Liberal Hatred for Susan Sarandon is a Symptom of People Who Refuse to Acknowledge Their Own Failure

[rainbows_]

Oscar-winning actor and progressive activist Susan Sarandon sparked a good deal of controversy during the primary stage of the presidential election when she expressed doubt to MSNBC’s Chris Hayes about whether she could bring herself to vote for Hillary Clinton in a “lesser-of-two-evils” situation. It was a common question at that time among

Comments

[rainbows_]

If you want centrist politicians in the white house, I think that probably makes you more of a liberal than progressive.

However I disagree about needing centrist politicians! I posted 'Why Republicans are impressive' which talks about this, here are some select quotes:

The lesson is this: in modern American politics, having an ideologically coherent and disciplined party is an advantage, not a liability. This flies in the face of conventional wisdom: during the 2016 primary, many Democrats, especially those who supported Clinton, worried about the “purism” of the party’s younger and more progressive wing: would it force the party to confront a choice between nominating ideologically progressive candidates who would be unelectable and facing mass defections to its left? After all, it was widely understood that candidates needed to “pivot to the center” to win general elections. Clinton’s claim to be a “progressive who gets things done” was founded on this assumption: the notion was that Sanders’ policies, even if you found them desirable, were unlikely to get done because it was too extreme, while Clinton’s was closer to the center and therefore more achievable. Yet in 2017 the most extreme political party in decades seems poised to get more things done than any party since the Johnson administration. What’s wrong with the conventional view?

The trouble with this theory is that in modern US politics it is by definition impossible for a major party to embrace policies which are “extreme” in the sense of “far from the consensus views of the average voter.” The average voter’s policy views, to the extent that these exist at all outside this context other than as artifacts of polling, are largely determined not by any particular factual information about the issues or ideological commitments concerning the role of government but by the policy positions of the major parties. If one of these parties embraces a particular position on any given issue, the 40% of American voters who consistently support that party will come to adopt that position wholesale, while most of the rest will come to believe (and be encouraged by the media’s carefully even-handed reporting to believe) that this position is at least reasonable and defensible if not correct. There are very few views so extreme and so indefensible that they can’t garner mass support if repeated frequently enough by a major US party-just think of “global warming is a hoax.”

Republicans understand this in a way Democrats don’t. Just compare Republicans’ rock-solid unity on doing nothing about climate change to the Clinton campaign’s decision to abandon a carbon tax on the basis of internal polling. Republicans don’t look at polls and think “we need to moderate our platform because Americans don’t support starving the poor to death, and we’ll get negative media coverage”; they work hard over the course of many years to shape public opinion until it says what they say. They know that if a major US political party puts out a consistent and coherent message for long enough, the polls will change and the media coverage will change. Significantly, Republicans are also much better positioned to exploit this dynamic because of their internal unity; while there is considerable debate within the Democratic congressional caucus about whether to undertake serious action on global warming, Republicans are absolutely unified on the issue. A united front allows them to deliver an extraordinarily coherent and consistent message over the course of decades in a way Democrats can’t match.

[rainbows_]

CONTINUED..

"The right wing of the Republican Party has spent an enormous amount of time and energy over the past decade running primary challenges against moderate Republicans and replacing them with fire-breathing extremists. Many said this would render the party increasingly unacceptable and unelectable outside deep red states. That hasn’t happened. Instead, far-right Republicans have moved not only their party but the country as a whole to the right; they’ve shifted the terms of the debate and are poised to pass the most radical and comprehensive legislative package this country has seen since 1968.

This is what an ideologically disciplined and unified party with a coherent vision for America, a genuine messaging strategy and the ability to play the long game can do. It’s not a recipe that guarantees winning, by any means; elections are unpredictable beasts. But in a two-party system you’re bound to win eventually. And ideological discipline means that when you win you’re ready to shove your agenda down America’s throat wholesale and change the country for generations. It’s an extraordinary accomplishment. Democrats wondering how to make radical change in this country could do a lot worse than to pay close attention to what the Republicans have done for the past 20 years-and what they’re about to do next."

[amw]

I loved that article that you posted, and I wish it had created more conversation because I think it's a very important conversation for the American left to have. That said, there is one point in there that is not entirely true, and that is this idea that America is lurching wildly to the right. It's more complex than that.

Without a doubt America is getting far more nationalist and xenophobic, but that's a trend all over the Western world. At the same time, gay people are more accepted than ever - gay marriage is legal, DADT is over, DOMA is gone, the AIDS travel ban is gone. Even one of the most iconic right wing personalities is a shameless fag. Shit, I don't even think you're allowed to say fag any more, even if you are gay. Progress! And despite the hideous attempts to police where we go to pee, us transfolk are finally coming out of the shadows. Non-binary is actually a fucking thing, finally. I can assure you, 10 years ago it was not. People are starting to talk seriously about a not completely pitiful minimum wage, death penalty is being resisted by drug companies, "pre-existing condition" is a bad memory... I mean, by worldwide standards, America is still an embarrassingly conservative backwater, but compared to 10 years ago it has come a long way.

So, it's relative, you know.

[adelheide]

As the saying goes, Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line. Party unity is more important to them than anything--family, country, God. While that does present a united front, it also leads to inflexibility and an inability to respond to changes in society.

The Republican Party made a concerted effort in the late 70's to mover further right and to get a stranglehold on power. Now, much of what the Republicans cling to as principles are being rejected by the public. They are not above selling hate and fear to keep people following them but people are starting to fall away. Being that rigid is not sustainable over the long haul.

Republicans spent years convincing people that feminists were fat, hairy-legged, and manless. To the point where young women today, even though they are clearly feminists, eschew the title. This is just one example of how their messaging (constant, persistent, over decades) can change public opinion. But they are not the arbitors of public opinion. Society changes far faster than they do and eventually, people are going to leave their archaic attitudes behind. Because they cannot adapt to change, they will be left behind.

Getting Democrats to agree on things is like herding cats. That is their downfall. It is also their strength. Just like multiculturalism is the strength of the U.S. It's messy, it's chaotic, and it sends a lot of different messages. But it's also elastic and flexible, better able to respond to the needs of people and society.

I don't think Democrats should adopt the unity-above-all-else strategy of the Republicans. I do agree they need to coral the cats more but their message should stay the same. Their strength is their acceptance of many different points of view. They need to express that in a way that shows unity but not rigidity.