mfioretti: usa 2016* + liberals*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

7 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. Relations between Democrats and religious progressives have been more difficult since 1980, when evangelicals deserted Jimmy Carter — one of their own, whom they had supported in 1976 — for Ronald Reagan.

    As Republicans cemented the Christian right as a cornerstone of the party’s base, Democrats moved in the opposite direction, so intent on separating church and state that they recoiled from courting religious blocs of voters, recalled Gary Hart, the former senator, who grew up in the Church of the Nazarene and graduated from divinity school.

    Interactive Feature | How Have Your Politics and Religion Mixed in Unexpected Ways? We would like to know more about how your religious beliefs have affected your political views and actions — or vice versa.

    During his ill-fated 1988 presidential campaign, Mr. Hart said, he was often asked, “‘Why don’t you talk about your religious background more?’ And the answer was, ‘I don’t want to be seen as pandering for votes.’”

    Issues on which the religious left is at odds with Democratic doctrine include military spending and the death penalty, though the most polarizing is abortion — the main barrier, for many liberal evangelicals and Catholics, to voting as Democrats — as could be seen when the party split recently over whether to endorse an anti-abortion Democrat running for mayor of Omaha.

    Setting abortion aside, political appeals based on religious beliefs continue to carry risk for Democrats, given the growing numbers of Americans who claim no religion: Secular voters overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and younger voters are far more secular than older voters.

    Still, Hillary Clinton’s snub of even moderate evangelicals in the 2016 presidential race squandered many opportunities to cut into Mr. Trump’s support. Where Barack Obama had worked hard in 2008 to show he would at least listen to evangelicals, Mrs. Clinton rebuffed interview requests from evangelical media outlets and signaled leftward moves on abortion rights that helped many conservative voters overcome their doubts about Mr. Trump.

    “The fact that one party has strategically used and abused religion, while the other has had a habitually allergic and negative response to religion per se, puts our side in a more difficult position in regard to political influence,” said the Rev. Jim Wallis, the evangelical social justice advocate who founded the Sojourners community and magazine in 1971.

    “Most progressive religious leaders I talk to, almost all of them, feel dissed by the left,” he said. “The left is really controlled by a lot of secular fundamentalists.”
    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/10....html?referer=https://t.co/RCF6eYd1hV
    Voting 0
  2. Media has been taken over with arguing about these things because it’s easy to pseudo-rationally argue about what number is bigger than what other number. The media is centering the conversation around identity politics because that’s what the data is, but it’s not what the data shows.

    Like, Trump didn’t win because of lower black turnout, though voter suppression worked pretty good there. Trump won and also we measured black voter turnout. We measured lots of things.

    So I took a fresh look at the data. Lots of data, in larger contexts, and weeks later I’ve finally come to a conclusion.

    I was wrong. It’s not really about liberal vs conservative, city vs country, white vs multicultural, not this time. It’s really about old and young. Not vs, and not necessarily as individuals but also as communities and as a culture, ok here we go
    http://vihart.com/a-mathematicians-perspective-on-the-divide
    Voting 0
  3. It's all incredibly revealing. What it points to is a mainstream, Democratic left that is so bereft of ideas and so disconnected from everyday people that it ends up pursuing an utterly substance-free politics of emotion and feeling and doesn't even realize it's doing it. They are good, everyone else is bad; they are light itself, everyone else is darkness; and so no self-awareness can exist and no self-criticism can be entertained. Not for even one second, in Heffernan's words. The Cult of Hillary Clinton is the clearest manifestation yet of the 21st-century problem of life in the political echo chamber.
    http://reason.com/archives/2016/11/20...rica-called-bullshit-on-saint-hillary
    Voting 0
  4. Le elites si sono completamente fatte cogliere di sorpresa dal “fenomeno Trump perché sono sempre più separate dal popolo e dalle sue preoccupazioni; vivono tra di loro, si cooptano tra di loro, si arricchiscono tra di loro, e difendono una versione di “progresso” del tutta staccata dalle preoccupazioni della maggioranza degli americani. Il popolo si sente fuori giuoco. Ammettiamolo, se Trump è esasperante, c’è qualcosa di marcio e un’aria terminale nel regno di Washington “.
    “Miliardario del popolo”

    Ma lui stesso,il miliardario, non è parte di quella elite? No, è questo il punto: le elite non l’ha mai accettato. E quindi oggi può giocare la parte del “miliardario del popolo”: e “fa’ delle sua conoscenza del sistema corrotto una forza, dicendo che lui conosce così bene i modi con cui le lobbies comprano i politici, che è il solo a poter rimediare alla cosa”. Un discorso poco convincente. Come ha fatto a convincere?

    “Non va dimenticato che Donald Trump è cresciuto nei cantieri edili, dove suo padre lo portava fin da piccolo perché imparasse il mestiere, e ciò l’ha messo in contatto con le classi popolari. Parla esattamente come loro! Quando ho chiesto ai suoi elettori in giro per l’America, era questo che li stupiva: “”Parla come noi, pensa come noi – è come noi!”. Il fatto che sia ricco non è un ostacolo, perché gli americani amano la ricchezza e il successo”.

    Una delle migliori carte di Trump è di “essere politicamente scorretto in un paese che è divenuto politicamente corretto all’eccesso”. Dove Obama non vuole nemmeno nominare insieme “Islam” e “che ci minaccia”, dove si è dibattuto sui media in quali toilettes deve entrare un trans, e uno di “genere fluido”, che non è ne signore né signora. Dove non si deve augurare più “Buon Natale” ma buone feste, per non offendere qualche minoranza religiosa. Dove, per fare un esempio, il Washington Post scrive il nome della più popolare squadra di calcio americano, i “Red Skins” (Pellerossa), così: R***, perché una tribù indiana trovava il nome razzista e insultante.
    http://www.rischiocalcolato.it/2016/1...a-mai-dato-ma-cosa-fa-a-new-york.html
    Voting 0
  5. Elites, real elites, might recognize one another by their superior knowledge. The smug recognize one another by their mutual knowing.

    Knowing, for example, that the Founding Fathers were all secular deists. Knowing that you're actually, like, 30 times more likely to shoot yourself than an intruder. Knowing that those fools out in Kansas are voting against their own self-interest and that the trouble is Kansas doesn't know any better. Knowing all the jokes that signal this knowledge.

    The studies, about Daily Show viewers and better-sized amygdalae, are knowing. It is the smug style's first premise: a politics defined by a command of the Correct Facts and signaled by an allegiance to the Correct Culture. A politics that is just the politics of smart people in command of Good Facts. A politics that insists it has no ideology at all, only facts. No moral convictions, only charts, the kind that keep them from "imposing their morals" like the bad guys do.

    Knowing is the shibboleth into the smug style's culture, a cultural that celebrates hip commitments and valorizes hip taste, that loves nothing more than hate-reading anyone who doesn't get them. A culture that has come to replace politics itself.
    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
    Voting 0
  6. Other factors conspired in the party’s debacle. One in particular haunts me. From the presidential race on down, Democrats adopted a strategy of inclusiveness that excluded a hefty share of Americans and consigned many to a “basket of deplorables” who aren’t all deplorable. Some are hurt. Some are confused.
    Continue reading the main story
    Frank Bruni
    Politics, social issues, education and culture.

    Donald Trump’s Shocking Success
    NOV 9
    Why This Election Terrifies Me
    NOV 5
    Hillary’s Male Tormentors
    NOV 2
    How to Make Sense of College Rankings
    OCT 29
    Comey, Clinton and This Steaming Mess
    OCT 29

    See More »

    Liberals miss this by being illiberal. They shame not just the racists and sexists who deserve it but all who disagree. A 64-year-old Southern woman not onboard with marriage equality finds herself characterized as a hateful boob. Never mind that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton weren’t themselves onboard just five short years ago.

    Political correctness has morphed into a moral purity that may feel exhilarating but isn’t remotely tactical. It’s a handmaiden to smugness and sanctimony, undermining its own goals.

    I worry about my and my colleagues’ culpability along these lines. I plan to use greater care in how I talk to and about Americans more culturally conservative than I am. That’s not a surrender of principle or passion. It’s a grown-up acknowledgment that we’re a messy, imperfect species.

    Donald Trump’s victory and some of the, yes, deplorable chants that accompanied it do not mean that a majority of Americans are irredeemable bigots (though too many indeed are). Plenty of Trump voters chose him, reluctantly, to be an agent of disruption, which they craved keenly enough to overlook the rest of him.

    Democrats need to understand that, and they need to move past a complacency for which the Clintons bear considerable blame.

    It’s hard to overestimate the couple’s stranglehold on the party — its think tanks, its operatives, its donors — for the last two decades. Most top Democrats had vested interests in the Clintons, and energy that went into supporting and defending them didn’t go into fresh ideas and fresh faces, who were shut out as the party cleared the decks anew for Hillary in 2016.

    In thrall to the Clintons, Democrats ignored the copious, glaring signs of an electorate hankering for something new and different and instead took a next-in-line approach that stopped working awhile back. Just ask Mitt Romney and John McCain and John Kerry and Al Gore and Bob Dole. They’re the five major-party nominees before her who lost, and each was someone who, like her, was more due than dazzling.

    After Election Day, one Clinton-weary Democratic insider told me: “I’m obviously not happy and I hate to admit this, but a part of me feels liberated. If she’d won, we’d already be talking about Chelsea’s first campaign. Now we can do what we really need to and start over.”

    Obama, too, contributed to the party’s marginalization. While he threw himself into Hillary Clinton’s campaign, he was, for much of his presidency, politically selfish, devoting less thought and time to the cultivation of the party than he could — and should — have. By design, his brand was not its. Small wonder, then, that its fate diverged from his.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/opi...wed-up.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
    Voting 0
  7. "The right’s ability to portray liberals as elitists is further strengthened by the phobia toward religion that prevails in the left. Many religious people are drawn by the teachings of their tradition to humane values and caring about the oppressed. Yet they often find that liberal culture is hostile to religion of any sort, believing it is irrational and filled with hate."
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/pr...ht-2016/stop-shaming-trump-supporters
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 1 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: usa 2016 + liberals

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle