to science.
 
In my view, the problem that the US is facing is almost entirely a racial one. It's the view of many poor whites that they are standing in a line to the American Dream, with blacks and brown people cutting in front of them (Note, not my analogy, but one I heard). You guys never finished your civil war.
 
...The writer from the Atlantic (it's amusing that the OP refers to him as an investigative reporter) apparently found quite the opposite;...

Try reading for comprehension. What I said:
...Not to diminish the important and revealing information throughout the rest of the investigative reporting by this Atlantic author,...
clearly states that I am calling the article written by the Atlantic journalist (Molly Ball), a piece of investigative reporting. One does not need to have a compelling background primarily as a Investigative Reporter, in order to produce a compelling piece of investigative reporting. This is a consequential difference between what I stated and how you "read" my statement that seems to have rather casually escaped your understanding and comprehension.

Investigative Reporting -

"...is journalism resulting from a reporter’s own initiative that reveals to the public important information once hidden or unknown..." - http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0099.xml

"...Investigative reporting, however, does not just report the information that has been given out by others – whether it is government, political parties, companies or advocacy groups. It is reporting that relies on the journalist’s own enterprise and initiative. Investigative reporting means journalists go beyond what they have seen and what has been said to unearth more facts and to provide something new and previously unknown..." - http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects...y/files/sunsentinel/coronel_chapter_10_16.pdf
 
As a person with a graduate degree in political science, I am not at all surprised that politics is so unyielding to science.

I am unsurprised at the pervasive, and too often realized, potential for this tendency of confirmational bias throughout politics. I am somewhat stunned that the DNC rationalizes benefit in this internecine warfare, given the current state of the party nationally, and the popularity of those they disparage and discourage from participation with, and in support of, the DNC.
 
In my view, the problem that the US is facing is almost entirely a racial one. It's the view of many poor whites that they are standing in a line to the American Dream, with blacks and brown people cutting in front of them (Note, not my analogy, but one I heard). You guys never finished your civil war.

The 1865 Armistice was perhaps a bit premature, and biased toward the hope that the cessation of hostilities would turn the irrational, rational. I see little support for that wishful and even fantastical thinking in the intervening 152 years of our nation's history.
 
Eh, I've said for years now that politics in the U.S. needs a good swift kick in the rear, and maybe a 30 minute time-out. Frankly, I distrust both of the major parties to have any interests beyond their own aggrandizement.

Most of the other parties are either in the same boat, or they put ideology ahead of practicality and possibility.

It makes me sad. :(
 
In my view, the problem that the US is facing is almost entirely a racial one. It's the view of many poor whites that they are standing in a line to the American Dream, with blacks and brown people cutting in front of them (Note, not my analogy, but one I heard). You guys never finished your civil war.
I think that's a bit simplistic. I think big part of the problem is our inability to admit we also have class division. We like to pretend that its all race which leaves those poor whites out in the cold asking where their privilege is. This inflames the race issues, in my opinion anyway.

I highly recommend folks give Van Jones a read or listen, I think he's absolutely right when it comes to why folks voted for trump and not Clinton and what that means for progressives.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/1...m-culture-wars-whitelash-and-the-messy-truth/
 
Try reading for comprehension. What I said:
clearly states that I am calling the article written by the Atlantic journalist (Molly Ball), a piece of investigative reporting. One does not need to have a compelling background primarily as a Investigative Reporter, in order to produce a compelling piece of investigative reporting. This is a consequential difference between what I stated and how you "read" my statement that seems to have rather casually escaped your understanding and comprehension.

Investigative Reporting -

"...is journalism resulting from a reporter’s own initiative that reveals to the public important information once hidden or unknown..." - http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0099.xml

"...Investigative reporting, however, does not just report the information that has been given out by others – whether it is government, political parties, companies or advocacy groups. It is reporting that relies on the journalist’s own enterprise and initiative. Investigative reporting means journalists go beyond what they have seen and what has been said to unearth more facts and to provide something new and previously unknown..." - http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects...y/files/sunsentinel/coronel_chapter_10_16.pdf

The reporter tagged along on the listening tour of the Third Way group. She did not "go beyond what she saw or what has been said to unearth more facts and to provide something new and previously unknown."
 
In my view, the problem that the US is facing is almost entirely a racial one. It's the view of many poor whites that they are standing in a line to the American Dream, with blacks and brown people cutting in front of them (Note, not my analogy, but one I heard). You guys never finished your civil war.

That view usually only comes from people who want to divide. Those of us in the trenches aren’t concerned about race.
 
The reporter tagged along on the listening tour of the Third Way group. She did not "go beyond what she saw or what has been said to unearth more facts and to provide something new and previously unknown."

Again try the application of actual reading and comprehension simultaneously.
going "beyond what she saw or what has been said to unearth more facts and to provide something new and previously unknown." means that the author didn't merely hear or read a story and the repeat it to others largely verbatim in whole , or substantive portion. This should have been clear to anyone who visited the referencing links provided earlier and read for comprehension the material provided as a clarifying reference for those who might have been unsure or confused about what was being stated.
 
That view usually only comes from people who want to divide. Those of us in the trenches aren’t concerned about race.

From a progressive perspective, ceteris paribus, I would tend to agree.

Unfortunately, in modern American society, everything else is not unchanged, constant or equal with respect to how race is treated with regard to justice, economic opportunity, and access to the full range benefits of American society. Ideally, in a fully progressive America, gender, race and sexuality would be issues of zero substantive significance with respect to the laws, financial security, or social interaction (rather like eye or hair color or what neighborhood/state you grew up in),...but, there are a lot of adjustments that need to be made to level the playing field before there is a viable national stage where such a post-racial/gender/sexuality society can be fully cultivated and realized, IMO.

...but now we are wandering a bit afield of this thread's focus. This is, however, definitely a parallel adjunct which should be discussed more going forward into the coming few years, and I appreciate discussing and exploring the thoughts and considerations of all who share a sincere but different perspective and understanding.
 
I think that's a bit simplistic. I think big part of the problem is our inability to admit we also have class division. We like to pretend that its all race which leaves those poor whites out in the cold asking where their privilege is. This inflames the race issues, in my opinion anyway.

I highly recommend folks give Van Jones a read or listen, I think he's absolutely right when it comes to why folks voted for trump and not Clinton and what that means for progressives.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/1...m-culture-wars-whitelash-and-the-messy-truth/

From a traditionalist, hard conservative framed perspective, I'm sure Mr. Van Jones' arguments are very easy to accept and ingest. For those of us who reject conservatism's "truisms" as unfounded and/or demonstrably false, it is very difficult to find the grain amidst the hyper-partisan chaff he spews so effusively. Truth is subjective, accuracy with regard to commonly accepted facts and the best available evidences, is generally much more objective and all too often rejected because it conflicts with preferred ideological Truths. The intellectually honest admit and acknowledge this not just when looking at others, but when looking at ourselves in the mirror as well.

(which is very topically related to the OP)
 
From a traditionalist, hard conservative framed perspective, I'm sure Mr. Van Jones' arguments are very easy to accept and ingest. For those of us who reject conservatism's "truisms" as unfounded and/or demonstrably false, it is very difficult to find the grain amidst the hyper-partisan chaff he spews so effusively.

I wonder what centrists think.
 
From a traditionalist, hard conservative framed perspective, I'm sure Mr. Van Jones' arguments are very easy to accept and ingest. For those of us who reject conservatism's "truisms" as unfounded and/or demonstrably false, it is very difficult to find the grain amidst the hyper-partisan chaff he spews so effusively. Truth is subjective, accuracy with regard to commonly accepted facts and the best available evidences, is generally much more objective and all too often rejected because it conflicts with preferred ideological Truths. The intellectually honest admit and acknowledge this not just when looking at others, but when looking at ourselves in the mirror as well.

(which is very topically related to the OP)
I'm very confused by this. Do think his "hyper partisan chaff" is conservative?
 
I'm very confused by this. Do think his "hyper partisan chaff" is conservative?

The framing of his discussion is definitely hard-core, traditional conservative in its nature and assumptions, at least in the link you presented.
 
I wonder what centrists think.

Which "centrists" would those be? Personally, I've seen no substantive or compelling support for the idea that there are any "centrist" populations of significance involved in U.S. politics, particularly among the electorate. There are a lot of independents (and more each day) but they generally aren't moderate or in the middle between Conservatives and Progressives they are mostly merely conservatives and progressives who disagree with the establishment political parties of both the Democrats and the Repubs. While neoliberals and neoconservatives are a middling group who include most of both the establishment Dems and Reps., they are both economically conservative and socially progressive to varying degrees, they are not ideologically neutral or "centrist" in any meaningful manner, at least to my understandings or considerations of public policy support.
 
The framing of his discussion is definitely hard-core, traditional conservative in its nature and assumptions, at least in the link you presented.
Odd. I call the federalist, traditionally conservative and Van Jones* as progressive, perhaps even extremely so. Not extremely but not at all centrist except in his desire to write off Trump voters.

Here's an alternative presentation he gave to the Common Wealth Club of CA.
https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2017-10-23/van-jones-beyond-messy-truth
I'd characterize them as center left to left generally.

Edit, I'm relatively certain, mister Jones would call himself progressive.
 
Last edited:
Odd. I call the federalist, traditionally conservative and Van Jones* as progressive, perhaps even extremely so. Not extremely but not at all centrist except in his desire to write off Trump voters.

Here's an alternative presentation he gave to the Common Wealth Club of CA.
https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2017-10-23/van-jones-beyond-messy-truth
I'd characterize them as center left to left generally.

Edit, I'm relatively certain, mister Jones would call himself progressive.

Regardless of your, or my, perspective of Mr. VanJones, in American politics, his framing and general perspective is right of center and very well aligned with traditional conservatism with respect to economics and foreign policy, while still being socially more moderate. Social moderation doesn't a progressive make, this is mere neoliberalist activism and his thinking and framing are still still filled with the flaws and lies of most of the other conservative philosophy he grew up with. Hillary and Obama, generally consider themselves to be "progressive" as well, but a progressive that acts and votes conservatively on economic and foreign policy issues, regardless of any socially liberal preferences they use to console their souls (or in search of progressive support), is no Progressive (though I'd probably give Van Jones more credit than either Hillary or Barry in this regard - it would not be surprising to see WorldNetDaily or Fox News calling Jones a progressive, but you won't hear that much at all at Progressive outlets like "in These Times," "Common Dreams," or any other actually Progressive media).
 
Last edited:
In my view, the problem that the US is facing is almost entirely a racial one. It's the view of many poor whites that they are standing in a line to the American Dream, with blacks and brown people cutting in front of them (Note, not my analogy, but one I heard). You guys never finished your civil war.


No, the racial issue is largely driven by the media and people who need racism to be a thing.
 
Last edited:
No, the racial issue is largely driven by the media and people who need racism to be a thing.

And that 'thing' draws ample attention to itself when white supremacists gather and chant Nazi slogans and run down protesters.
 
tl;dr - ideology-driven organization concludes the problem is not enough of their ideology, small-town americans are myopically tribal, but above all they just want to be listened to.

It is important to remember that these social divisions, while always present, have been systematically and deliberately widened by a coordinated, long-term effort by forces both within the US and wihtout.
 
Of course, different researchers out in red states went on information-gathering excursions into large blue state coastal cities.

 
Last edited:
Of course, different researchers out in red states went on information-gathering excursions into large blue state coastal cities.


I didn't think Texas (outside of Austin) was considered a Blue State?
 
Drinking the Trump Kool Aid I see?

Nice insult! Got anything else? Somehow you always mention Trump when responding to me. Why not try making the case that racism is the biggest problem in America, because that's what I was responding to.

There's nothing Trumpish about thinking the people who are making noise right now are a bunch of hysterical dipsticks.

The media makes this a bigger deal than it is with its coverage of the nazi and antifa clowns. Caring about illegal immigration is racism. If you live rural you're a racist. If you wear the wrong Halloween costume - racist. My avatar is wearing red white and blue. He must be a patriotic jerk racist!

The biggest problem with race is all of those accusing everyone else of being racist.

I talked about the same thing here during Obama's term. Nothing to do with Trump.

So got anything besides calling me a Trump lover every chance you get? It's a little weird.
 
Nice insult! Got anything else? Somehow you always mention Trump when responding to me. Why not try making the case that racism is the biggest problem in America, because that's what I was responding to.

There's nothing Trumpish about thinking the people who are making noise right now are a bunch of hysterical dipsticks.

The media makes this a bigger deal than it is with its coverage of the nazi and antifa clowns. Caring about illegal immigration is racism. If you live rural you're a racist. If you wear the wrong Halloween costume - racist. My avatar is wearing red white and blue. He must be a patriotic jerk racist!

The biggest problem with race is all of those accusing everyone else of being racist.

I talked about the same thing here during Obama's term. Nothing to do with Trump.

So got anything besides calling me a Trump lover every chance you get? It's a little weird.

I think it deserves to be pointed out that racism and accusations of racism are different things. You seem to be defining racism here as being accused of being a racist.

It's the same as sexual assault. We can't define it as the accusations.
 
There's nothing Trumpish about thinking the people who are making noise right now are a bunch of hysterical dipsticks.

That's exactly what the hysterical dipsticks would expect a Trump supporter to say.
 
In my view, the problem that the US is facing is almost entirely a racial one. It's the view of many poor whites that they are standing in a line to the American Dream, with blacks and brown people cutting in front of them (Note, not my analogy, but one I heard). You guys never finished your civil war.

Some certainly didn't!!!!!!! And your second sentence is exactly what trumpf used to get elected (plus the Russian assistance of course!!!)!
 
No, the racial issue is largely driven by the media and people who need racism to be a thing.

Did you read the US DoJ report into Ferguson PD? There was lots of evidence for racism throughout the department as well as evidence of disproportionate treatment of blacks by that department.

There is nothing to suggest it was a particularly unusual Police Department, just that the problem was visible when investigated.


If you are black and in a town like Ferguson, then racism could very easily be your biggest problem, especially given the way that they regarded fines as a funding opportunity, and the level of fines that they imposed.
 

Back
Top Bottom