Quote (bogie160 @ Oct 1 2020 04:46pm)
How an issue is framed can have a significant impact on how it's viewed by the general public. Take Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility". It is objectively an unscientific and racist text. But when presented as a harmless HR course (which many of us are familiar with), HR-conscious executives are often happy to sign off, knowing little about the course, and thus legitimize an otherwise extreme text. Media and journalism are left-wing professions. Are there conservative, libertarian, alt-right journalists? Of course, but those ideological positions are severely underrepresented. As a result of this, there is inevitable bias even in best case circumstances where the journalist attempts to remain neutral. The bias is inherent to how the issue is being framed and discussed, which facts are included, and how those facts are interpreted. It is a losing proposition to fight these battles head on. The frame through which the conversation takes place must change.
I don't think Wallace asking Trump that question is a left-wing framing. Trump has white supremacists and militia groups who support him, he's waffled on condemning those groups in the past, he's amped up the situation with his rhetoric and tweets. The question deserved a clear answer... Trump didn't give one. Now there's a bunch of coverage about his terrible answer.
I agree in general that there's many issues where the fact-based media frames things with a liberal bias. There's ways to adequately handle that. I don't see many right-wingers who are able to counter it effectively. The go-to strategy is whining, and that works with the base, but it doesn't bring new people to your side.
Quote (bogie160 @ Oct 1 2020 04:46pm)
Trump understood better than any of his 2016 Republican challengers the lessons of Romney's failed 2012 campaign. The media largely frames issues from a left-wing perspective. The American right's role, from that perspective, is only as the loyal opposition, sheepishly apologizing and downplaying their obvious racism, sexism, and wealth privilege as the country moves inexorably to the left. On immigration, it is ok to say "we need tighter border controls", but only if followed by exhortations that the candidate actually wants more immigrants, preferably in Spanish, and only so long as questions about the quality of the immigrants themselves and their impact on culture are verboten. Even then, there will be plenty of snide commentary implying that the conservative candidate is merely a racist bent on creating misery in the 3rd world. And the conservative will spend a significant amount of time, as Romney did, debating the honesty of their motives, and not the cost / benefit of their position to the country. And because they cannot address the elephant in the room, their motives are in fact are dishonest, because they are concerned (and it is ok to be concerned) that the influx of immigration has long-term ramifications on the financial, cultural, and social health of the country. This dishonesty is apparent to everyone, and it subsequently gets picked apart by the media.
There's this talking point that before Trump, Republicans were a group of scared cowards who would never take on the left and the media... and I've not seen good evidence that's ever been the case. There's also this idea that because Trump won and ushered in control of government, everything he did is supposed to be justified and helpful politically. That's also false. Trump didn't win because he's a nasty person to the Democrats and the media... he won in spite of it.
It was years ago and I didn't follow the election that closely, so I have no idea if your characterizations of Romney are accurate. To me, you seem to be implying that Romney didn't embrace nativist rhetoric and the dark underbelly of the Republican party... and that he should've done so. Maybe McCain should've been open to the old woman at the town hall calling Obama an Arab?
I support leaders who bring out the best in the American people, not the worst.
Quote (bogie160 @ Oct 1 2020 04:46pm)
Trump approached immigration from an American perspective. He addressed the elephant in the room; Is enormous and largely uncontrolled illegal immigration a net benefit to the American people? He was unconcerned with, and even went so far as to embrace, allegations that he was a racist. As a result, he energized conservative voters, tired of feeling ashamed, as well as blue-collar, working class, and other non-traditional Republican demographics who felt disillusioned with a right that was only concerned about money, and a left that was hyper-focused on replacing them with docile, loyal blue-voting minorities ("If you don't vote for me, you ain't black"). Trump is therefore a revolutionary figure in American politics. He has single-handedly expanded the realm of thought that is open to public debate. That is fundamentally a good thing. Unfortunately, his bad impulses are almost as great as his good ones, and his inability to express the good (adequately) outside of his base leaves him far too open to criticism, as we've seen. But the answer is not to retreat back into the Plato's metaphorical cave, but to advance more persuasive, competent voices who are better able to take up that mantle and move American politics in a more productive direction.
There's numerous ways Trump has influenced politics... I think expanding the realm of thought on policy is pretty far down on the list. He's further radicalized 1/3 of the country... the Republican party is dumber, meaner, and crazier. The Democratic party is more radical. Trust in institutions has cratered. Those are the lasting effects, not tariffs and building a wall.
This post was edited by IceMage on Oct 1 2020 06:26pm
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.