The Definitive Take on Donald Trump

Just curious, Corey. What sources (specific) do you use to characterize Trump’s views on Mexicans and Muslims. We’ve disagreed on French conservatives before, but I don’t see anything remotely conservative in Trump. I’m listening to Trump right now ( again) and he spends at least as much time talking about welcoming legal immigrants as he does about talking about ‘building the wall.’ He’s not talking about allotting privilege, ever. He’s talking about punishing every company that relocates to a nation using cheap sweatshop labor with a 35 percent tariffs. This is real, if he follows through and he seems dead serious about it. I don’t doubt for a second that he’d like to move towards devolving power to local authority, especially schools. So, I guess I’d like to see what you’re actually using as evidence for your argument – which speeches, which policy statement? Then I’d like you to explain how trade protectionism, nationalism, and increasing the living standards for the middle-class fit with your notion of conservative.

There isn’t much sensible commentary re: Trump. I agree completely that Trump’s temperament might take him/us anywhere. I seriously doubt that he’s going to be worse than Reagan (not that high a bar). I’m actually inclined to believe he’s going to drop just about all his rhetorical trash-talk and act exactly what he’s been all his life: a liberal NY plutocrat who pals around with folks like Bill, Hillary, and the Kennedy clan.

So, do most NRO conservatives, who are positively crapping themselves over what Trump and his supporters are doing to ‘their’ party. I take that as a very promising sign.

I listen to Trump, and I hear a word salad. A practiced huckster, he says not what he believes (and he may not believe in anything but himself), but what he knows will get a reaction that he can work with. There is no sustained argument in a logical sense, just a stirring up of people who have long felt themselves trapped in personal and national decline.

I wonder at all attempts to put Trump into any category as a political actor, let alone philosopher. He is the flailing conductor out in front of a self-assembled orchestra, playing a cacophony. The phenomenon of mass dissatisfaction in dialectic with an uncomprehending elite — that is what I see.

Oh yeah. How does Trump’s promised defense of Social Security fit with the classic conservative model. Trump actually brags that he’s the only Republican running who promises not to cut Social Security benefits.

5 Hi Plume. Thanks for your comment. I won’t read any of it, but I at least wanted to acknowledge your contribution ’cause I’m polite.

I wonder about the claim that “McCarthy had a real left to battle.” Who? When? The CPUSA was pretty well marginalized by 1950, having responded to the domestic Cold War by the decision to go semi-“underground” which only isolated it more. The labor movement had amputated its Left wing after Taft-Hartley, the Henry Wallace Progressives were in full collapse, the non-Communist Marxists–Trotskyists and Norman Thomas Socialists–were politically negligible. The emergent Civil Rights movement was careful to avoid too-close identification with figures like Paul Robeson. And the elements that would coalesce in the New Left after 1962 (Maurice Isserman’s “If I Had a Hammer” is a good study of this) were still too scattered to be a threat, even in McCarthy’s paranoid vision of politics.
Only tangential to the topic of Trump, I realize.

Kidneystones,

“5 Hi Plume. Thanks for your comment. I won’t read any of it, but I at least wanted to acknowledge your contribution ’cause I’m polite.”

If by polite, you mean a pompous ass, yeah. You’re polite.

Imagining that Salon has the “definitave take” on anything other than the swamp vapors of what passes for the “mind” of the Left is absurd, and should how superficial you are as an intellect.

As good as the analysis and commentary at CT generally is, this analogy from the NYP tells me more about the forces driving voters to Trump and Sanders: http://nypost.com/2016/03/11/the-ugly-truth-about-obamas-pretty-darn-great-economy/

“Over the 6 ½ years since the recession ended in the second quarter of 2009, real GDP has grown by a total of 14.5 percent, or at an annual rate of 2.1 percent,” according to Jeffrey Schlagenhauf, a former senior adviser to the congressional Joint Economic Committee.

“Other post-1960 recoveries averaged total growth of 28.4 percent (annual rate of 3.9 percent) over the comparable 26 quarters. The Reagan recovery of the 1980s saw real GDP grow a total of 35 percent, or at an annual rate of 4.7 percent.”

To put this more vividly, imagine that you are in a car riding shotgun next to Ronald Reagan. You just left New York City and are heading south on Interstate 95. You zoom along in the fast lane, at 78 mph. You just passed a sedan in the next lane. A totally average motorist drives it and strictly obeys the 65 mph speed limit. And way back, in the rear-view mirror, a third auto slouches in the slow lane. Behind the wheel is Obama, plodding forward at 35 mph.

Statistically, the Reagan, average and Obama recoveries have advanced at speeds equivalent to those of these three vehicles.

To illustrate what this means over time, picture where these cars would be after 10 hours of nonstop travel: Reagan would be about 20 minutes north of Savannah, Ga. The average driver would find himself about 20 minutes past Florence, SC. And Obama would be crawling through the northern suburbs of Richmond, Va…

Why are Americans so angry? Picture yourself on I-95, creeping onward at a mere 35 mph, itching to get ahead. And this time, you are trapped in Obama’s car, listening to him insist that everything is — as he said last week — “pretty darn great right now.”

The Reagan analogy leaves me cold, but there’s no way I’ll accept that a continued decline in our standard of living is beyond our control. As for O telling us how good things are right now? That’s how I feel whenever people tell me to that HRC is the best we can expect. I expect better – like tuition-free education.

With respect to the OP, the Trump phenomenon strikes me as the simple affection of the mob for the man on the horse. The interesting question is how a soft, doughy real estate mogul became that man. Though if it worked for a failed painter, I guess it can work for anyone.

OP: Whoever the occupant of the White House, all post-Reagan presidents have beat the GOP drum of low taxes and standing tall, small government and a big military.

For a masterly elaboration of this point (though he dates it to before Reagan), see Thomas Frank’s about-to-be-published Listen, Liberal.

@ Brett Bellmore, what is it that the base wants but the party hasn’t delivered?

Trump’s support of Social Security is a holdover from the Second Reich (Bismarck’s social welfare programs).

Brett Bellmore, what is it that the base wants but the party hasn’t delivered?

Layman, you don’t want to know. Which is just as well because Brett doesn’t dare tell you.

Protectionism and tight borders form Trump’s consistent advocacy of economic nationalism. But the goal of this economic nationalism is not to liberate the working classes and tame the cosmopolitan elite; crucially, that form of economic populism would not include regressive tax cuts and would not endorse geopolitcal bellicosity. Rather, this is right-wing economic nationalism: add the tax cuts and the militarism and the cult of “winners” vs. “losers” and you have a coherent pattern of defending privilege, as Corey argues. The nation over the international, the religious-ethnic majority over the minority, the rich over the poor. The strong over the weak.

As a primary campaigner, Trump will emphasize those privileges that flatter his most tenuous voting bloc: white nationalist authoritarians.

The Republican Elite don’t like Trump for a couple of reasons: he’s not submissive to the entrenched party hierarchy (notice that Cruz is a black sheep for the same reasons; still no one argues that Cruz is a liberal wolf in sheep’s clothing), he is a political entrepreneur that similarly offends a culture of privilege that would occasionally like to attain or retain a degree of “Old Money”, paleoconservative status, and he also exposes the Party’s neoliberal, cosmopolitan faction (which itself was a strategic adoption of the Right before and during the Cold War, when mass politics required some form of internationalism).

There’s a silver lining here: to the degree that Trump’s coherent politics are reactionary, they are a mark of success of the Left project. Privilege is not comfortable: the white majority is waning, socially-excluded groups have gained status, tribalism and religious authoritarianism are weakening, the Right’s push to roll back New Deal institutions has revealed the resiliency of redistributionist programs. Trump and the Republican Party more generally should be angry and afraid: disturbing the comfortable is always s necessary half of the Leftist project.

@24 I disagree. Trump is a NY liberal and lifelong supporter of Dem politicians and policies. It’s more likely Trump’s support of Social Security has its roots in NY than Bismark. You’re onto something, in the larger sense, however. I do think there are echoes of Bismark in Trump’s message. It should also be noted, however, that Bismark was never more than a tool for the ruling elite. I’m not sure Trump is that.

One final point – liberals of my generation are very often white/European who spend relatively little time in close proximity with large numbers of ‘others’. I am one of the exceptions to that rule. I get a big kick out listening to folks who consider a trip to abroad as a visit to the exotic tell others to get over their irrational fears of minorities. Which is why I suspect Trump’s message strikes a chord with many of this group, loathe as they may be to acknowledge the sensation. See Easton-Ellis on secret Trump supporters in la-la land. If Donald doesn’t flame out he could win big. If he pivots successfully to the center, he may win Reagan big. Right now, the safe money says he will.

#30 Excellent, especially the last clause. Thus, we see Trump and ‘Make America Great Again’ as anything anyone wants. Most important to realize and remember is: ‘there is no left in America.’ If Trump scares enough people Sanders may yet cross the line. I don’t see HRC’s coalition beating Trump even with the piles of cash Republican and Democrat elites are certain to throw her way. Personally, I can’t wait for the Kochs and the Club for Growth to come out of the shadows and form a PAC to elect HRC.

Trump is saying, more or less openly, that politics have been perverted by plutocrats, who buy politicians and subvert them to their bidding, to the detriment of the ‘real people’; and that the solution to this is to reject the politicians, and vote directly for the plutocrats, who will then act to the benefit of the ‘real people’. Barnum underestimated the problem.

Well, this thread has made a mockery of my abysmally low expectations for it.

Also, what rootlesscosmo said.

No. Just, no.

To grasp what can be expected from a Trump administration you are on entirely the wrong track. In fact, you are trying to make predictions based on the actions and words of a totally rogue player. Worse, a player who can never be reliably predictable.

You have to look at Trump the man himself, because he has no center, no core, except what Trump thinks is best for Trump. At best, he is an outlier, but even that ascribes a consistency and predictability that simply isn’t there.

Trump is an incredibly insecure thug who was born to money, but not to class or acceptance. His entire life he has been viewed by those he considers the elite to be just what he is: a wannabe player. And in the stratosphere of moneyed elites, he never has been, and never will be, a player. He is painfully aware of this, yet can’t resist “doubling down” (a now-cliched, but in this case apt, analogy).

His entire life consists of “look at me!” moves. And that is his animating force: Not conservatism, just “look at me!” He has always chosen his political positions from a buffet of fashionable opinions, understanding nothing of how they became fashionable in the first place, nor, more importantly, what they actually mean. He has lived his life without accountability, hence his dealings with New York and Philadelphia mobsters. He operates on whim, not philosophy. One day he’s a university founder, the next a purveyor of fine meats. Because he has no follow-through, such vanity dalliances tend to wither from neglect. No matter: Each succeeds in its only true purpose. Getting his name out there. Can you imagine, say, Henry Ford deciding to expand Ford Motor Company into higher education and high-end gastronomy? Of course not. Ford had a reason for his company, and understood that it was his rock. Trump flitters about. He gets inspired, spends other people’s money, and then gets bored. He walks away as these ventures serially fail, always blaming others. And that, too, is a consistent characteristic. Nothing is ever his fault. He never makes a mistake. But most important for each of his failed businesses is that each results in more name recognition, and more illusions of success.

You err by ascribing to him a philosophy that simply doesn’t exist. Want to understand Trump? Just think of a 12-year-old who has never been invited to the cool kids’ table. That’s all you need to know.

A modest proposal. There are surely many people planning to vote Clinton in the primaries for strictly strategic reasons: they prefer Sanders but don’t think he’ll win the GE.

And for every person planning to strategically vote for Hillary in the primary, there is surely a Sanders supporter refusing to strategically vote for Hillary in the general.

So let’s trade. Sanders supporters: find a strategic Hillary supporter and promise to vote for Hillary in the GE if and only if they, in exchange, will vote for Sanders in the primary.

Corey’s argument, boiled down, seems to be that Trump’s rise (and his ability to deviate in certain respects from conservative orthodoxy) has been enabled by the conservative movement’s relative weakness and lack of direction, which has resulted, paradoxically enough, from the ongoing triumph of conservative/Reaganite ideas and assumptions.

What this misses, istm, is that Trump’s appeal, while fueled by playing on nativism and xenophobia (and racism, no doubt), is also rooted in economic realities (e.g., wage stagnation, deindustrialization) that are partly the result of structural changes in the global and domestic economies — changes that Reaganism might have accelerated but that probably would have occurred anyway to some extent, regardless of what administrations were in power or what policies they followed. Thus ‘Trumpism’, to some extent, marries a generalized discontent with the effects of ‘neoliberal globalization’ to a longstanding animus on the part of certain voters/constituencies to foreigners, minorities, etc. This is cemented by Trump’s perceived bluntness, candor, and disdain for the niceties of usual campaign discourse.

In other words, the Trump phenomenon can’t be fully explained by the disarray produced by the inverse relation between the vitality/unity of the conservative movement and the ‘success’ of conservative ideas. It’s also a result of what has happened in the global and the domestic economy in recent decades and the impact of those changes on parts of the U.S. electorate.

I think this Jamelle Bouie piece makes a lot of sense.

I see imperialism, the crumbling of the empire actually, as the central theme of this election. Of course, Trump expresses this fear in fascist ways, by framing it in terms of loss of virility and honor, but also in business terms, as a deal gone bad.

The anti-Trump protesters also seem to be wallowing in feelings of loss of dignity produced by Trump’s discourse and are intent in regaining their honor by disrupting his rallies. I see them just as macho as Trump.

Then there is Sanders, who has tip-toed around the topic of imperialism. Maybe he wants it to just disappear on its own or he thinks it is too humiliating a topic to broach. Again, the fascistic sense of honor. Or maybe its political correctness. In any case, nobody mentions how much money flows from the 3rd world into the 1st, the dividends of having the world’s reserve currency, of being the policeman of the world, that the suffering American 99% is actually the top 15-20% of the world, part of the privileged few.

This election is about how to phase out empire without mentioning it and provoking a crash but, above else, without wounding American virile pride and honor.

Lupita @46. The explanation is that as imagined from the 99% (of Americans) it is the third world types (foreign as well as domestic (blacks, and illegals mainly)) that are taking away from them. No one with any political ambition dares take on this severe reality distortion field, because it would be a career ending move. So the distortion becomes an unchallenged part of the political discussion.

Um, precisely how stupid do you think we are? “Please vote to nominate Sanders, and after we’ve beaten Hillary and got what we want, we’ll make a useless pledge to vote for her in the general”?

“Please stop hitting yourself”!

Corey @48
Frankly I hadn’t really thought about the Buchanan parallel, but I see your point. I’ll have to think about this some more.

Anon — If you’ve actually read the piece, all I can say is… wow. If not, I suggest maybe read the piece. Beyond that, My original instinct not to get involved with the abject idiocy of this thread (with a couple of notable exceptions) was evidently the right one.

Especially in light of the very real and substantial absolute decline in living standards among the white working class population, I think it’s obnoxious to continue to bang on the drum of relative status, this argument that somehow white people are aggrieved because it is supposed to be harder to look down on black people these days. It’s a very patronizing and insulting argument and there’s little real evidence for it. When you’re quoting Calhoun’s foolish justifications for an unjustifiable slavery-based society, which date from almost two centuries ago, you’re really desperate for evidence.

js – word of warning, you seem to be getting a bit close to the Rich Puchalsky school of argument – ‘everyone on this thread except me and three other people is stupid’.

That said, Anon @ 54 is a strong piece of evidence for my theory that the term “identity politics” is mainly used on CT to diss feminists or people of colour.

Val — Fair enough. I was gesturing at the fact that the first 40 comments or so were Brett Bellmore, kidneystones, and Bruce Wilder holding court and others responding to them mostly—which isn’t to say that the responses were idiotic, abjectly or otherwise, but still, you’re caught up in that dynamic at that point. Maybe there’s hope yet!

@kidneystones,

Fortunately, the last few days have been enough to convince many liberals with previously sanguine assessments of Trump’s candidacy that he does indeed represent a unique danger to liberal democracy. As bad as Rubio or Cruz would be as president, Trump is far worse.

See:

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/13/11214140/trump-is-terrifying

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/trump-poses-unprecedented-threat-to-democracy.html

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/12/11211898/donald-trumps-ideology-of-violence

@62 Val “Anon @ 54 is a strong piece of evidence for my theory that the term ‘identity politics’ is mainly used on CT to diss feminists or people of colour.”

On what grounds? Bouie is not a serious journalist–his last 100 articles have been utterly bottom of the barrel cheerleading for Hillary.

Look, there are real, respectable forms of feminism and identity politics that are worthwhile because they’re not idealist in foundation, they don’t make ideas–beliefs and values–causally primary. Instead they recognizes that racism and sexism are bound up with, and depend upon for their ability to enforce their bigotry, real material social and economic conditions. But Bouie ain’t it.

In fact, the *majority of the history* of both feminism and identity politics is the Real Thing. Look at Fanon, or any major feminist writer before the 90s, or the later stages of the civil rights movement, or the black panthers. All of them, all of them, made critiques of capitalism and class inequality fundamental. None of them would moralistically sniff down their superior noses about concerns that racism and sexism have economic underpinnings.

So, no, “dissing” cheap contemporary versions of identity politics is not equivalent to dissing feminists or people of color. And calling people who disagree with you racists or anti-feminist is not a legitimate or honest form of argument.

Conservative and/or the GOP, take your pick has already won, it’s now an argument over only the most visible spot on the pyramid. Governors, the House, the Senate and most of the state legislatures are all GOP. Local school boards and on and on.
I suppose I am glad all those state legislatures don’t have the ability to appoint electoral college.
Democrats seem able to only motivate enough of their base every four years.

Oh, and here’s one more important recent take on the danger presented by Donald Trump. It’s by Dartmouth poli sci professor Brendan Nyhan:

https://storify.com/DemFromCT/brendan-nyhan-on-the-mutifactorial-institutional-f

>People’s vulnerability to Trump-like figure hasn’t changed. What changed is that the institutions of Am. govt./party system legitimized one

>Shockingly few public figures and elites are defending the norms of public debate and restraint from violence that Trump is bulldozing.

>These norms are fragile precisely because, per @emilythorson, they are not formal or legal. And they are hard to restore once breached.

>A major party nomination is a powerful thing. Millions of people will instinctively support Trump. Many/most GOP pols will back him.

Val @74,

Please don’t use my name in one of these threads when you’re not sure what was said. You’re better than that.

I’ve never even remotely suggested what you say above. That is your misreading of what I said, and we’ve already been through this. Come on. Seriously. I don’t see myself, or white people, or men, as “owning” keys to a clubhouse to dispense to others. It’s not ours. It never was ours. It’s everyone’s. There are no junior partners. There are no subordinates. Sheesh. The entire point of my own belief system is just that. We’re all freakin’ equals and of equal worth as human beings! That’s the goddessdamn point of it all!

No hierarchies. No gods, no masters. What more do I have to say about our foundational premise? A fully egalitarian, radically democratic society, without hierarchies, including patriarchy. An end to them. An end to all apartheids, including economic apartheid.

How on earth can you read into that your ongoing complaints?

Bernie Sanders is, you have to admit, pretty flat-footed, not terribly agile, certainly not as deft as Clinton is

This is exactly wrong. Clinton’s main strength (aside from establishment support) is that she is seriously fucking unflappable.* But good god could she use a bit of deftness and agility.

*Anyone who doubts this should rewatch the Benghazi “hearings”.

Val 03.14.16 at 1:40 am @ 74 —
The near ‘Left’ — the proggies — were dying for Elizabeth Warren to run. But she chose not to in spite of her star power. And a lot of people of regardless of sex, race, age, class, etc. etc., are attracted to power. They want to get things done. The Left has no organizational power, nothing practical to offer — just its circular firing squads.

Anarcissie — Just out of curiosity, where are are you with respect to the “circular firing squad”? In it? Out of it? Way to the left of it?

Rich @79,

Agreed. Some people are bound and determined, regardless of all the evidence going against them, to find something, anything wrong with what we say. Between the lines, between lines that don’t even exist. And since they don’t exist, they have to create them. They seem almost giddy in the production of new fictions.

And what is really puzzling? All of this effort against people who are on the side of equal rights, women’s rights, human rights, etc. etc. It’s as if they really want to drive people away so they join the other side. They can’t take “yes” for an answer.

“That’s an interesting response to the “#shutitdown” movement, who Trump is a victim of.”

One of the perks of age is that I can recall conservatives who accused minorities of ‘rights babble’ – claiming that anything that happened was an affront to some imagined rights – and can now enjoy the irony of watching conservatives demonstrate that they have no idea what their rights are. Trump wants to shout at crowds, while other people want to shout at Trump. Both are private citizens. Why is it that Trump is exercising his rights when he speaks, but those who shout back are ‘victimizing’ Trump or somehow infringing on his rights?

The right to free speech is a prohibition on the behavior of the government, FFS. It does not prevent me from shouting down Trump’s (or Brett’s) nonsense, and when I do so, I am not victimizing them, I’m exercising the same rights they are.

I posted a half-way tongue-in-cheek response last night to the effect that Trump could be explained in chaotic terms modelling physical theory, but I did actually mean it as a partial explanation. The primaries isolate factions of voters like local climates in weather, where small-scale initial conditions might be magnified through complex media interactions to produce wholly unpredictable local results: previous norms of sub-group political behaviors indeed have been falsified. The question is whether those local political climate surprises might further be amplified to global political ones.

“If Trump is up there to speak and people are shouting him down, then yeah people are kind of victimizing him. At least, that’s how you’d describe it generally if it didn’t apply to Trump.”

I would not. No one has a right to the silent acquiescence of others, and a counter argument is not an assault. If you invite strangers to come listen to your musings, you should expect that some will want to express their disagreement.

Anyway to bring this back to topic, it does seem like there is a whole field of ‘hurt white men’ on the left and the right.

Well, I dunno. This seems pretty definitive:

http://boingboing.net/2016/03/10/who-is-the-republican-monster.html

I have not followed the demographics of the Trump phenomenon. My superficial impression is that Trump voters are lower income, educational attainment and social status than Tea Party Republicans circa 2009. Is that wrong?

@31
“Bismark [*cough*] was never more than a tool for the ruling elite. ”

It takes a certain recklessness for someone who cannot even spell the man’s name to opine on his historical significance. I am amused by the idea that Bismarck, who bullied everyone he encountered from Wilhelm I to the German Cardinals, was “a tool of the ruling elite”, whoever they supposedly were.

“No. I won’t be visiting Ezra’s meme shop for ‘information’ ..”

Couldn’t you have just left it there?

TM: “where the police will move to expell law-abiding citizens of a certain skin color”

If the police are expelling everyone of a certain skin color, then yes that would be unprecedented since the 60s. But as I wrote to js last time, only as recently as GWB law-abiding citizens were not only expelled but pseudo-arrested by police at campaign events simply for wearing the wrong T-shirt — not even shouting at all.

The idea that a speech is just an argument and that every one of the thousand people in attendance have an equal ability to speak is ludicrous. It’s tantamount to saying that there can’t be public speeches unless they are so innocuous that no one really disagrees. I’ve both heckled and counter-heckled, all as part of politics as actually practiced, but when I did it I knew what I was doing.

Layman, if you follow someone around and scream obscenities every time they try to speak you are engaged in harassment and not speech. Similarly for a crowd engaged in disorderly conduct to prevent speech. Police have every right to stop such behavior. This is all obvious and well supported in the law, and I’m sure it would be obvious to you as well in a case that did not involve someone you politically disagreed with.

But one interesting note from free speech law — Trump’s incitements to crowds to harm peaceful hecklers are also not constitutionally protected speech. A request to have them removed from the arena (which is legal) is protected; an incitement to commit assault is not.

The complaints about Trump being the victim are ludicrous. Again, he has the microphone, brown shirts in the crowd, police, etc. etc.. Until Chicago, the protesters at his events were always in the single digits, and often a single person. No microphone. Totally outnumbered and soon swamped or beaten by Trump’s racist, homophobic and xenophobic thugs. As in, his supporters. They could barely be heard over the thundering word salad emitted by Trump, and soon, enough, from his beer-hall-putsch fanatical supporters.

Sheesh, surveys show 20% of them said Lincoln shouldn’t have freed the slaves!! A majority said the confederate flag should be left to fly, Islam should be shut down in America and a third said gays shouldn’t be allowed in the country, either.

They have monstrous views. Odious views. It’s absurd that anyone is trying to paint them or Trump as the victims here. We are watching fascism emerge and become mainstream, and anyone supporting this bullshit is enabling that fascism.

PGD 106: “A request to have them removed from the arena (which is legal) is protected; an incitement to commit assault is not.”

Maybe it is legal to reqest somebody’s removal, but is it legal for the police to remove a law-abiding person from a public place just because a racist demagogue requested it? I would say that outside America, it most definitely is not, and I am rather shocked that Americans consider this normal.

Regarding the second part of your statement, I’m glad you point that out. I also agree that speech can represent harassment and therefore be illegal despite Free Speech rights but the bar for that is quite high. More to the point, I cannot imagine a German or Canadian or whatever politician state that only supporters are allowed to attend their campaign event, and the police enforcing such rules. They can of course organize a party conference at which only invited party members are admitted. But they can’t advertise a public campaign rally and then deny part of the public entry. They also wouldn’t be able to prevent opponents from, say, handing out leaflets at their event in a public place. That is an integral element of free speech. I’m really amazed I have to point that out.

Gah. Let’s not talk about rights, and instead talk about tactics. I’m used to thinking of these things within a field of tactics and counter-tactics. You have the legal ability to have police arrest and remove hecklers at your speech, and no judge afterwards in the U.S. will say that you did anything wrong as long as extreme violence wasn’t used, so rights and legalities are not really the right way to look at this.

If someone is worried about Trump being a fascist, or about his supporters being proto-fascists, then heckling him at rallies is a no good, horrible, very bad tactic. Historically, public, disorderly conflicts with the left cause fascist movements to grow. The vast middle gets frightened and turns further to thee right to restore order. And in contemporary Western societies the right is composed of people attracted to violence, the left composed mainly of people who aren’t, so escalating just puts you on worse and worse ground.

When someone heckles someone at a speech, they are trying to forcibly stop them. This isn’t “violence”, probably, because sound probably isn’t violence, but they are being “victimized” in some sense. So when someone uses this tactic, the expected counter-tactic is to present them as a victimizer and a bully. Then it all comes down to various calculations about who will be believed most. People who heckle have to expect that this will happen, complete with “They infringed my First Amendment rights”. (No one outside of politics geeks really cares about what First Amendment Rights actually are. A majority of the American public would vote against any of the Amendments if they were presented as new laws.)

And look — this is a country that actively likes to see hecklers being beaten down. The public thought “Don’t tase me bro” was the funniest thing ever. So they aren’t going to be sympathetic. Get used to that, do something else.

Another message from the anti-imperialist front:

Currently, neoliberalism enjoys the support of oligarchs and elites from around the world who would retire their support if the US no longer were to hold its side of the bargain by promising to continue
1) Accepting 3rd world disposable workers and peasants (people yearning to be free in US parlance)
2) Importing and consuming lots of cheap stuff
3) Maintaining a stable and overvalued dollar
4) Allowing tax havens
5) Policing the world

These are the deals Trump considers to be unsustainable and promises to change, just like the Zapatistas or any self-regarding Latin American socialist. The difference is that Trump is proposing all this in a very sour-grapes / macho / restoring wounded honor / fascist way which is the only way one could approach an exceptionally right-wing American electorate if one wants to win with this agenda. It is a matter of national pride.

I suppose he thinks that he will be able to defeat neoliberalism (bad deals) without crashing the system but, who knows, we must also consider imponderables such as panicky bond vigilantes and acts of both god and the devil. My point is, we all knew that dissolving the empire would be a messy business, just like the fall of the Soviet Union. Maybe Trump is the American Gorbachev. Maybe this is it.

Are the anti-Trump protesters anti-neoliberal, anti-imperial leftists or are they just wounded souls? That is the question.

112: “I imagine these Trump rallies are considered private, not public, events.”

They are held in public places and policed by the ordinary police, funded by tax money. So no, these shouldn’t be considered private events. Again, this seems to be a uniquely American attitude which is unintelligible elsewhere.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/29/donald-trump-georgia-rally-valdosta/81129964/

“The police chief said he thinks the Trump staff made the right call — and it wasn’t a racial issue. Trump had rented the venue, so “he had the right to tell folks he didn’t want to be there, that they had to leave. I’m not campaigning for anyone. That’s not what I do. But in this case, I support them,” Childress said.”

Again, can anybody outside the US, open dictatorships aside, imagine their police chief saying that? I can’t.

@ TM, your link confirms what I said, that Trump’s campaign is renting these facilities. They are therefore not public events.

“Victimization” in this case really has nothing to do with how anyone feels. A public speech in which one person is speaking and a thousand people are listening is impossible if people keep yelling and interjecting loudly. That has nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with the physics of how sound works. Someone set out to give a speech and made arrangements to do so, and if the heckler(s) were successful they were not able to give the speech: therefore they were victimized.

I fail to believe that there is anything uniquely American in the ejection of hecklers. It’s pretty much a prerequisite for speeches to occur anywhere if the population is impolite enough to make heckling a real possibility. There may or may not be something uniquely American in the police doing it, or in the general public sympathy for bad treatment of hecklers.

In any case this is just bad politics all around, as Patrick writes above. If this is how people think, then I am starting to get worried about Trump.

Lupita @ 47, 115

It is hard to know on which of Corey Robin’s twin threads to drop a comment: is the definitive take on Trump the end of history? ;-)

Your analysis makes a great deal of sense to me. Trump’s rhetoric is an attempt to treat the symptoms of an underlying disease with bedside manner and voodoo. In some ways the Jamelle Bouie piece linked by js. @ 45 was making a similar point: Trump’s core supporters are hurting materially and economically, but feel most acutely the assault on ego, the wounding of narcissism. They do not understand why they hurt — hence the incoherence. Trump treats the wounded ego, without any concern to treat the incoherence.

The circumstantial context of the 2016 elections is indeed imperial collapse, the coming home to roost of chickens from many past choices, which does give the whole thing a sense of history unraveling.

Brett Bellmore, of all people, fingered a sense of betrayal by established elites in the Republican Party, but the sense of betrayal is more general than that. And, it is just a sense, not a diagnosis. The alternative is to project outward the anxiety onto “forces” and to condescend to explain the “real” reasons to the uncomprehending, who in their dissatisfaction think there might be a remedy in reversing some foolishness somewhere.

Yet, as you say, it is hard to imagine anyone ending the system without crashing the system. Promising to crash the system will not win an election, one would think. The Republicans in Washington, though, have been making noises about crashing the system for a long time.

Jacob McM @ 118

“As disastrous as Reagan and Bush were, I always thought it was obnoxious and historically illiterate for liberals to call them fascists or extreme right-wingers.”

I am not a liberal, I am a socialist. May I call Reagan and Bush extreme right-wingers without being obnoxious and historically illiterate? Because I do. All socialists do. Who cares what a faction of the right (liberals) calls them.

“I think many discussions of Trump reveal the limitations of many American policy wonks’ analysis, because they’re not as familiar with this brand of politics [fascism] as Europeans are.”

The same can be said about Europeans concerning neoliberalism and imperialism. They have not experienced them like Latin Americans have, being on the receiving end, plus being permitted to have nuclear weapons and head the IMF. Europeans are both privileged and limited in that way.

“I think looking more at emphasis rather than individual policies alone also offers a more coherent and informative definition of left and right than defining individual policies as “left” or “right.”

Individual policies the Latin American left calls “left”: anti-neoliberalism and anti-imperialism. Emphasis is left to individual discretion.

Jacob McM@118
Disagree w you re Cruz. The ‘telos’ of his platform is ‘extreme right-wing’, certainly in the context of US politics.

126, it doesn’t give you pause that this happening is so American?

And having brought this up I’m unable to resist going off into activist-organization-speak. We’ve discussed here before how there may be a left in America, but how it really isn’t an organized left. Is it possible to actually make a decision about whether to heckle or not?

Take this example, for instance, which was about an Occupy GA at which John Lewis didn’t get a chance to speak. If there had been a press flack or someone coordinating the event, they would have said “Oh God don’t stop John Lewis from speaking: let him speak.” (At least, that’s what I imagine that they would have said.) But there wasn’t. Instead the decision came down to some guy named “Joe”, or rather, there was no way of making a coordinated decision without convincing everyone. Similarly there may not really be any way of keeping people from destructively heckling Trump rallies, even though it’s a bad idea. In which case trying to plan what to do is pointless.

Rich @ 124, if you’ve watched any of Trump’s speeches, you’ll have seen that he is interrupted by his fans all the time. They cheer, chant, etc, and he can’t speak or is drowned out. So is he victimized by his own fans?

Similarly, some times politicians say things their supporters don’t like, and they get booed. Are they being victimized by that?

Or do you say that if the speaker likes the interruption, s/he is not victimized, but if s/he dislikes it, s/he is victimized. Really?

Layman, you are wrong, these things don’t happen everywhere. Get out of your American cocoon. The idea that the political space can be turned into the private property of a candidate is only understood in America.

It is actually remarkable how successful the protesters have been, precisely because Trump is such an a**hole. The Muslim woman wearing a yellow star who was expelled by Trump made international headlines. The mostly black students at Valdosta who were forced out were great. Trump’s statements about how nice it would be if people who disagree with him could be beaten and carried out on stretchers are priceless. Actually I have rarely seen protesters being so effective. And there we are on CT debating whether Trump was “victimized”. Oh my.

You can’t stop heckling altogether precisely because there is no organized “all of the left.” That’s literally part of the advocacy strategy of a fairly large group of right wing organizations. But it doesn’t mean you can’t do anything to win the real fight, which is over public relations.

Trigger warning- the following will be a purely factual description of a real life white supremacist march in a community in which I once resided. If you’re the sort to decide from my neutral tone that I must be a white supremacist, please go do literally anything else with your life.

So here’s how this went down.

White supremacists (I think neo nazis but might be wrong) register their match through all proper channels. I don’t know if they informed the media in advance, but someone sure did. They declare that the march will be through a particularly poor, overwhelmingly black neighborhood.

The police aren’t stupid. They know what’s coming. They contact local ministers and community leaders in preparation. They understand that what’s about to happen is that the Nazis will march while staying 100% within the lines of legality, some of the nearly 100% black counter protesters (most of whom are literally just people who live with walking distance, not any sort of organized counter protest group) will throw things or otherwise try to attack the Nazis, the police will be legally obliged to intervene, the growing mob will declare that the police are on the side of the Nazis, more violence will occur, people will get hurt, cars smashed, and stuff burned down.

The police hope that religious leaders urging calm will be effective.

It’s not. Everything happens exactly as the police predict, and as the Nazis planned. The Nazis arrived with about two dozen marchers, all of whom were clearly trained to maintain stoic discipline in the face of thrown bricks. The police set up lines creating a DMZ so that the marchers and counter protester never mixed. The pretty much 100% black counter protesters had a non zero number of people who threw rocks, and enough people crossed the separation line that everyone collectively started edging forward. The police, first via local religious leaders and then via riot control, tried to move the counter protesters back. So the counter protesters decided that the police were in league with the Nazis, and turned the violence towards them. Non violent counter protesters bailed, and the crowd grew more hostile.

The Nazis, having accomplished their goal, evacuated. By the end of the day they were presumably at home, editing news footage of the days events- disciplined Nazi protesters, an angry mob of black faces, the police under assault from the mob, the police falling back, a liquor store on fire as the riot continued into the night.

The religious leaders tried to claim that out of town gang members were the ones who actually rooted. I think we can all guess how that went over with the Nazis target audience.

That’s respectability politics. Mechanically, it’s barely different from Martin Luther King’s tactics. The role of the police varies, but it’s remarkably similar.

So why did I being this up if the efforts at organizing were ineffective?

First, to illustrate the system.

But second… I think the actions of the religious leaders could have been improved upon. They relied on moral authority to stop people from rioting, but no one cares about that. That just made things worse. I’m not privy to the Nazi efforts at using this protest to recruit, but I’m sure their narrative played up how local religious leaders urged non violence, but the (black) rioters rooted anyway.

Here’s what I think should have been done- organize something, anything, for people to DO, other than physically intimidate and throw rocks. A chant, a song, anything. Something coordinated and active, composed of a core group of people you can rely on who will function as models for others.

This won’t completely stop violence, heckling, whatever. But if you can at least create a zone of calm on which cameras can focus, you can recruit those who are open to that who might otherwise get violent or heckle, and you can ensure that the visuals on TV that might at least sometimes depict a crowd of people holding hands and peacefully singing, instead of tearing bricks off the wall of a local business to fling at cops.

It’s not going to stop all misconduct. But as important as that is, that’s not the end goal. The end goal is to form a coherent counter narrative.

If you want to stop Trump from winning this exchange, organize a protest outside his event. Follow the rules. Make sure media notices by telling them in advance. Make sure your own cameras are rolling when Trump supporters walk over to shout insults at you. Make sure you have an official Guy In Charge who can answer the media and say “oh, he’s not with us, but we understand his frustration, and don’t you think Trumps guys overreacted?” when some idiot climbs up on Trump’s stage or throws glitter at him or whatever.

You won’t- can’t- stop random people from doing random things. But you can ensure it isn’t all there is to talk about.

@ TM, I am surprised to hear that there are places where:

– people are not permitted to rent public facilities for private events
– if they are, they are not permitted to determine who can attend their private event
– if they are, they are not permitted to invoke laws against trespassers
– if they are, the police will not enforce those laws
– and, in any event, police will ignore the public safety ramifications of any large gathering, anywhere, and refuse to maintain order in the vicinity.

Which places are those places?

I looked up Valdosta’s news release about the event (here: http://www.valdosta.edu/about/news/releases/2016/03/a-message-to-the-valdosta-state-university-community.php).

“While this [the removal of the students] is disturbing, it should be remembered that this was not a VSU sponsored event, but a private function. The Trump campaign, together with the Secret Service and other law-enforcement officials, had responsibility for such decisions, not VSU. As we reminded the campus via email last Friday, current federal law (HR 347) does not allow for protesting of any type in an area under protection by the Secret Service.”

HR 347 is a law passed in 2012 that forbids “knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt *the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions*, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions”.

So a campaign speech by Donald Trump (*) is now considered the conduct of “Government business or official functions”. Amazing. Now please Layman don’t tell me this is just how a normal democracy conducts election campaigns.

(*) HR 347 applies to any place “where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting”. This applies to presidential candidates.

@ Layman quite so. Contracts and bare licence etc

But how likely is a trump presidency to differ from any other Republican presidency?
A president trump would mean a GOP majority in Congress. How likely is that majority to apply a protectionist trade agenda? All Trumps policies are surely a violation of the treaties the US is party to and inconsistent with party policy. What they would do is cut tax for very rich people like Trump, and his poor working class supporters will be stuffed. just like all the other GOP contenders.

TM at 145. Disorderly conduct is illegal in all countries and always has been. You have never heard of breach of the peace? A crime in England since the 13th century? This is distracting from the main discussion to no purpose.

All it really takes is for the richest 20% to stop caring about the bottom 80% for socialism and other leftist philosophies to die on the vine.

I don’t think we can literally end hierarchies in economic organization, at least not without pretty much ending civilization and exterminating the larger part of the human population. So, the political problem is managing and disciplining elites, so as to prevent the shepherds from becoming wolves, or, if you prefer, retraining the wolves to become shepherds.

Any political hierarchy, however benign its design, contains the seeds of its own corruption and deterioration. But, if you cannot conduct civilization without it, your politics must be to find ways to repair and reform it. And, if those attempts by an elite to govern effectively fail, the hierarchy collapses to some extent — the society, or its political order, becomes less effective, less efficient, more predatory and oppressive.

Whether the dissatisfactions of those most oppressed can be channelled into institutional reforms has more to do with the ability of elites to sort themselves out than it does with the mentality of the oppressed and dissatisfied. The elite, who draw their own privileged existence out of controlling those beneath them in the hierarchy, face a conflict of interest: they can act to improve their own position at the expense of the larger society or they can act to improve and strengthen the society as a whole. Should they be wolves or shepherds? And, is that a continuum of choice?

Reactionaries do not understand how the world works or worked, and are angry that the world does not conform to their romantic, magical expectations of it. I think of Charles X touching the scrofulous at his coronation in 1825.

bruce wilder I think there are different kinds of reactionaries. Putin has brought back the KGB state so far as he can. Detailed laws and policies to suppress free speech, assembly and freedom of association. Quite rational but dictatorial.

They do have holy relics in the form of Lenin so some similarity to the right wing anti revolutionary French right. May be the Front National will restore the Monarchy if they seize power? Or Le Pen can change her name to Bonaparte?

At 154 Anon, it depends on context. In a public meeting held for political purposes you can call for hecklers to be removed if they will not go peacefully. Or you can argue with them. This was normal in England until TV became the main communication method and politicians lost their bottle and decided to refuse to argue back. Harold Wilson had a number of arguments with Tory supporters and held his own. You can argue that Politicians should be tough enough to handle protesters by confronting them. People in a private station in life are another matter. These are matters of custom and practice in a political context. But even party politicians some times sue for libel say or assault if they are hit etc.

TM @ 145

Again, your exerpt demonstrates that this was a private event, not a public event. Invoking HR 347 is therefore moot. As for the applicability of HR 347, it is not Trump’s speech which is the ‘government function’, but the work of his protection detail.

I really can’t grasp your objection. I’m on the side of the protestors, and dismiss the idea of Trump-as-victim as pure nonsense; but the fact remains that people can eject you from their private functions, and they can enlist the police to help them do that, and this is true in essentially every country I can think of. I have invited you to name a country where this is not the case. Will you either do so, or acknowledge the point and move on?

I note with interest that there were large protests accompanying the Conservative party conference in Manchester last year. The funny thing is, while I see stories about people marching in the streets, I don’t find any about protestors in the actual conference. Can it be that the protestors were not permitted to attend the conference – that it was a private event, and the organizers exercised control over attendance? And the reports all quote the police, who apparently policed the protests to maintain public order. How…American of them!

Anon @ 154, there is no contradiction between your retort and my comment. A verbal interruption is not force, and the interrupted are not victims. Words can be attacks, but are not necessarily so; and they are never ‘force’. Sticks and stones, as they say.

Anarcissie at 158. OK it depends which people we are thinking of. Many Humans are hypocrites. The threat posed by backward people varies with their social power and degree of organisation. Bigots can harm one person if they have some power, or millions if they rule a large country. With different combinations between one extreme and another. I cannot see Reactionaries as tragic but as foolish and often very nasty pieces of work. Who can say how sincere any politician is unless you have a vantage point to see behind the mask.

Trump is inciting vigilante violence throughout the country and at his rallies (old days…carry out on a stretcher…punch him in the face). Youthful observers guess that the few people showing up to respond to racist provocations (thousands of Muslim American celebrating 9/11…Mexican rapists…ban all Muslims…police should beat up BLM protestors) or even just display protest signs or yellow stars or the finger may be beaten. So more youth show up in an act of solidarity. They are not creating a public nuisance; they are responding to one. The police should let them respond to the public nuisance in a non-violent way. Are people objecting to this? Haven’t read the comments.

I share TMs astonishment: how can a political rally be a “private event” ?

The disconnect between “free speech” / freedom rhetoric and acceptance of the type of newspeak legalese that aims for everything to be “private”, “classified” and/or “corporate” is just weird.

I don’t think only non-US commenters feel that way, right?

the fact remains that people can eject you from their private functions, and they can enlist the police to help them do that, and this is true in essentially every country I can think of. I have invited you to name a country where this is not the case. Will you either do so

UK

@Ze K (102): Within nativism, the ethnic and the civic are often intertwined but I am not saying their mutual reinforcement is a guaranteed highway to a fascist hell. (Denmark decriminalized homosexuality in 1933, saved most of its Jews in 1941-45, and introduced same-sex unions in 1989, the first in the West.) I’m saying that sooner or later, a consistently nativist policymaker is likely to attempt social-democratic policies – say, subsidizing child care to boost birth rates and education to improve labor productivity.

On the other hand, see Edward Luttwak’s 1994 essay in The London Review of Books, Why Fascism is the Wave of the Future, a brief follow-up to his 1993 book, The Endangered American Dream.

Suzanne @167,

What is your interpretation of those very different statements? Aside from being quite different, one from the other, do you see either as bad? Or worse than bad? How do you, personally, view them (in their full context, of course)? Do they strike you as worth condemnation?

It seems likely that you have a problem with both of them, or you wouldn’t have bothered quoting them and placing them together.

So, please tell me what, exactly, is wrong with calling for actual equality for everyone, regardless of gender, an end to all hierarchies, including patriarchy, an end to all apartheid, beginning with economic apartheid . . . Because that’s the foundation for my philosophy. Equal rights, civil rights, human rights and actual participatory democracy. What are your preferences regarding the above?

As for the Sanders spokesperson: I can’t see anything wrong with what he said, either, though it may come across as somewhat clumsy. If you’ve ever watched Tad Devine speak in public, that clumsiness isn’t at all surprising.

RP — The protesters in Chicago shut down the rally. You might call that “lucking out”, I’d call it fucking fantastic. (Could it have turned out to be a bad idea to disrupt the speech? Possibly, but in the circumstances it hardly matters.)

As for “fascism”: I think it’s indisputable that Trump is openly running as a white nationalist. And from where I’m standing that’s plenty horrible enough that I don’t feel any need to get into quibbles about “fascist”.

Layman @ 161, I do not contest that words are not force. I do maintain that being interrupted can render one a victim. If, for example, the intent and consequence of the interruption is to cause one to suffer injury to one’s social status or future prospects, I cannot see how the interruptee is not a victim.

engels @ 168, take a look at ‘aggravated trespass’.

@ novakant, you invite several like-minded people to your home, to discuss a political agenda you’re planning. Strangers arrive and insist on joining the meeting. Do you let them in, or not? If they insist, what then? Is it a private meeting, or a public one?

@RNB, you really should spend more time thinking, and less posting. I’m sure you don’t mean to say that, should you invite journalists into your home, anyone else is then free to enter.

You’re evading the question. Take this case. You ask only followers to come to your rally; you then call for the death of Jews, Father Coughlin-style. You know cable news which you have invited will broadcast your call. You have followers you know will carry out your orders once they see them on television. I am asking whether in a case like this a heckler’s veto should be allowed.

John,

“Even when protests have been vocal, they’ve never been (AFAICT) such as to stop Trump being heard. The only case of that kind was when Trump cancelled the rally himself. So, the issue is a simple one: property rights vs free speech.”

I mentioned this upthread. Protesters have, until Chicago, been alone or in single digits. They couldn’t have “shut down” anything. They didn’t have that power. Trump has the mic, the security forces, the police, etc. etc. It was generally a lone Muslim woman, or a lone Black Lives Matter protester, with no mic, no ability to project their voices electronically. And they were in a sea of people determined to shut them down. And they often did, by force. They — the protesters — should be admired for their courage, not condemned for “shutting down free speech.”

Anyone claiming that Trump is the victim here is crazy.

Also: I was born and raised here, and I didn’t realize that political rallies in public spaces were “private events.” I would have thought it illegal to throw someone out who wasn’t causing any harm. And according to this article, this is being done preemptively at Trump rallies, just on the say so of his supporters:

Dana Milbank: A Day With Trump’s True Believers

@ 186 Even when protests have been vocal, they’ve never been (AFAICT) such as to stop Trump being heard.

I’m not sure what ‘shutitdown’ means to you, but denying Trump his first amendment rights in a space he rented seems to me the only possible interpretation of the protesters’ intent. The protesters intended to hijack Trump’s rally with supporters for their own purposes. Surely you don’t deny that?

The only case of that kind was when Trump cancelled the rally himself. So, the issue is a simple one: property rights vs free speech.

Free speech is limited at CT. You specifically directed me not speak of a certain topic. I certainly never tried to silence you. Yet, you threatened to ban me for simply broaching a topic as part of a larger discussion.

I’m quite convinced you are serious and I respect your right to restrict discussion on this site. Please explain why Trump should be denied the freedom to make similar decisions.

“but denying Trump his first amendment rights ”

The first amendment is a prohibition on what the government can do. Only the government could be guilty of denying Trump his first amendment rights. Private citizens can’t muzzle him, and don’t enter into the qustion.

@194. Layman, you speak very confidently about what the nature of the First Amendement is. I suppose, I could believe you due to your confidence. But there is this law prof to whom I linked at 189 who gives me a different understanding of the First Amendment than you. And I’m torn: should I believe him or you due to your confidence?

@194 Thanks for this. If it is the case that 1000 people have the right under the law to hijack an event paid for by an individual and attended by 10,000 who want the event to proceed as planned, then perhaps it’s easier to understand why so many heed Trump’s call for change.

Seems to me that the idea that a political rally can be seen as “private” is absurd, and ought to be dismissed.

As for the protesters; they didn’t shut down the rally, or hijack it, or any such thing. Trump, in classic bully fashion, was presented with credible opposition, and did that himself. The real pandemonium ensued when it became clear that the event had been cancelled, at which point the protesters exulted and the attendees had a hissy fit.

As for the protesters; they didn’t shut down the rally, or hijack it, or any such thing. Trump, in classic bully fashion, was presented with credible opposition, and did that himself.

This is true. But one does want to give the protesters some of the credit for this outcome.

Let me just add support to the notion that the idea that election campaigning is a “private event” and to top one can still use the police to enforce that privacy as if it were a matter of criminal not civil law is a rather unique US concept. But it’s not a trump special, as all candidates have a habit to remove all authentic speach if necessary with force from the auduenienc and replace it with posters designed by the campaign team Guess that’s why Clinton and Sanders are mainly jumping on Trumps I’ll pay legal bills of people who beat up protesters, because in every other aspect they can’t resolution to act different.

And here’s another incident that I’ve already mentioned, which occurred during a public forum by Senator Kerry. That was 2007. It also happened in public space, and this time in an event to which everyone was invited — not a “private” one in any sense.

This really has nothing to do with property rights pro or con and everything to do with the disciplinary deference accorded to police in the U.S. and to authority figures generally.

novakant @ 209 overgeneralization & multiple-choice!

@207 You may be misreading steps taken for the security of a high-ranking US official as steps taken to close down dissent. In the Kerry case the student forcibly took a microphone after the questioning period was over; that does seem somewhat threatening. It could be that this was the misreading in Bush’s case, resulting in the payout to the protestors. Of course forcibly taking Trump’s podium should not be allowed; nor should veto by heckling, I believe. But I do not think any and all protest activity should be banned or criminalized. This would seem to me to violation of the free speech rights of protestors which I think can be balanced with the free speech rights of the demagogic speaker. Today’s S. Ct seems to privilege the latter, but this seems to be a rather unsettled part of the law. Perhaps a case will arise out of these protests that has landmark significance?

Suzanne @ 202 and Plume
Thanks for that Suzanne. My intention has never been to accuse Plume of being sexist, but to point out that the debates about inclusion on the left sometimes sound as if women and people of colour are being invited to participate in a debate in which the terms have already been set by white men.

To make this a bit more grounded, perhaps we can consider CT in general, and this thread as a specific example, as a space of leftish political debate. As far as I can see, it tends to be dominated by white male voices. However when someone (such as me)points this out, especially if they take a critical perspective or offer suggestions about why this might be so, it seems to be resented and to provoke anger in quite a few commenters, who feel that they are being falsely or maliciously accused of being sexist or racist (this is so common there’s a saying for it, as I’m sure you know – ‘it’s all about teh menz’).

When people start talking about things like “left wing firing squads” it gets really out of control. It doesn’t make a good atmosphere for open debate. In fact I find CT quite depressing in this respect and think maybe I should stop reading and commenting on CT for my own mental wellbeing.

I think it would be really valuable to have more feminist perspectives here on the Trump phenomenon, and on the Hillary/Bernie issue, but it’s not my country and it’s not my election so maybe I shouldn’t even try. I hope there will be people – such as yourself Suzanne maybe? – who can provide this perspective, but I also hope you don’t have to face a lot of anger and contempt from men here for trying to do so.

@Suzanne 03.14.16 at 11:26 pm
>’And it’s great that women are getting more and more involved in politics and we encourage that’
> the assumption(s) … that there’s a club, or a movement, and women are welcome to join if they want, but it’s not theirs. … (I don’t know how else you can read it.)

Well, I don’t know, how about reading it as, say, ‘we are in favour of women’s becoming more and more involved in politics’?
And where, if one must spell it out:
1. ‘we’ means not ‘men’, but the political movement the speaker represents (including all of its members of all genders).
2. The reason it is appropriate to encourage or welcome women is not that politics ‘is not theirs’ (of women) *by right*, but that it used ‘not to be theirs’ in terms of their *actual control over it* due to patriarchal traditions and the gender inequality in society.
I suppose one could object that women at this stage no longer need any such encouragement from any movement, but even with the context excised it seems clear that the speaker’s point was to emphasise that his movement supports women’s participation in politics, *because someone else was suggesting it was opposed to it*.

@Val 03.15.16 at 12:40 am
> When I suggest that something might sound differently to women or people of colour than to those who said it, apparently I am saying something far-fetched and despicable

‘Sounds like’ means ‘is interpreted as’. And yes, I am saying that it’s an extremely far-fetched interpretation, and if anyone insists on interpreting it like this, it’s their problem, not the speaker’s. If you know that it’s not supposed to mean that, why dwell on it? If, on the other hand, you’re suggesting it really is supposed to mean that, then that is, indeed, despicable, too.

Patrick @ 219, as you note, there’s some history of success for protest-as-provocation. What are the successes of protest-of-invisibility?

Me, I think when people of good convictions decide to risk jail or worse to call attention to fascists, they deserve a pat on the back, not a lecture from you.

Isn’t it inspirational that Chicago happened? Isn’t Trump wild-eyed enough that meaningful protest should happen? “Just ignore him and he’ll go away” didn’t work out well for Republicans.

Stick around Val. Jeebus.

Broken link above I think, but CR’s most recent tweet was about Black Lives Matter changing the valence of protest, in terms of who would be blamed for lawlessness, Trump or the protestors. I still tend to think of the American public as being as it was in fall 2011, when Occupy was rolled up to general public indifference or approval. But maybe BLM really has changed things.

Rich Puchalsky @ 217
No Rich on another thread you actually said that there were only 3 or 4 people on it worth talking to, or something like that. I’m not going to look it up, but I know you said it, and I think you probably do too. I was just light-heartedly suggesting to js, using you as an example, that even though we all get fed up at times, it’s probably best not to go down that path.

Plume, F Foundling etc – I think if you look carefully at this thread and many others on CT, you will find that there are not many women participating and not many feminist perspectives being expressed. I had a quick check and the great majority of comments on this post come from people who are identifiably male, plus there are very few posts from women taking a feminist perspective, even though it is clearly relevant to the Trump phenomenon.

I think there is definitely a bit of ‘shoot the messenger’ going on here, and I think I have the right to say that if I’m going to be repeatedly criticised, often in very harsh terms, for pointing out the bloody obvious, then that is the reason I might choose not to be here.

Anyway, I thought CR’s point wasn’t about the valence of protests in general but about the valence of protests against Trump. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t share RP’s worry, but it would be amazing if things had indeed changed, even in the limited way.

If you have something interesting or important to say on a given subject, you can say it, regardless of your gender and race, and it will either convince people or it will not.

You should look up the experiences of women posting in blog comments using gender-neutral handles vs. gender-specific, i.e. feminine, handles (the same women, that is). It’s out there, I trust you can find it.

I borked the block quotes, which were meant to only around ‘even if they sound critical’ but sure the meaning is clear anyway

@RNB, I think it’s because the accusers are Martians. Wouldn’t that explain it just as well, and isn’t it just as well founded a theory?

Maybe. And I don’t know have a good way of measuring the extent to which pundits and even the Democratic electorate may be subjecting Clinton to sexist double standards, e.g. more likely to evaluate equally reasonable claims as outright deceptions and lies when she makes them. But that there does not seem to be any serious discussion at present if this is happening should not in itself be taken as evidence that it is not happening. And as you suggest, even if she is being subjected to double standards, sexism may not be motivating the unfair treatment. Still we have plenty evidence of sexism to motivate our interest in this possibility.

“But that there does not seem to be any serious discussion at present if this is happening should not in itself be taken as evidence that it is not happening.”

Exactly! And that there doesn’t seem to be any serious discussion at present that they’re Martians should not in and of itself be taken as evidence that they are not Martians.

To be clear, when I say ‘Martians’, I don’t mean men-are-from-Mars stuff, I mean real actual bonafide Martians! Well, okay, not actually Martians, because of course we’re pretty sure there are none, but aliens, and not your secretly-immigrating kind (though they are secretly immigrating!), but your actual lizard-man-in-people-suit kind of aliens.

Now, I know I said lizard-MAN, so you’re prolly gonna say, see, MEN nonetheless. But for me, the LIZARD part trumps the whole MAN part, since of course any lizard-man is going to be lots more like a lizard-woman than like a real people-man, it’s the lizard bit that really matters. I mean, that part’s obvious.

How do we know it’s not teh lizard-men?

RNB @ 235
Very good point. It’s widely known that women are perceived as less competent and less suitable as ‘leaders’ (see eg loads of information on the Feminist Philosophers website) but very few people are prepared to admit that this affects their personal judgement. There were very similar debates in Australia when Julia Gillard was our Prime Minister – many people (including some women) on the left as well as the right, argued that she was one of the most incompetent, neoliberal and dishonest PMs ever, although I think objectively she was probably fairly average on the honesty and neoliberalism fronts and on the competence front, in some ways above average and in others below, but some of the perceived ‘incompetence’ probably related to the fact that she tried to adopt a non-adversarial style at times. (I should say that I worked with two years with JG in a former life and I like her a lot).

The question of how much sexist bias affects outcomes for female candidates is an important but difficult one I think. What I find annoying is that in spite of masses of evidence of sexist bias, many people still deny it exists.

One question that I find very interesting about American politics is, was Barack Obama’s chance of becoming the Democrat candidate (and ultimately the first black President) affected by the fact that he was also a man competing with a female candidate? Did that help him at all? Now that I think is an interesting research question, though very difficult – I’m certainly not going to stick my neck out and venture any opinion! But if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination this time, we might venture to wonder whether Hillary Clinton’s main role as a female candidate has been to make her male rivals look better in the eyes of some people!

(Any usual suspects who feel like getting angry with me for expressing these speculations, please count to ten. They are just ideas.)

Maybe. Or it could be that baseless idle speculation is twaddle, and should be treated like twaddle.

RNB our posts crossed. Thank you.

Much of what I say about sexist bias could also be said about racist bias I would think.

As for Layman’s comments – I don’t even know what to think. What does it all mean, I wonder?

I actually said some stuff about ecofeminism on the last thread where we had these arguments Plume.

What I’m saying is, ok I’m still here, but you really aren’t getting many feminist perspectives on the Trump phenomenon. Wouldn’t it be good to get some feminist perspectives, especially American ones? Just consider the possibility that you’re not getting them here because in spite of you saying they are welcome, they don’t actually feel it. Just consider it, OK?

I’m not saying any further about this because I’m sick of being lectured at and criticised for saying the bloody obvious.

Val,

Without mentioning anyone on this forum, without mentioning a single person here on CT, what is your perspective on the Trump phenomenon? I’d love to read it. Why do you think he’s so popular among a subset of Americans? What, in your opinion, is the feminist perspective on Trump?

Katha Pollitt on Doug Henwood. (Tho I suspect that most people will fail to read past the first two paragraphs.)

Rich @251: Education and supposedly highly developed reasoning abilities only provide extra resources for rationalization.

Or as Hume put it: “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

I don’t doubt that sexism is involved with opposition to Clinton. But I also don’t care. You shouldn’t have to prove yourself as pure of heart and mind before you can criticize a presidential candidate (if you did, then Sanders critics better work a whole lot harder to prove they aren’t prejudiced against the working class or the young.) These people are asking for incredible power over us, and the power to commit actions in our name. Imperfect people still have the right to criticize their leaders (or would-be leaders) from their own biased, imperfect perspectives.

To put it another way, even if you manage to prove that Doug Henwood is a sexist, that doesn’t mean that you’ve proven he’s wrong about Hillary Clinton.

Richard Yeselson who recently wrote a blog entry here was upset today on twitter with Bernie Sanders-supporter Doug Henwood who said he would not vote for Clinton to keep Trump out of office. I think Crooked Timber contributor Corey Robin has recommended here that we read Henwood’s book on Clinton.
On Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-day-with-trumps-true-believers/2016/03/14/d43ff646-ea0f-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

F. Foundling,

“Well, how should I put it: some people are more interested in what is being said than in who is saying it. If you have something interesting or important to say on a given subject, you can say it, regardless of your gender and race, and it will either convince people or it will not.”

This is not a very inclusionary attitude to be honest. If you want to be part of creating a space where people of diverse backgrounds participate, part of that is pro-actively trying to encourage voices from more diverse backgrounds, not just having an attitude of “If you have something interesting or important to say on a given subject, you can say it”.

Of course, anyone can comment on Crooked Timber unless they get banned. But there are many more male and white voices in comments.

As far as I can tell one of Val’s frustrations is that while she can, of course, write comments from her eco-feminist perspective, other commenters often ignore these comments instead of engaging with them in the comment thread. Then what I have observed happens is there begins a debate on this matter of whether and why other commenters do not actively engage with comments from women or from non-white backgrounds etc.

While the notion of caring more about what someone is saying than who is saying it has some charm, it disregards the fact that there are various things that affect a person’s experiences and perspectives, including gender and race. If you only listened to men’s views about gender issues, you would probably not end up being very informed overall, and if you only listened to white people’s views about race issues, you would probably not end up being very informed overall either.

I think that sometimes it matters who is saying something, as much as what is being said.

@ Anarcissie (148): That’s one way of looking at it, but for the purposes of this discussion I’d rather read “reactionary” in a straightforward literal way: it is all about reaction to social change, especially rapid and/or violent change such as a revolution. A reactionary’s sensibility is shaped no less by that experience than by dreams of a golden age. More often than not, he also recognizes that reverting to the old regime would be like pushing toothpaste back into the tube. You have to work with what you’ve got, building new hierarchies from the shards of the old order.

As for Trump, I have no idea what his actual policies might be. I’m sure his voters would feel betrayed if he reversed himself on the two issues that seem to matter most to them, immigration and free trade. But Trump is speaking in hyperboles. It would be hard to measure his actual performance against his promises because he obviously never meant them to be taken literally. No one can seriously expect Trump to build the great Mexican wall and make the southern neighbors pay for it. One would expect him to do something towards that end – but how much? Will a dozen new border checkpoints count as that wall? Or an army of bulldozers, excavators and cranes on the evening news?

there’s basically 4 or 5 people who I read CT for

Apart from me who else do you have in mind

Jacob McM @118, 130, 134. I agree with you.

Val,

“It’s the contempt that bothers me. I’m not sure if I’m exposed to more contempt than others – it’s hard to assess that realistically – but it does feel like that.”

I don’t think you are exposed to more contempt so much, but you are probably on further left than most of the other female commenters. I think you often engage with the commenters you find are further left, such as Rich Puchalsky and Plume, but they don’t really have an aspect of gender in their left-anarchy-socialism schemes. And Rich Puchalsky can be a bit blunt at times when he isn’t sharing his poems (I liked the Hurricane Katrina one BTW, I forgot to say on the other thread) and Plume never thinks any commenter is right apart from himself ;-)

There was an exchange above with anon @69 “Look, there are real, respectable forms of feminism and identity politics that are worthwhile because they’re not idealist in foundation, they don’t make ideas–beliefs and values–causally primary. Instead they recognizes that racism and sexism are bound up with, and depend upon for their ability to enforce their bigotry, real material social and economic conditions. None of them [selected “real” feminists and “real” people of other races] would moralistically sniff down their superior noses about concerns that racism and sexism have economic underpinnings.”

This sort of formulation does not see either gender or race/culture as substantive compared to material economic structures.

I know there is work which has the view of gender and culture (I don’t really want to use the word race here) being entirely socially constructed, and on the left there is a history since marx of everything being due to economics. So in this sort of formulation gender and culture are solely social inventions to make some people less equal economically, except with a more wordy way of expressing this.

I don’t really agree with that myself.

Rich Puchalsky has identified some of your comments as being essentialism, which I think is not the correct reading. But I would be interested in how you think the Left, or even the further left, could change to have a greater presence for people of a different gender or culture which you say is possible with neoliberalism —”Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Beyoncé – they’re all I guess products of neoliberalism to some degree. But at least they’re visible” — while also expressing a vision of a very egalitarian society with much reduced hierarchy.

Is there a way of conceptualising race/culture and gender as a difference that matters without being hierarchical?

geo: “Or as Hume put it: “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.””

Yep. But the passions that some people spend their reasoning power on justifying are the usual S&M ones. I sort of prefer it when people openly admit that they’re into S&M rather than spending their time making a huge intellectual framework around it. The motivated reasoning that it takes for “Let’s bomb people because — I have twenty learned articles” or “I can be nasty to everyone because — I’m a feminist scholar” or even “I can feel superior because — you “defended” Trump while explaining your views of how politics works” gets annoying when most of society seems to run on the same stuff.

John Quiggin @ 237 et al

I am interested in how free speech is understood in the context of events–especially in a non-US context.

I have always thought that “no showing up inside to disrupt the event” was basic “your event, your rules” norm–just like “no comments on people’s sexual desirability” can be a conference rule, enforced by the same means. (Similarly, protesting in legal fashions outside the event, like dressing up as the naked cowboy[1] and hanging out on the traffic island outside the event, is perfectly legal.)

Is it that campaign rallies, protest marches, etc are not thought of as “events”–so everyone gets to participate however they want, even if it makes some/many of the core audience unhappy? Or is it a general “anything legal can’t be banned by event organizers” that would apply to events generally? Or…

Rich
“I can be nasty to everyone because — I’m a feminist scholar”

Nope, I am really not going to buy into these arguments any more. I am happy to read your ideas, but please stop with the personal insults.

Val, I still find sometimes that women in power (Canada has several provincial premiers) don’t seem to speak with as much authority…and I catch myself thinking that, and stop it. It’s just something to confront as it happens, I find. I’m old, too, and still having to do this.

Speaking of women in power (off-topic, so I won’t keep on in this vein, promise!) we are just finishing watching the Danish series (three seasons, ten episodes each) of Borgen. “Borgen” means “government” in Danish. Just great, about a woman politician. Helpful to those wanting to unlearn the stereotypes, and excellent drama. Looking forward to watching the finale tonight.

“You want to know whose rights were violated there? Not so much Trump’s, but the rights of everybody who went there to hear him.”

Strict constructionist finds right to hear in Constitution. Film at eleven!

More rights babble.

Thanks novakant, hix, and JQ for your perspectives. So I am not mistaken in seeing an American exceptionalism at work.

@Layman, just to point out again that the cases of suppression of speech I mentioned concerned silent dissidence. The Muslim woman wearing a yellow star in silent protest against Trump’s demands for special treatment of Muslims, the black students who apparently really were singled out for their skin color (the police chief claimed otherwise, but no evidence of disruptive behavior came forward). And these things are considered a-ok. If you can point me to any comparable reports from other liberal democracies, I’ll eat my words.

Re HR 347, this is hardly moot given the University’s statement, which stated clearly that under that law, all protest at a SS (Secret Service) controlled event was forbidden. I suppose that was what they were told, by Trump or the SS. I have a hard time believing that this claim would survive a constitutional challenge but the very fact that Americans believe that kind of thing and that there was hardly any controversy about the passing of the law (which was signed by Obama) is telling enough.

Btw I asked the University how much rent they were paid and what contract they had with Trump. No answer so far but I would be surprised if the event wasn’t in some form subsidized by tax-payers and students. And what would have happened if the University had declined to rent? I guarantee they would have been attacked for denying Trump’s “right” to hold a rally. It’s the annoying idiocy of liberals, mistaking the right to speak with a right to be given a public platform, and inviting fascists on SNL.

Engels: re heckling in the UK. You may remember the case of Walter Wolfgang (old age pensioner, formerly refugee from Nazi Germany), a visitor at the Labour Party conference in 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Wolfgang. Jack Straw, then the Foreign Secretary, said in a speech “”We are in Iraq for one reason only: to help the elected Iraqi government build a secure, democratic and stable nation”, Wolfgang shouted “Nonsense!”. Some witnesses claimed he then may have added “That’s a lie and you know it!” Several conference stewards, who were on alert for any attempts to disrupt the speech, then picked up and removed Wolfgang and confiscated his security pass.

That did not go down well. Was Wolfgang right to object? But if he was, did the Labour conference have the right to eject him? Legally, if mot morally?

Background on HR 347:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanine-molloff/trespass-bill_b_1328205.html;http://salem-news.com/articles/february292012/hr-347-ibb.php

It is interesting that nobody at the time seems to have considered that presidential campaign events would fall under the law. Somebody above asked whether JQ thinks that “non-USians take a wider and/or more liberal view of freedom of speech”. The answer is it depends. Americans often think their freedom of speech instincts are unshakably strong but in some areas, US free speech law is actually quite restrictive, Amerians just manage to convince themselves that freedom of speech is not even at issue when to outsiders it obviously is.

Well, this comment section turned into a sewer very quickly.

Otherwise intelligent people spewing foolish things because they are scared.

Look, the Democratic party whipped itself into a terror regarding Milquetoast Mitt Romney. It’s pretty clear that at least one person here is correct to say that the main ‘constant’ to who the left considered the most dangerous is popular support. And yes, that is a bad thing for Democracy — that you all constantly think the Republic will end if the other guy wins is not good for Democracy.

Particularly when the only group of people who have actually resorted to political violence in any organized way in this election are left-wing protestors, who love to charge into rallies for other candidates and start knocking heads about. That’s how I know that this hyperventilating on the left is nonsense. If you were seriously worried about threats to this democracy, every lefty political blog in the country would not be praising a bunch of hooligans getting violent at a Trump rally the way they are. THAT is the threat to democracy these days, not some blowhard in a bad wig.

Stephen, yes I remember that. I don’t think they should have ejected him. My point was only that to my knowledge if you want to get someone off your property in England you can’t “enlist the help of the police” (Layman) and the police website seems to say the same thing.

@engels, this sounds awfully, familiar…

https://netpol.org/2014/09/23/protest-private-land-part-one/

@282 and various others, I’m fully conscious of the extent to which American views and laws are often – not to mince words – fucked up. Having said that, in this case I think many of you should take a longer look at your own national views, practices and laws when it comes to politics. With very little effort, you may learn that the practice of hiring private (or public) property for political events is not uniquely American; that such events restrict attendance to supporters while still inviting the broadcast media; that hecklers and protestors are not permitted within the event; that the police can be enlisted to evict them; and that all of this is provided for by law.

@engels, you’re quite right that the police might decline to intervene. In fact, I’m sure they sometimes do, depending on the circumstance. Only, when they decline, there is no video of them not arresting protestors or escorting them out, so we can’t know that they declined. It might very well be the case that this has happened, here, in the US, just as it might have happened in the UK, and that in fact these things work more or less the same in both locations. Certainly the laws are more or less the same, are they not?

When Brett Bellmore makes perfect sense, it is a clear indication a comment thread has derailed into insanity.

Brett Bellmore 03.15.16 at 10:24 am @ 267:
‘When you’re protesting an unjust law, a law average people will think is unjust, arranging to get publicly arrested for peacefully violating it is highly effective theater.’

Only if it is dramatized, ‘theatricalized’, one might say. And that can be tricky. Keith McHenry, the founder of Food Not Bombs, politely went to jail for weeks in Orlando, Florida, for giving food to people. (It is illegal to give food to people unless you are credentialed by the government in most places, something a bunch of anarchists are unlikely to accept.) Pretty much no one outside of the ‘organization’ really noticed, as far as I know. As a demonstration, then, McHenry’s efforts were a failure. You have to make trouble; you have to be seen. One can’t count on the unbelievable stupidity of the British in India, or of segregationists, to overreact in an advantageous manner whenever you want.

But all political actions are not about demonstrating something to those still outside the group. Much of the activity is transformative for the participants. It teaches them that they do not have to be passive, helpless recipients of whatever the established order is imposing on them; that they don’t have to take it. That is an especially important thing for any oppressed class to learn. It will enable them to make further, greater trouble about their condition. Bravely facing down thousands of Trump supporters may be stupid as public relations, but that isn’t the only thing that’s going on.

Sorry about spell-check on Anarcissie. — not a comment!

BW: “When Brett Bellmore makes perfect sense […]”

Oh no he’s not making sense. Fascism is not left-wing: enthusiastic college protestors are not fascists: the CRM did actually “obstruct public thoroughfares”, etc. etc. Don’t get so caught up by some people saying foolish things that you think you have to agree with someone who’s disagreeing with them but also saying foolish things. That’s what people want you to do in these side-picking exercises where you’re either with them, or you’re with Trump. Or with the anti-feminists, or whoever.

There’s still a hangover around this from the Bush years. I thought about that when Juan Cole was brought up. So many people disagreed with Bush from so many different directions that you still get people saying things “But De Long disagreed with Bush! How can you say he’s neoliberal?” “Juan Cole criticized the Iraq War! How can you say he was exceptionally wrong in supporting the Libya intervention?” Etc. etc.

Patrick: “I can’t believe that I’m reading a CT thread where Brett Bellemore is demonstrating a better understanding of protest politics than the people who are deeply into protest culture.”

What?

Wrong in so many ways. a) No, Brett doesn’t understand protest politics, he makes up rules e.g. that the CRM was supposed to have followed that they didn’t actually follow, b) Um, I think that I have some understanding of protest politics, not a lot, but I think I basically agreed although I didn’t second-guess the protestors quite as much, c) respectability politics isn’t all of protest politics. Sometimes, as Anarcissie writes above, sometimes the point of protest is to transform the participants. This isn’t simply an “I want to feel good” thing, many protest movements theorized cycles of radicalization leading to larger protests, d) Are people here really into protest culture? Everyone vaguely on the left who’s gone to college has been to a protest. How active are people here really? I would guess that people here are generally into hearing about protests, with exceptions of course.

RP @ 304 of course, mostly Brett Belmore does not make sense. That is why the exceptional performances (eg @ 267) are an indicator. It is a function of his schtick as a troll of a certain kind.

Layman, one feels like talking to a wall. When five people all agree in disagreeing with you, maybe you should consider the possibility that your knowledge of the world isn’t complete?

Brett Bellmore is a very special kind of stopped clock, one that is never right, not once a day or even once a year

Another key factor here:

Pretty much since Day One, the American government itself has come down hard on leftist movements. Right-wingers don’t really have to show up and “protest” against these movements, because the state will move on them. The state will smash their heads in, pepper spray or just shoot them, whether they’re non-violent or not, and they usually are. Presidents call out the national guard, etc. etc. Striking workers, antiwar protesters, civil rights, green activists — they all have experienced violent reactions by the state and private goon squads hired by capitalists. There just isn’t any need for right-wingers to spend their time in counter-protests, though they do.

OTOH, right-wing movements, historically, generally aren’t seen as a threat to the state or capitalism — with rare exceptions. They rarely provoke any unified response from law enforcement, capitalist lackeys, the state, etc. etc. So left-wing protesters, consciously or subconsciously, see a need to stand up to them. The state won’t. The state implicitly supports the right. It is right-wing itself, etc.

TM @ 308, I assume you I’m willing to learn. To repeat myself:

@ TM, I am surprised to hear that there are places where:

– people are not permitted to rent public facilities for private events
– if they are, they are not permitted to determine who can attend their private event
– if they are, they are not permitted to invoke laws against trespassers
– if they are, the police will not enforce those laws
– and, in any event, police will ignore the public safety ramifications of any large gathering, anywhere, and refuse to maintain order in the vicinity.

Which places are those places?

@315 All conservatives are Hitler. See above.

JQ is right, IMHO. The legal questions are about property rights. Some/many may be surprised to learn that the French Revolution was in large part a revolution to enshrine the property rights of all citizens. Indeed, the sacred value of property survived long after universal franchise evaporated. Egalité meant wealthy, older men only for at least the next century after the rights of all french citizens were ‘enshrined’.

BTW, Trump is morphing along with this thread. He’s getting better on the stump. As for protests (I support protests, even illegal ones), Trump is now hold ‘flash rallies.’ So, all those who want to link arms and sing civil rights songs, or just be silent are going to need to form fast-reaction flying squads to crash the parties/rallies that are now, in some cases, being organized on 15 hour notice.

The problem with these protests, of course, is the optics. The weak temporarily vanquish the strong. My view is that this sort of self-selection as the weaker actor requires some serious rethinking. I realize punching through the Donkey fog isn’t easy for everyone, so I’ll simplify it: voters are more likely to vote for a candidate who projects an image of strength. Stamping Trump as the stronger actor this early in the race is only going to add to his desired role as the president in all but name.

Mockery – and good humor are likely to be much more effective. Remember the guy in the chicken suit who used to follow Bush I around with the sign saying “Read my beak”. That got under his skin to the point that he made note of the guy on camera. Like O, the only thing Trump really fears is not being taken seriously. I’d be handing out flyers and Trump university graduate diplomas to all the rubes. But that’s me.

The Hitler comparisons? Well…

JQ @237. “Wider though arguably less liberal” seems judicious from my relatively uninformed perspective.

I find the following a little hard to believe for most non-USian contexts however:
“Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think an Australian politician could get the police to eject hecklers, even from a hired hall.”

Sam Chevre’s question @ 274 is one I have as well. “I am interested in how free speech is understood in the context of events–especially in a non-US context.”

For example, an exciting/popular/polarizing firebrand running for Prime Minister in Men At Work Land rents a hall for a speech/rally. X number of protestors come to the event and successfully disrupt the proceedings; emotions rise, rally-goers grow angry, some limited violence occurs. Does the firebrand ask the police to restore order? Do the police respond or ignore the request? Would it just be up to the rally-goers, the firebrand’s private security team, or the hall’s mgmt. to deal with the disruption by removing the protestors? Would police stand guard over the protestors so that the disruption continues, but the potential for violence is curtailed? In other words, as the risk of disorder grows who or what maintains order in the situation? Who or what actually has the power in this situation?

It’s all good fun if novakant, hix, TM or anybody else wants to take turns sniffing disdainfully at American hypocrisy re: free speech. There’s no shortage to sniff at. What I’m wondering is how similar situations would actually go down, in the real world, in England or France or Australia, or take your pick of enlightened western “democracies.”

And now I see Stephen’s post/link at 284 which is instructive on the questions I have. Of course, the Labor party and Tony Blair apologized after the fact, saying such a thing should have never happened.

I’m sure the sentiment was sincerely meant and felt. It must have been a terribly wrenching decision for Labor leaders and the cause of a lot of introspection. But, no surprise, it doesn’t change the fact that it actually did happen.

js: “If you think this is about “feeling superior”, well— like I said, wow. But hey, keep
on thinking that, it’s hardly going to be me trying to disabuse you of such notions.”

I’ve observed that I’m the only one coming up with psychological explanations on these threads. If someone says why they think what they do about Trump, no one ever says that are doing so because of nostalgia for a time when things were pretty good for white men. And no one says that people get into arguments that are contentless and all about the desire to win and nothing else because of some jouissance that is supposed to be similar to Trump’s. Those would clearly be personal insults, since they’re clearly being applied to particular people. But no, everyone except me steadfastly avoids doing this, or if they do, it’s justified because their theories are clearly correct, and mine aren’t.

I stand corrected.

Rich, if I’ve insulted you please let me know where.

phenomenal cat@318: You say you are sure that Blair’s apology for the forcible ejection of Wolfgang was “sincerely meant and felt”. Pardon my experience-based scepticism, but I fear if that were so, it would be one of a rather small number of similar statements from Blair.

Stephen– one of us, not sure which one, needs to have their sarcasm sensors tested to ensure they are functioning properly.

Layman @319 Not a remotely good analogy. This is not a public meeting, it’s the analog of the Republican or Democratic convention. In that context, the US authorities forbid protest not just inside the convention, but anywhere in the city outside specially (and unironically) designated “free speech zones”.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/08/politics/conventions-protests-free-speech-zones/

I should concede that we have something similar for meetings of the global elite like G20. And people are ejected from the Parliamentary public gallery even for silent protests like unfurling banners. But the idea of throwing someone out of a political rally for wearing the wrong T-shirt is, I think, unheard of. If police were involved, it would be to separate the protestors from the supporters.

@ 319
Layman I don’t know that that’s a very good example (uranium protestors being removed from ALP conference). At times and places in our recent history, police (or security) have certainly been violent and repressive in their treatment of protestors, but currently I think it tends to be ‘OK you’ve had your say now, it’s time to go’ – and the protestors tend to accept it, because they accept that people do have other things to talk about and if they shut down the conference, it would be counter-productive in terms of sympathy. I’m not talking about whether it’s effective or not tactically (which is a separate question) but protesting at things like an ALP conference tends to be pretty ritualised. Both sides accept they have a right to do it, but both also seem to accept it should be time limited.

I realise that your point is that legally it appears security has a right to and does remove protestors here as well as in the US, but there is a big difference in what is happening in that video and in the videos at Trump rallies. Sure, some might argue that a politely repressive establishment that allows ritualised (and possibly ineffectual) protest is no different than an establishment that uses and condones violence against protestors, but I think there is a difference, and that what is happening at Trump rallies is scary stuff.

Lupita @ 317
What our imperialist lackey government here in Australia seems to be doing is trying to remain friends with America while also being friends with China. Don’t know how that will work out!

“Why did you start to confuse getting arrested for eating at the ‘wrong’ lunch counter,”

At the time, “average” people in the jurisdiction concerned (at least those who could vote) regarded the relevant laws as good ones.

And for consistent propertarians, the right to exclude people from your restaurant based on their skin color is just as sacred as the right to exclude people from your rally based on their political beliefs.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/06/16/david-e-bernstein/context-matters-better-libertarian-approach-antidiscrimination-law

Lupita, this speech is an example of what you’re saying around Trump and foreign policy: http://www.theiowastatesman.com/3647/trump-joins-gop-presidential-race

None of it means anything if things aren’t going poorly for his constituency: you pick a target and blame it, say “We’re gonna get those guys!” and move on to the next rally.

I doubt the average American is not aware of how American global primacy is intertwined with maintaining the nation’s standard of living and sense of identity. If not, why do all American politicians, bar none, feel compelled to mention exceptionalism, new American centuries, cities on hills, and where to nonchalantly invade next? These are dog whistles for supremacy.

I don’t think sentence two follows from sentence one. What sense of “supremacy” the electorate feels is how well it’s going for them at home. I think you seriously overestimate the amount of people who think about policy, and the bizarre faith in American supremacy that will exist even as Trump runs it down.

@Shylock Homeslice 03.15.16 at 6:28 am
>I’m so tired of the “Bernie bro” nonsense.

Indeed. The whole campaign to insinuate that Sanders and his movement (and anyone else who criticises Clinton) are somehow secretly sexist and/or racist has been *incredibly* pathetic. These people have been grasping at the tiniest straws, the most ridiculous, absurd pretexts conceivable, which I never could have imagined anyone could use and keep a straight face. Overall, it’s rather impressive to see what people are capable of when sufficiently motivated – by tribal affiliation or in other ways.

^^^Empires do not wither away, they are defeated. Much as I sympathize with the hope, the US empire has not been defeated. That will take more than a relative economic decline. The Spanish Empire, after its Sigo do Oro, persisted past repeated official bankruptcies. Things happen faster in history now because of economic development, but the US victory in World War II over its other competitors will not be reversed without a fight. Yet another downturn in the world capitalist system is not an opportunity for the reformed capitalist left, especially in Latin America.

Lula’s arrest and the mass demonstrations for the ouster of Dilma Rousseff and the PT are an opening for the right, not the triumph of the left. Economic crisis is an arrow pointed at the heart of the social democratic regimes. Already, Maduro has gone far down the PT road. Correa and Morales have made their compromises even as new life is breathed into the reactionary opposition, not least by defectors. Humala appears to be as much a non-threat as SYRIZA or Podemos or Jeremy Corbyn.

As for the efforts at cooperation between Russia and China, first, the Silk Road to capitalist nowhere will fail, almost certainly sooner rather than later. Crises are endemic to the world capitalist system and reforms of international banking show no sign of restoring the general rate of profit. Indeed, this kind of “anti-imperialism” likely will require the would-be new owners of the world to even more mercilessly exploit their own populations. How ever is this good news?

Worse, even the possibility of joint efforts to foster competition for what abundance the system can still deliver humanity, faces the military threats of US imperialism. A fascist regime in Ukraine, backed by NATO’s relentless eastward expansion; a new cold war over a Russian Crimea for the sake of an old land title; support for every military adventure like Georgia’s invasion of Abkhazia or Turkey’s adventures in the New Ottoman Empire; ruinous competition for oil…at every turn the military threat to Russia intensifies. Yet even today Putin, the supposed defender of a democratic world of independent democratic capitalist/social democratic states, after refusing to fight the fascist regime in Kiev, flees Syria rather than risk the wrath of Erdogan and his backers in Washington.

And China? China is run by people who imagine they can cooperate in the conquest of northern Korea without sacrificing its national defense. Bellicose posturing over postage stamp airstrips in the South China Sea that no one can get any real benefit from substitute for national pride.

As for domestic US politics, all mainstream candidates, including Sanders, stand for the maintenance of US role as the democratic defender of the free world, i.e., imperialism. They all stand for the Zionist nuclear threat of genocidal holocaust too. The constant invocation of past greatness lost to some foreigners, literal or figurative, throws blame for the failures of capitalism upon someone, something, any place else, and mobilizes support for the endless wars that maintain the empire, by a divide and rule strategy that appears to be loosely modeled on the Byzantine empire. (See Edward Luttwak Grand Strategy of the Late Roman Empire for advocacy.)

There is nothing especially new in Trump, except his hints he might actually negotiate with enemies. The comparisons to Hitler are risible. Hitler would have sent his storm troopers to break up Sanders’ rallies. Trump wants to call the police. There is something new in Cruz. Cruz actually has a movement behind him. Cruz has actually done things to tear up the current system as much as possible, just as he said he would. And unlike Trump, who I should have thought a notorious liar, Cruz likely means it. And his plans, affected as near as I can tell by Dominionist/Christian Reconstructionist theology inherited from his father, are far more terrifying in their plausibility than Trump’s foolish wall.

Hopes and dreams are good things, but nonsense about reality aren’t.

If Hillary has supporters like this, surely she can’t be all bad?

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/8bb17c17904720d2043ad782cfd4a804c3aaad37/0_0_3264_2448/master/3264.jpg?w=700&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=1c0c8173f406a57db4a53df81fccd5c3

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ecd0104918af2471aeb249150da2e967e58401e1/0_0_4032_3024/master/4032.jpg?w=700&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=a8a054d45609231d736877526b14fcb2

(If these links happen to work, they are from Megan Carpentier in the Guardian today http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/mar/15/primaries-ohio-florida-midwest-trump-clinton-sanders-kasich)

I don’t think sentence two follows from sentence one. What sense of “supremacy” the electorate feels is how well it’s going for them at home. I think you seriously overestimate the amount of people who think about policy, and the bizarre faith in American supremacy that will exist even as Trump runs it down. TTN @ 334

Ah, negatory on that my friend. I mean, I agree that what we’re seeing is primarily about what is going on at “home.” No doubt about that. Which is crucial to Lupita’s larger point. Once upon a time the dynamics of what’s going on now at “home” only happened “down there” to those people. Now that the globalized ( colonial atavism) chickens have come to roost comfortably in the American home we’re seeing the beginning of the political fallout.

But beyond that, it hurts a non-nonsignificant percentage of the American public’s feelings to know that we can’t just do whatever we want when want to in terms of foreign policy/ global domination. It’s not fair. The Good Lord (and Robert Kagan) said we could. Somebody screwed it up, maybe even betrayed us. We’re supposed to be better than everybody else. We’re better than everybody else, right? Didn’t God say we were better than everybody else? Isn’t that why we beat Hitler and the Commies, because we’re better?

@333 Layman, have you ever lived in Australia, or paid any serious attention to Australian politics? You’re coming across as an instant Google expert like Glenn Reynolds back in the days of warblogging. If you’re actually talking from a position of some knowledge, I’d suggest mentioning examples you know about rather than Google hits – I’m sure the Australians here will get the references. Otherwise, I think we’re done here.

@ John Quiggen, you’re quite right. I’ve never lived in Australia and pay almost no attention to Australian politics. Ordinarily, that would prevent me from saying things like ‘Gosh, Australians sure have some strange and repressive policies on poltical protests!’, but I confess to being provoked by by a similar though reciprocal observation. I’m properly chastened now, and understand that the news I found on the interwebs using the google must be entirely wrong, precisely because I found it on the interwebs using the google rather than experiencing it directly myself.

To my list of future events that will have a huge impact on the global neoliberal consensus, add climate change and demographic transition.

Layman @ 349
Unlike JQ, I was just about to concede that you have a point, since I just read about the draconian anti-protest laws that the NSW government is trying to introduce to protect its fossil fuel mates http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/15/nsw-anti-protest-laws-attack-democracy-law-groups

@ZM 03.15.16 at 8:16 am

>while she can, of course, write comments …, other commenters often ignore these comments … If you want to be part of creating a space where people of diverse backgrounds participate, part of that is pro-actively trying to encourage voices from more diverse backgrounds …

Pro-actively encourage them how? By agreeing with them even if you actually disagree? By responding to comments with feigned interest even if they don’t actually happen to interest you or you don’t feel you have anything interesting to say about them? By introducing some kind of identity/perspective quota for comments or for positive responses to comments, or for community approval?

Yes, we can all sometimes feel that we are not getting as much agreement or attention as we would like, because we know very well that our comments, written from our unique perspective, are always incredibly valuable and interesting! The reason this happens may be that the other commenters are too foolish and ideologically biased to appreciate just how valuable our comments are, or too unknowledgeable to understand them and respond adequately, or too focused on something else at the moment (but that’s their fault, too!), or perhaps our comments sometimes really aren’t all that interesting (but, as we all know, the latter is unthinkable). In either case, there is simply nothing to do about it; either we still want to write comments or we don’t. Complaining about such a thing and demanding justice in a comment box is just … not productive.

So, I watched my first interview with Mrs. Donald Trump. Knew she’d been a model. Had no idea she speaks 5 languages. I wonder how many HRC can speak, or Michelle. Or Bill.

Just trying to see what living in Trump-world is going to be like. My question: is she the Eva Braun to Trump-Hitler. Whatever virtues, she may possess, surely she must be judged, condemned, slaughtered, drawn and quartered ’cause she’s married to Adolf. It’s not a question of should we burn the witch, but rather one of ‘when do we burn the witch.

Trump=Hitler. I learned that at CT.

even less wise the electorate, but maybe they just have much chance

F Foundling @ 294
If you’d bothered to read my response to ZM, you’d see that’s not my beef – it’s ZM’s well intentioned but unfortunate misreading. What I object to is the contempt shown to feminist perspectives here.

On the subject of which, your comment @ 336 seems rather close to the MRA handbook – misrepresent what feminists are saying by over-simplifying and exaggeration, then say ‘aren’t feminists stupid for saying that stupid thing’ then all agree with each other

The Guardian’s live results are a lot of fun

Oh man, I can’t stand the fucking animations! They’re funny for a second but then you realize they’re blocking the actual results — what’s up with that!? I think I’ve sent them 5 angry tweets over the last month. Love their live blog tho.

Val: “I am just trying to talk about how and why Hillary speaks to women’s experience”

Because no men have ever looked after sick children, apparently. Therefore that is essentially a woman’s experience. Nurturing is naturally what women do, I guess, and if men do it, they’re fake. And if Bernie said it he’d be fake — just wouldn’t have the same resonance.

I should have put in that I have kids, and that actually I take care of them when they’re sick. Maybe mentioned some of my son’s problems for extra sympathy. Then people would feel bad for criticizing my views.

Actually, the few times I’ve mentioned my son’s problems here, people have just cluelessly continued to call people who they think have bad politics “autistic” as they always do. Who was the doofus who said it was just a metaphor, like calling someone “blind”? I forget.

Val 03.15.16 at 8:29 pm @ 340 —
Speaking of pictures, I suppose you’ve seen that picture of Dub and H. that has been blowing up Twitter.

‘Nuff said, I guess.

Donald Trump keeps saying that he’s going to Carl Icahn, putatively one of the world’s best businessmen, to negotiate all our deals. I mean he says that he has the world’s best businessmen lined up but every time drops the name of Icahn only. So what do people make of this guy who apparently is going to combine the positions of USTR, Secty of State and Secty of Treasury?

@ 374 – yes I was just a bit shocked by these laws, I hadn’t really heard about them till today. With the NSW Law Society and Bar Association both being opposed to them, I guess they may not go ahead, although the Guardian report talked as if they were a fait accompli. Another report in the SMH said a poll had shown that 60% of the population opposed them also. it looks like Baird may have let electoral success go to his head, but we shall see soon I guess.

Certainly I don’t think our political culture would let anyone get away with the incitement to violence stuff that Trump does, at least I hope not – but it may have done in Queensland back in the Bjelke Peterson days …

On the internets Trump has been called Orange Julius Caesar. I like that.

Made me laugh. And now I want an Orange Julius.

@Val 03.15.16 at 10:49 pm
>What I object to is the contempt shown to feminist perspectives here.

We should distinguish between facts and interpretations here. The undeniable fact is that people sometimes disagree with *your* perspective or do not engage with *your* comments; then comes your interpretation, namely that that must be because it’s a *feminist* perspective and that those disagreeing with or ignoring your comments must be opposed to *feminism*. However, another possible interpretation is that it’s not because it’s feminist but rather because this particular perspective happens not to make sense (at least to them). IMO, you tend to assume the first interpretation almost by default, without sufficient reasons for said assumption.

However, even assuming that the first interpretation is correct, complaining about this is still pointless. If your hypothetically anti-feminist or non-feminist interlocutors are at all capable of realising that you’re right, it will be because of more convincing rational arguments on your part, not because they have suddenly heeded your call to better their ways and finally embrace feminism (that would be particularly difficult in this case, since most and probably almost all of them already consider themselves feminists).

@Val 03.15.16 at 10:49 pm
>your comment @ 336 seems rather close to the MRA handbook – misrepresent what feminists are saying by over-simplifying and exaggeration, then say ‘aren’t feminists stupid for saying that stupid thing’

Obviously, this was not an objection to ‘feminists’ or ‘feminism’ in general, but to specific people who have made specific insinuations (which I maintain have been remarkably stupid). You are now insinuating that since I disagree with *some* people who identify as feminists, I must be an opponent of feminism in general (an MRA). In other words, you’ve committed again basically the same fallacy that I’ve just mentioned. As for whether I’ve exaggerated, certainly the suggestion has tended to be only half-expressed – because it would have been too absurd to make openly – but all the more unsavoury.
Won’t be replying for some time, but feel free to hint at my misogyny again in your response. Down with oppressive matriarchy, free the poor males from the yoke of the queen-bee! (or something)

ZM, that’s interesting (and I like that your rewriting very clearly maintains F.Foundling’s distinction between facts and interpretation).

332. Exactly. The lunch counter protests are an excellent example for how political repression gets masked by property rights, and propertarians have never stopped grumbling about the Civil Rights Act for that reason. If these activists had started by saying “well it’s their property, they are free to do what they want”, and if the public had accepted that kind of argument, we would still have open segregation. “Even in America”, that argument in the end wasn’t accepted.

Brett Bellmore #385: “I think that’s a sad thing, that we never found out if segregation would have gone away if people were simply free.”

Yes, we have found out: Because despite the Civil Rights Act, some individuals are still racist. Therefore, segregation would not have gone away by now.

There’s also your other logical mistake: that democratic governments would want segregation, even though a majority of their voters would not. But then, the people running government would not have gotten elected in the first place.

“Fewer than half of Republican voters across five states on Tuesday said Mr. Trump was honest and trustworthy. Even in the states where he won, a majority of voters do not view him as truthful.”

Oh, and Kasich may still win (big flashing neon sarcasm alert).

On Trump, Charlie Cook’s Report and Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball both have this right, as usual.

Kasich’s win in Ohio means that Trump may not get enough delegates for the GOP nomination. But after the final primary in June, there remains over a month for backroom deals before the GOP Miami convention.

In that time period, the rest of the GOP may come to terms with letting Trump go all the way. Thus, they will save public appearances, and reduce their professional risks on the convention floor. No doubt there are plenty of baubles to go around to help ease their pains: Ben Carson just told a reporter that he did not prefer to endorse Trump, but Trump is the only one who offered him a job!

But, if either Cruz or Kasich show surges (above the current state polls) in the primary states to come — even little surges — then the contest could go all the way into the convention.

Not merely because there are a lot of big egos rubbed the wrong way, here. It’s because Trump is a very risky frontrunner. Negative opinion-poll ratings are enduring and very hard to get rid of, and the only person with higher negatives than Hillary is Trump. Trump is Hillary’s dream come true.

The GOP’s risk is not merely that Trump would lose the White House — they could live with a President Hillary — but that he would make them lose some “downballot” races, particularly the Senate, where their lead is tenuous, even if this were a normal season.

There is much writing about the GOP crackup. But there are two different crackups, economic & party control.

The first is historically likely, although not necessarily in this season. The reason it is likely to come, is that the GOP is preaching an economic doctrine that is on a crash course with reality — and Trump’s own solution, protectionism, only punts the crash a little further downstream, at best. (At worst, he sets into motion an unavoidable shooting-war with China). Most of the Democrats believe the doctrine too. Here, the pundits barely understand what is going on.

They are writing instead about the other crackup, i.e. the GOP elite’s loss of control of their own party.

Here I imagine that Trump — G rand O pportunist P olitician — will know whom to buy off, and whom to put out to pasture. They’ve brought the whole thing on themselves, and so no one else will be crying.

ZM – from your improved version of F Foundling:
Even though I disagree with you and think your assumption is misfounded, I think in any case even if you were right this approach is unlikely to succeed. If commenters are disagreeing with you or not engaging with you specifically due to their opposition to feminism, for you to turn this opposition around you will need to provide commenters with more convincing arguments, rather than calling for them to embrace feminism.

I don’t know, ZM, I know that you have a really good understanding of a lot of issues, but this seems very naive to me.

ZM
Let me try again to explain this. On CT, there appears to be a significant group of commenters, most of whom I think are male, who don’t appear to regard gender and race (or related concepts such as patriarchy, slavery and colonialism) as primary categories of political analysis. Their primary categories of political analysis are concepts like class, ownership and capital. In so far as they think about gender and race, they see them as relating mainly to “identity”, a rather vague concept which doesn’t have a material basis, which they feel can be used to disguise class or material exploitation and create a kind of ‘false consciousness’ in political terms.

There are also others, who do seem to accept gender as a category of political analysis, but don’t necessarily accept the concepts of patriarchy or male dominance.

Because my position is that gender is a primary category of political analysis, and because I see patriarchy as a key concept in understanding power in society, my feminist position is I think a minority one on CT. I think that perhaps you have fallen into the trap of thinking that because it’s a minority position in this context, it therefore needs to be justified in a way that majority positions don’t. I think the more useful question to be thinking about is, why is it a minority position? Why do there seem to be so few women, and so few ‘female feminists’ involved in these debates? Could it be that what is referred to as an ‘unfriendly climate’ has been created, and it is within that context that I am required to justify my position in a way that others aren’t?

On CT, there appears to be a significant group of commenters, most of whom I think are male, who don’t appear to regard gender and race (or related concepts such as patriarchy, slavery and colonialism) as primary categories of political analysis.

So much this, as I believe the young people say. And much sympathy for Val’s frustration, which I share.

“H Clinton has no idea what it is like to live for a woman of the 99%. She can obtain a full-time helper, or two or three, with one phone call.”

She could even get two or three people to make the call.

“Donald Trump keeps saying that he’s going to Carl Icahn, putatively one of the world’s best businessmen, to negotiate all our deals. I mean he says that he has the world’s best businessmen lined up but every time drops the name of Icahn only. So what do people make of this guy who apparently is going to combine the positions of USTR, Secty of State and Secty of Treasury?” RNB @ 373

From the perspective of spectacle a Trump-run government is pure gold. It has the potential to make late, decadent-era Hapsburg governance look prudential and austere by comparison.

It’s in the dialectics of things, engels, that there has to be sharp quantitative increase in awful posts before the thread becomes something qualitatively different. Also the material conditions are not right for non-awful posting. But you know this.

What went without notice here is the passing of Richard Levins who along with Richard Lewontin gave the most coherent articulation of dialectical materialism I have ever read. It’s the appendix to Dialectical Biology. When I heard him speak fifteen years ago though Levins had replaced the dialectical language with non-linear dynamics, speaking of saddle points for example. The other most interesting defense I have ever read of dialectical materialism is Lukacs’ defense of History and Class Consciousness, which Verso recovered from an archive to translate and publish. Don’t forget: I am the Clinton shill here.

I’ll start, in my style.

Lukacs is interesting. Moishe Postone studied Lukacs.

Henri Lefebvre wrote a classic. Laszlo Rudas worked with Lukacs. Sartre of course.

Shulamith Firestone.

Marxists can get on great with feminists, cause feminism wants to be primary, and Marxist want the class struggle to weight most heavily “in the last analysis.” Scenery is better from the back of the bus anyway. Arigato-san!

You know, I don’t remember dialectics being an important part of Postone’s Time, Labor and Social Domination, but I’d love to talk about this book. Most relevant here may be the idea of Capital as a Hegelian Super-Subject.

What I liked about the Levins and Lewontin is that those abstract principles of contradiction in unity or unity in contradiction on interpenetration of opposite, quantity to quality, characteristics deriving from relations rather than substances, are given in their work references to concrete processes in nature. They make dialectics a reasonable and powerful heuristic, a way of understanding nature to generate testable hypotheses. Now Lukacs tries to free dialectics from natural processes to see it at work at moments of immense importance in human history. This is exciting. And perhaps subjectivist.

Rich Puchalsky,

“A little bit of essentialism goes a long way, and I’ve never seen anyone start out with “men’s and women’s embodiment as physical beings are different, and that’s important” and end up anywhere but with reintroduction of stereotypical gender roles, in this case in the guise of talking about women’s statistical experience. Statistically the vast majority of women have XX chromosomes. But contemporary feminism — at least one branch of it — no longer takes this to be what defines women’s experience, statistics or not.”

You are a bit outdated here really, I am sorry to say Rich.

If you think about feminist scholarship I guess it has a reasonably long history dating back to Simone de Beauvoir or earlier (sorry, that’s not very exact, but anyway), but from about the 1980s there is the topic of “The Body” which in fact looks seriously at bodies. After this it is really no longer the thing in academic scholarship to think that female bodies are not a significant part of what defines one as a female. Whereas for essentialism you are really looking back to an older period, or very conservative view.

You have confused what Val is saying about the materialities of The Body with essentialism, but what she is saying is quite current and definitely not essentialism.

Val has said that you have misread her before on this. If you are not familiar with the scholarship on The Body, there is this free PDF article you can google “Beyond Cultural History? The Material Turn, Praxiography, and Body History” by Iris Clever and Willemijn Ruberg

“There are discursive communities where what is important is that someone’s dog just died. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that. But they don’t tend to be big on abstracted political arguments. I’ve seen One Million Blogs interpret this as “our comment section is hostile to women.” It’s a “boy’s club”. Sure, if you take traditional socializations as defining women’s experience — about how women are supposed to be meek and go along to get along and they’re social and cooperative unlike boys who are competitive — then it is. And those traditional socializations are statistically true, so….”

John Holbo and Belle Waring always mention their daughters and anecdotes, Maria mentions her dog and wrote about Dungeons and Dragons, Harry mentions Doctor Who and other entertainment and a great deal of sport…

Back on the topic of the thread (or thereabouts) this mike Davis interview is alright

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/03/davis-core-millenials-bernie-socialism/

And gets partly at what I took Bruce w to be saying (although I’m open to correction)

Any thoughts from anyone on this part in particular ?

“The evil (I use this word precisely) of Clintonite neoliberalism screams back at us from every Trump rally. Jessie Jackson’s exciting Rainbow Coalition campaigns in the 1980s proved that it was entirely possible to ally the rust belt and the ghetto, but his center-right opponents in the Democratic Party — Bill Clinton’s Democratic Leadership Council — blew up all the bridges of progressive economic unity between imperiled white manufacturing-sector workers and the working poor of the barrios and ghettos.”

Val,

“Let me try again to explain this. On CT, there appears to be a significant group of commenters, most of whom I think are male, who don’t appear to regard gender and race (or related concepts such as patriarchy, slavery and colonialism) as primary categories of political analysis. Their primary categories of political analysis are concepts like class, ownership and capital.”

Yes, I agree with this and also think it is unfortunate. Although I think this is partly due to the emphasis on economics issues on CT.

“I think the more useful question to be thinking about is, why is it a minority position? Why do there seem to be so few women, and so few ‘female feminists’ involved in these debates? Could it be that what is referred to as an ‘unfriendly climate’ has been created, and it is within that context that I am required to justify my position in a way that others aren’t?”

I probably have a different focus on gender analysis than you, since I preferred looking at gender and agency due to me preferring to study along lines of modernisation and tradition. TBH I think the professor sometimes wanted to tear her hair out when I turned in an essay on women and agency in Choson Korea, with a lot of focus on the important social role of wrapping cloths and how one day a year all the men had to stay indoors so the women could go out picnicking without being covered up.

Thanks ZM. Sorry if I got a bit frustrated. I understood what you were trying to do, but basically it wasn’t possible to turn it into a reasoned and inclusive argument, and by trying to do so you were just prolonging the delusion.

Good luck with your attempts to update RP on feminist thought. I’ve tried but it didn’t work. Part of the argument going on there appears to be:
there are no essential differences between men and women
Therefore anyone who tries to argue that having women’s voices in these debates on CT is important is essentialist and sexist

I think it ends up somewhere where having a debate conducted by men is actually better and less sexist than having one where women take part :)

By the same token, women who vote for (or even point out some of the reasons why women might vote for) Hillary Clinton are also essentialist and sexist.

Men who vote for male candidates however are not essentialist and sexist, because male candidates are normal. The fact that the legislature in America is dominated by males is not due to sexism. The fact that these threads on CT are dominated by men is not to sexism. My re-education is complete! Everything’s good!

Sam @ 397
Thanks for your support Sam, great to hear from you. Unfortunately apart from all our other faults, people who try to talk about gender or race as primary categories of political analysis are also boring arseholes. If only we could be nicer! If only we could be more interesting! Sexism and racism are all our own fault, we deserve it for being boring arseholes and Hillary shills!

Thinking about it, there are some people on here whose opinions I respect and whom I don’t think are sexist, who ask me in various ways, why I am being negative and angry etc instead of just stating my theories. So there are two answers to that:

I do state my theories but they tend to get ignored, they don’t get incorporated in the discussion (because I think it would require a lot of people to rethink how they understand the world and they aren’t prepared to do that)
There are individuals here who repeatedly misrepresent what I’m saying and attack me personally.

I would like to focus on the latter at present because I think it’s an example of how sexism and exclusion is perpetuated. I’m sure everyone here has heard the idea that men should play a role in combatting sexism. Yet at the same time I think when someone like Rich Puchalsky attacks my ideas on gender as outdated, nutty, essentialist and so on, and then calls me rude when I get angry about it, people would tend to see that as dispute between two individuals and not one that they should get involved in. But that silence in effect acts as condoning.

I know that may not be clear to people so I will try to explain it by analogy with racism. js and RNB have at different times alluded to the fact that they are respectively Muslim and black, and particularly js has referred to his lived experience of what anti-Muslim rhetoric such as by Trump means in practice. I think the response to them, particularly to RNB, has been suss at times, but no-one, as far as I’m aware, has accused them of being essentialist in talking about these categories, told them that their lived experience was invalid and that by talking about it they are themselves being racist against whites and non-Muslims, and that their theories of oppression are wrong, outdated and nutty.

The reason why people here wouldn’t do that I think is because they recognise that those are stupid, racist tropes. But for some reason people here can’t recognise that similar tropes directed against a woman are sexist, even though exactly parallel things have been said to me on numerous occasions.

So I think what is needed here if gender is to be understood and taken seriously is not for me to have to keep explaining it to people, at least some of whom won’t listen to anything I say and will attack me for saying it. I think it’s for people here who care about sexism and gender to start recognising and calling out sexism on these threads.

There is a sort of quasi-essentialism in saying that candidate X should be voted for and otherwise supported, not because of what X thinks, says, does, etc., but because of what X is. Millions of people do it, of course, but rather than ideology or philosophy it looks a lot like tribalism regardless of the mode of categorization.

When I encountered feminism in the 1960s, war and imperialism were said by feminists to be diseases caused by ‘patriarchy’, which was an essentialist category to some and something else to others. Regardless, I don’t think anyone would have used feminism, whatever they meant by it, to demand that war and imperialism and those who promoted them be supported. How things have changed! Now, it seems that the content has been drained out of feminism, and what is left is a sort of transparent shell which might well be taken to mimic an essentialist posture. One can see why some people might be confused.

And also, solidarity is not essentialism. (Because on CT, you do need to say the blindingly obvious.)

There was that newstory about how only women senators and floor staff and pages went to work when there was a blizzard http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-women-rule-capitol-hill-post-blizzard-session/story?id=36535812

Apart from that I think if the idea is there should be equal numbers of women and men in parliament I think the simplest way of achieving this is having 2 representatives per electorate one male and one female. This would make things equal right away. I am sure you would get women candidates this way too.

This is a bit like being in a first year tutorial, with such sophisticated arguments as “I assess women entirely on merit, no other basis at all” and “Julia Gillard bombed Afghans so having more female politicians is meaningless” and “your liberal feminist heroes just kill foreigners anyway so there’s no point in changing anything.”

Seriously Val, I think you’re fighting for a lost cause here. When commenters on an academic blog resort to cheap arguments they wouldn’t accept from their first years, I think it’s a pretty clear sign that they are more interested in sneering at feminism than engaging with it.

You may not realise this but there are actually feminists who don’t support America bombing the shit out of the third world for the indefinite future? I’ve met some of them! Incredible I know

You obviously aren’t listening to them,

Go fuck yourself

Some weird shit going on here :) Thanks fn. I just would like to put on the record, one more time, that I am a pacifist and an egalitarian, and have been for many years. (Well that’s what I claim anyway – how can anyone tell? I might be secretly working for Hillary Clinton, softening people’s minds so that we can seize power and bomb the shit out of everybody. Who knows?)

I’m also a vegetarian. Just thought I’d throw that in (it’s not even true because sometimes I eat fish)

I used to think that it would be interesting to talk about ecofeminist theory with people who are outside my field, and it often has been, but there are also these weird aspects of people who don’t want to read what you’re saying and discuss it, just to accuse you of saying all sorts of strange and stupid things and then attack you for supposedly having said them (look at this stupid thing a feminist said! Aren’t feminists stupid?). I have enjoyed a lot of conversations on CT but I’m not very good at dealing with the weird attack stuff. Anyway I need to start seriously writing for my thesis now so it would probably be good to drop out for a while.

RNB 406: Thanks for the name drop. The Dialectical Biologist is a wonderful book still worth reading. Ditto Not in Our Genes and Leontin’s later Biologiy as Ideology. Scientists with an interest in and understanding of politics and philosophy – we have too few of them. I wasn’t aware of Levins’ passing. What a loss.

Brett, while your point that there aren’t many female politicians is a good one and an important one, the claim that you assess female politicians by exactly the same standards as male politicians is both irrelevant and largely wrong. Irrelevant because your perfect individual judgment is not enough to change a system and largely wrong because there’s a large body of evidence that both men and women judge women differently to men. You’ve been hanging around CT long enough to know about the various examples of this phenomenon.

That isn’t to say that affirmative action (quotas of female candidates etc.) is the only or best way to solve the problem, but blithely asserting that it’s not an issue is not going to cut it – it’s the kind of argument idiot first years raise in their second week of general ed at uni, and surely you can do better than that.

There’s a really interesting discussion to be had about why conservative (in the older, Thatcher-era, not Trump-era, sense) parties seem to do better at representation of this kind (e.g. Thatcher in the UK, first openly gay MHR in Australia, first Aboriginal senator in Australia), and you could do some fancy trolling arguing it’s because conservatives only assess on merit. But really you can do better than blithely pretending sexism is not an issue at the point where people choose their candidates.

(I remember reading somewhere that when Thatcher was asked about being the UK’s first female PM, she responded that she was also the first PM with a science degree. Her rise in that era is a really interesting topic, but only a crazy person would claim it’s because conservative voters of that era were gender-blind).

The US currently ranks 95th in the world for women’s political represenation (more precisely, representation in parliament, which in US Congress is below 20%, see http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm). But that is not your fault, BB, and if anybody blamed you personally for it, that would be unfair.

Some opinions of Gillard’s appointment from a Green-Left perspective:

For Aboriginal people, it is a case of “same horse, different saddle blanket”

Teachers have already seen Gillard’s politics in the school league tables campaign. Gillard was fully conscious of the damage that league tables have done in Britain, yet she persisted with their publication in Australia.

Gillard will be just as anti-union as Rudd was

Gillard is part of a government that has upheld Howard’s Welfare to Work legislation and changes to the child support formula, which has condemned many sole-parent families to a life of poverty.

Gillard is the first woman PM of Australia, but not a PM for the women of Australia.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/44600>

Val,

“Brett have you ever heard of the structure /agency debate?
I was pondering a bit about your position today and wondering whether it is actually a ‘political position’ in a true sense, or if it’s just that you haven’t actually learned about things like structure versus agency. It’s a really interesting question. Is being right wing just not having been introduced to some basic sociological concepts? Anyway that’s all I’m going to say.”

Brett said he had voted for women in the past, but there are not enough female candidates. This is why my idea that every electorate has two representatives one male and one female is a structural change that would immediately mean there was equal representation of women in parliament. And I think this would encourage more women to run for parliament since there would be a seat for them in every electorate.

Also since being violently assaulted by a young woman when he was young put Brett Bellmore off dating until well into his 30s, the fact that he votes for more female candidates than Engels who maintains female candidates have to be absolutely perfect for him to consider they are any better than Donald Trump, shows Brett Bellmore is more of a feminist really.

Engels, are you Australian? Also, if you have a point why don’t you just make it?

Brett, I thought I made it clear tbat the issue is not your personal decisions, but a pattern of decision making. How you personally judge candidates has no bearing on the existence of a general pattern of prejudice and the possibility of systemic methods to address it …

its interesting how when feminist points like this are raised so many men make it personal about their own decisions, but then accuse feminists of making everything about women’s personal experience (see eg the silly dead dog thing up above). Everything’s structural for lefty men until chicks are involved. Then it’s all about personal experience that can’t be made political and why can’t I get my end away at work don’t you care about personal relations you inhuman feminists and don’t you dare judge my response to female candidates as if it might be influenced by broader society this is all about my experience!

Conservative politicians in Australia have been critical recently of the rise of Donald Trump in the Republican President nomination voting:

“Asked by Channel Seven’s The Morning Show what he thought of the gathering speed of Trump’s campaign, Mr [Christopher] Pyne replied: “Well, it’s terrifying.”

The Industry, Innovation and Science Minister added: “And we are seeing in America these terrible rallies occurring where the people are becoming violent.

“Now, democracy should be robust but it certainly shouldn’t be violent. And I think the Donald Trump phenomenon is a real problem for the United States, making their democracy look kind of weird.

And I think for the Republican party, if they choose Donald Trump, will find themselves in the wilderness for a very long time.”

Liberal senator Cory Berardi, however, said that Mr Trump’s success reflected a “global disenchantment with mainstream politics”.

“I have been warning about this for some time. Unless the major parties respond to the concerns of mainstream people, the public will look elsewhere and a more formidable force will emerge.””

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/terrifying-and-kind-of-weird-christopher-pyne-blasts-the-donald-trump-phenomenon-20160316-gnl53l.html

engels,

“I said the exact opposite but please do carry on making shit up about me – everybody else is”

Sorry I thought you must be comparing Julia Gillard as Prime Minister to Trump as possible President, and finding Julia Gillard’s record abominable in comparison, I’m not quite clear why you have brought her into the debate otherwise?

I’m not quite clear why you have brought her into the debate otherwise?

Then ask if you want – but don’t make up crap about people please.

Val brought her into the debate:

I should say that I worked with two years with JG in a former life and I like her a lot)

engels, at 431 you took up a reference from 242 without any explanation. It’s hardly surprising people were wondering what your point was.

engels, at 431 you took up a reference from 242 without any explanation. It’s hardly surprising people [think you maintain… female candidates have to be absolutely perfect … to consider they are any better than Donald Trump [and] Brett Bellmore is more of a feminist really]

You’re right – I had it coming. Thanks for the advice, random dickhead

@ 463

“The ALP’s first true inheritor of hawkes legacy in decades, a staunch defender of working people and unionist. ”

Not the best example, I fear. From Wikipedia:

“Among other reforms,[41] the Hawke Government dismantled the tariff system, privatised state sector industries, ended the subsidisation of loss-making industries, and sold off the state-owned Commonwealth Bank of Australia,Qantas and CSL Limited.”

“Hawke’s time as Prime Minister saw considerable friction develop between himself and the grassroots of the Labor Party, who were unhappy at what they viewed as Hawke’s iconoclasm and willingness to cooperate with business interests. All Labor Prime Ministers have at times engendered the hostility of the organisational wing of the Party, but none more so than Hawke, who regularly expressed his willingness to cull Labor’s “sacred cows”. ”

“After leaving Parliament, Hawke entered the business world, taking on a number of directorships and consultancy positions which enabled him to achieve considerable financial success.”

I was pondering a bit about your position today and wondering whether it is actually a ‘political position’ in a true sense, or if it’s just that you haven’t actually learned about things like structure versus agency

This made me laugh for ten minutes.

@ 468
Given your previous harsh criticisms of me, I’m a bit scared to ask this, but I hope you got that it was meant to be funny.

Igor, bob Hawke was one of Australia’s most popular prime ministers and the architect of its opening to the world. I picked him for a reason, you know.

I did a reply on the Engels stuff which went into moderation, I really don’t know why. It was very measured, with no swearing and no links.

“Those are lizard people Ze K, serving the herpetriarchy.”

I told you folks about those damned lizard-men.

For the last claim you could see Emmanuel Todd’s “convergence of civilisation” . Todd is nothing if not essentialist, although in his case he generally puts most explanatory weight for societal /economic development as a result of societal familial norms, but he has a point .

I told you folks about those damned lizard-men.

With their darned Sauriansplaining…

I would still tend to draw the inference from these comments that you hold female politicians should be perfect,

Well that would be a faulty inference. There are plenty of female politicians whom I support, starting with my local MP. She’s definitely not perfect (who is) but I categorise her as Labour left, which I’m fine with voting for, rather than warmongering neoliberal fake (which is how I’d categorise Clinton and Obama and, on limited info, Rudd and Gillard). I support the principle of equal of representation of women in parliament–as a benchmark, not a hard 50% quota, but would be open to persuasion about this. What I’m not open to persuasion about is the idea that any genuine leftist can support Hillary Clinton except as some kind of setting fire to the city to stop it falling into enemy hands act of desperation.

But as I said really am tired and a bit insulted by all the abuse so that will be my final comment.

Brett I think Val’s point was about the way people in general assess female candidates who are running (case in point being Clinton) not about the problem of female candidates not running.

Brett,

“(I might have gone Democrat, if you’d been serious about any right besides abortion, and not so obsessive about attacking the 2nd amendment.)”

The Dems never attack the SA. They’re too afraid to. All the SA says is that if you’re in the state-run militia, you get to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t guarantee you the right to unlimited consumer choice, firepower, the absence of registration and licensing, background checks, or even the right to use the gun. Nothing in the amendment mentions actually using it or loading it with bullets. None of that is protected. Just to “keep and bear,” if you’re a member of a state militia.

The Dems still haven’t done a thing to put through even modest gun control, all of which would easily confirm within the boundaries of that amendment, and then some.

If we banned 99% of all arms in America, for instance, and limited this to just one kind of gun — say, a six shooter — that would still fall within the parameters of the SA as written. Because you could still “keep and bear arms.” Gun fetishists have already inflated this extremely limited right by taking it out of the realm of state-run militias, and its original purpose was to put down domestic rebellions in the first place — primarily slave rebellions. English common law already gave us the right of self-defense. The SA was all about making it so the newly formed government could avoid a standing army, go with state militias instead, which would all be “well-regulated.” But that is now obviously unnecessary, as is the amendment itself.

We’re just one of two nations with such an anachronism — with its racist foundation to boot. We don’t need it. No other consumer good has a special carve out, and none is needed. All over the globe, in countries without a similar amendment, people still buy and own guns. The Dems never, ever “attack” the Second Amendment. At best, they attack the mindless inflation and perversion of that right by gun fetishists, and even there, all too few are brave enough for that.

@Val 03.16.16 at 9:36 pm
>By the same token, women who vote for (or even point out some of the reasons why women might vote for) Hillary Clinton are also essentialist and sexist. Men who vote for male candidates however are not essentialist and sexist, because male candidates are normal.

If anyone were to vote for Sanders *because* he is male (or, say, Jewish), I readily admit that that person would be a complete idiot. The truth is, of course, that Sanders and his supporters have never appealed to his gender as a selling point (unlike H.R. Clinton); his major appeal is his policy, specifically his social democratic populism. Needless to say, many, many women and feminists support Sanders (a majority of women under 50 and especially of millennial women according to recent polls, hardly the most patriarchal demographic). Since, as a non-American, I’m more interested in US foreign policy, I would especially point out this feminist criticism of the effects of H.R. Clinton’s policies on women and LGBT people in Honduras: http://litbrit.blogspot.bg/2016/03/my-feminism-extends-beyond-us-borders.html (more on the specific actions taken here: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/24/hillary-clinton-emails-and-honduras-coup; more on the recent murder of a female indigenous environmental activist: http://www.thenation.com/article/the-clinton-backed-honduran-regime-is-picking-off-indigenous-leaders/). Just putting this out here – can’t afford to spend time on a long discussion if the usual (quasi-)professional apologists turn up.

@Suzanne 03.16.16 at 4:31 am
>For the record, Hillary gets it. She regularly refers to “parents” taking care of sick or young children. Sanders, in contrast, is wont to talk about “mothers” when talking about family leave. Just saying.
@Rich Puchalsky 03.17.16 at 1:57 pm
>I just agreed that HRC has better feminist rhetoric than Sanders…

Now, I have to admit that I’m not *so* invested in this US election as to listen to all the speeches, but I thought I could at least google family leave and Sanders. The following are quotes from Sanders or his campaign that crop up (people can google the quotes to get the sources). Emphases mine:

‘Paid Family Leave, Sick Leave and Vacation: There should be no question that new parents should be allowed to stay home with their newborn children.’

‘We are the only advanced economy that doesn’t guarantee its workers some form of paid family leave.’

‘In my view, and I have to say this is a fairly conservative approach, every worker in America should be guaranteed at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave’

‘That’s why Bernie Sanders supports 12 weeks of paid family leave. Say you support paid leave for mothers and fathers too.’

‘It’s understood that mothers and fathers should spend this time bonding with the new person they have brought into the world.’

And finally, yes, I also find this example: ‘When a mother is forced to send her sick child to school because she can’t afford to stay home, that is not a family value.’ This is clearly supposed to create the emotional image of a concrete situation, which would have been a complete rhetorical failure if one had used an abstract word such as ‘parent’ and a form such as ‘s/he’.

So, frankly, I’m inclined to think that the suggestion that Sanders is somehow more backward with respect to gender roles, even in terms of rhetoric, is another baseless pro-Clinton cliche/rumour. I’ve already seen various instances of ludicrous quibbling about pronouncements made from the 1970’s onward, all intended to suggest that Sanders somehow has or used to have a ‘white male problem’ and that, even though he sort of has had all the right stances on the actual issues pertaining to race and gender, his recorded wordings and emphases still don’t *quite* succeed in living up to the accomplished writer’s truly academic standards of intersectionality. IMO, this has never had anything to do with concern for gender and race equality and everything to do with an elitist establishment cynically throwing everything but the kitchen sink against a threat from an actual left-wing candidate. This will be my last (off-topic) comment in this thread.

F Foundling @ 489
You don’t understand what I’m saying. I know I shouldn’t blame you for that it it gets a bit frustrating. I’m not saying men ‘are’ normal and women aren’t, I’m saying men are ‘perceived as’ normal, normative people – women as ‘the other’. I mean you have to have a bit of social theory or philosophy background to be familiar with that I suppose but they’re not really hard concepts.

as I said earlier, it’s not my job to educate a whole lot of people/men about feminism. I think it’s important enough that people should educate themselves about some of the basic ideas. I am thinking of doing a cheat sheet kind of thing on patriarchy on my blog soon – not the concept so much as the evidence, basic stuff like laws. Then I could refer people to that rather than having to explain it repeatedly. It’d be a starting point anyway.

The other thing is though I don’t understand what your comment means

Then let me be clearer (but also, I’m afraid, more blunt). If Rich were to write that your theories are nutty and outdated (something he actually didn’t do in this thread, I believe, by the way: quite ironically, it is ZM that told him that his theories were outdated), then, it might be out of sincere belief (and I think he is entitled to this belief), it might be because of sexism, as both are indeed typical sexist tropes. When you write Rich believes he is superior to the rest of us (your comment 62) or that Bernie Sanders could say the same thing as Hillary Clinton and yet it wouldn’t have the same resonance (366), it might be out of sincere belief (and I think you are entitled to this belief), it might be because of anti-semitism, as both are indeed typical anti-semitic tropes.

Now, based on the very little I know about you (namely, your comments in these threads), I think the idea that your hostility to Rich and your mild defiance from Sanders could stem mainly or in part from anti-semitism is extremely unlikely. Ludicrous, in fact. But if you think my silence in your back and forth with Rich is somehow “condoning” of sexism (as you wrote in your 481), then it is a fortiori condoning of anti-semitism and so, if you insist I speak out (something that I emphatically does not want to do; our hosts here are responsible for deciding what is acceptable), I feel I would have first to ask you to reflect on your choice of terms when referring to jewish commenters and politicians.

Brett @495,

“Right, that’s how you go about attacking the 2nd amendment, by misrepresenting it. Pretending it means something that doesn’t get in the way of what you want. But the Bill of Rights is supposed to get in the way of the government.”

I gave the exact meaning of the SA. In opposition to that of gun nuts who have projected their own fevered dreams into it and inflated it beyond all recognition. For pretty much all right-wing gun nuts, they’ve imported their own anti-government Red Dawn fantasies into an amendment clearly set up to protect “the state” itself and slaveholders. It was a supremely unnecessary, racist amendment, and one set up to preserve the power of the state.

No government has ever or will ever make it easy for “the mob” to overthrow it. Aside from fetishizing guns, gun nuts also fetishize “the founders,” and actually think they set things up that way, even though they were the American ruling class, and had no intention of letting “the rabble” topple them. See the Shays rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion and Article One, Section Nine, clause two. See more than two centuries of the government coming down like a ton of bricks even on peaceful, non-violent strikers, civil rights, women’s rights, antiwar and green activists. From Day One, it’s more than clear that the “founders” set up an incredibly strong central government — the strongest non-monarchical to date — with no intention of ever letting the Bundys of this world topple it.

Stop with the Red Dawn fantasies, okay. For better or for worse — and a great deal of it is for the latter — the American revolution did not happen as an anti-government revolt. It was one (domestic) ruling class overthrowing another (foreign) ruling class, and all the talk against “government” along the way referred solely to England’s, not to the new state.

Val, Z can correct me if I’m wrong here, but I believe that he is objecting to your assuming he condones sexism because he doesn’t intervene between you and RP, and points out that he didn’t assume anything when you didn’t respond to him in another thread.

I believe he is responding to your statement that ends “… people would tend to see that as dispute between two individuals and not one that they should get involved in. But that silence in effect acts as condoning.”

While it is true that silence can act to condone behaviour in a thread, maybe you didn’t mean to point the finger at him, or me, or all of us lurkers and non-particiants, saying in effect that we were condoning sexism?

The purpose of the SA is akin to yeomanry, having a population trained and used to using weapons both to be ready to form a citizens’ army. That’s what the phrasing means. Making popular resistance in the face of armed repression easier and enabling a frontier society in a sparsely populsted land to defend itself are, also, the goals.

I think the 2nd amendment is overall negative in a modern society, being less useful for its purposes than conscription + other constitutional restraints on government and guarantees of civil liberties, and having a terrible effect on police-civillian relations and law enforcement.

But if, like I do, one thinks the rights set by the 2nd amendment should go, then they’d better change the constitution, not ignore it.

Having said that, why not just ignore each other from here on out?

Ronan: ” (And That’s before you get into the (imo) problematic aspects of a male observer instinctively inserting himself into a situation, regardless of context, to side with (and implicitly look to “protect”) a female participant.)”

That is an interesting point. My son has been accused of “white-knighting” online, (when he has intervened in egregious sexism, though, which I think is not what you are talking about) and I can appreciate the hesitation to appear to be protecting as as it implies women can’t stand up for themselves, etc. Can come across as patronizing. That said, in Maria’s harassment thread I was glad of all allies.

Anarcissie, 320!! Wow. But you’re probably still adding to it, right, so there’s hope yet. :)

Brett @501,

It doesn’t say what you think it says. Not in any way, shape or form. It’s a very limited “right,” set up solely for people in state-run militias, hence the opening part of that amendment. And those state-run militias no longer exist, which is why the amendment is no longer applicable, needed or useful. We have the National Guard in each state, which are all under Federal management. And we have massive “standing armies,” which further render the amendment obsolete.

It was designed in part to postpone those standing armies, and make it clear that well-regulated state militias would suffice to protect the state from domestic and foreign enemies — including slaves who had the gall to want their own freedom. Only in the minds of neo-confederates was it ever to protect some non-existent “right” to overthrow the American government. The Constitution clearly calls that “treason,” and even says it can suspend Habeas in times of domestic insurgency and rebellion.

Guns are consumer goods. That’s it. And the SA doesn’t even remotely suggest a hint of a whisper that citizens have the right to unlimited consumer choice in matters of arms — much less to use them to topple the existing government.

An analogy: If the amendment guaranteed a right to “keep and bear suits,” and we decided, as a nation, to ban all polyester suits — which we should, btw — the right to “keep and bear suits” would not be infringed. Because the right wasn’t for unlimited consumer choice. It was simply a right to have A suit. So if the government decided to limit the kind of suit to just one, it is still within the parameters of that amendment.

We are just one of two nations with this obsolete, silly, completely unnecessary amendment. Its proponents are dominated by extreme paranoia and visions of Red Dawn floating in their lizard brains. We don’t need to get rid of it in order to pass sensible gun safety legislation. But because of people like you who fetishize it, the founders and guns, it may be strategically necessary, because the easy access to guns endangers all of us.