As thousands of Donald Trump’s supporters left his rally here this week, they were greeted by protesters who accused them of being, among other things, racist, hateful and uneducated.
“Grow a brain, b—-!” one protester shouted at a Trump backer. Another pointed at rallygoers and yelled: “Racist a——s!” A third held a sign that read: “Make racists afraid again.”
Then they chanted in unison: “Love trumps hate! Love trumps hate! Love trumps hate!”
And they’ll never see the irony.
Daniel Henninger writes in the Wall Street Journal:
The moral clarity that drove the original civil-rights movement or the women’s movement has degenerated into a confused moral narcissism. One wonders if even some of the people in Mrs. Clinton’s Streisandian audience didn’t feel discomfort at the ease with which the presidential candidate slapped isms and phobias on so many people.
Nay. This is what they think.
Even better, via the Washington Blade.
As I said, LGBT supporters stand with Clinton on ‘deplorables’ remark. They can’t see that demonizing your opponent’s voters, rather than criticizing your opponent, is a terrible strategy in a democracy. But then, it’s all about signalling the moral superiority of the progressive base.
In the end, however, Hillary’s LGBT smugfest with Barbra may turn out to be one hell of a costly fundraiser.
Gregory Angelo of the Log Cabin Republicans has observed, correctly, that when it comes to LGBT inclusion Trump is “one of the best, if not the best” (meaning least worst) Republican presidential nominees ever. Democrats, with some justification, can laugh at that as a weak standard. But that’s not what they’re doing—they’re portraying Trump as the most anti-gay Republican ever (the Blade cartoonist warns he’ll be closing down gay bars). That’s just partisan hackery.
And more from supporters of the Party of Love.
46 Comments for “Progressive ‘Love’”
posted by Deplorables and Bigots - IGF Culture Watch on
[…] moved the updates into a new post as they grew beyond a few additional closing […]
posted by TJ on
Again. TPP could have chosen to have run a very different campaign. He has the money and connections to have run a strong campaign.
He didn’t need to pander to racist sentiment, he didn’t need to inject sleaze into the campaign. He didn’t need to kiss up to extremists and fanatics.
He could have run a campaign that appealed to a large number of Republicans, Democrats and Independents.
posted by Doug on
Jeb Bush et.al. tried to run a campaign that appealed to large numbers of american voters. However, the ‘deplorables’, a very sizable majority of the GOP would have none of it and decided to nominate one of their own.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
[D]emonizing your opponent’s voters, rather than criticizing your opponent, is a terrible strategy in a democracy.
First, I’ll repeat what I said in the preceding thread:
Second, I’ll amplify.
The problem is not with TPP&P voters who are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it“, whatever percentage of his coalition they may turn out to be. That percentage may be 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% — whatever — and it is irrelevant.
The problem is with TPP&P’s positions in this election, TPP&P’s long and consistent appeal to “racism, sexism, homophobia (more P and TPP), xenophobia, Islamaphobia, you name it“, both implicit and explicit, over a long period of time, and the Republican Party’s 30-odd year history of seeking out, coddling, catering to and encouraging “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it” voters through dog whistles, winks and nods.
As you note, “demonizing your opponent’s voters, rather than criticizing your opponent, is a terrible strategy in a democracy”. It cost Governor Romney after his 47% remarks, it cost Speaker Ryan after his “makers and takers” remarks, and it will undoubtedly cost Secretary Clinton, because it has shifted the discussion away from TPP&P’s policies and positions and shifted the discussion to the composition of TPP&P’s voters. The shift has the unintended consequence of legitimizing “racism, sexism, homophobia , xenophobia, Islamaphobia, you name it“, both implicit and explicit, and bringing it into the mainstream of political discussion.
We are in danger of losing sight of a simple fact: Republican politicians and operatives brought the party to the point where it is today, to the platform it has today, and to the candidates it has today. The “racism, sexism, homophobia , xenophobia, Islamaphobia, you name it” underpinning the TPP&P campaign is a result, not an accident.
posted by I TJ on
I actually know quite a few Rockerfellow Republicans. They are not overtly bigoted, and have voted GOP before out of economic goals.
None of them are supporting Trump. They are voting for Hillary, or the libertarian party candidate or not voting for president.
posted by JohnInCA on
I’ve been asking Republicans, for years now, why if they’re “not like that”, they keep voting “like that”, and never punishing their politicians for being “overtly bigotted”.
The response has generally been similar claims about “economic goals”, which is a nice way of saying “my bank account is worth any pain I cause to you or others”. That they finally found a politician that goes too far is nice, but I think it’s distressing how high the bar is.
To make a long story short: I find such “Rockerfellow Republicans” as you describe to be no more clean-handed then any other Republican. They may have only supported the more overtly bigotted “deplorables” out of economic opportunism, but they supported them anyway, and are now complaining about the consequences of their actions.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well said, John, and the supposedly “moderate” Republicans appear poised to do it all over again this election cycle.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Gregory Angelo of the Log Cabin Republicans has observed, correctly, that Trump is the least anti-LGBT Republican presidential nominee ever. Democrats, with some justification, can laugh at that as a weak standard. But that’s not what they’re doing—they’re portraying Trump as the most anti-gay Republican ever (the Blade cartoonist warns he’ll be closing down gay bars). That’s just partisan hackery.
The Blade and other LGBT media might be overstating the case with TPP&P, but the fact is that TPP&P are not just representative of a “weak standard”. TPP has taken positions that align vwith the anti-equality 2016 Republican Party platform (dubbed “most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s history” by Log Cabin Republicans) in almost every respect, P has a long history of aligning himself with the worst of the anti-gay conservative Christian right, and he has not backed off from the days when he described gays and lesbians as a “discreet and insular minority [underseving of] the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities.”
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am getting tired of LCR constantly touting TPP as “the least anti-LGBT Republican nominee ever”, as if that meant something. I realize that LCR is compelled to endorse TPP&P this election cycle, in light of Chairman Priebus’s statement yesterday to the effect that anyone who doesn’t get in line would suffer “penalties” for their disloyalty to the party, but LCR doesn’t have to fall distort reality in order to do so. It would suffice to follow the formula of LCR’s 2012 Romney endorsement, noting TPP&P’s anti-equality positions but arguing that the “gravity of the economic and national security issues currently at stake” mandate an endorsement.
posted by Walker on
Well, they can hardly argue that Trump’s national security and economics blatherings justify supporting him.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well, they can hardly argue that Trump’s national security and economics blatherings justify supporting him.
I wouldn’t count on it.
posted by TJ on
I’d say that the relationship between the GOP and voters -gay and straight – seems textbook abusive.
When the leader of a major party starts acting like the type of boyfriend who probably has a restraining order against him…..
posted by Jorge on
They can’t see that demonizing your opponent’s voters, rather than criticizing your opponent, is a terrible strategy in a democracy.
My concern isn’t so much whether or not it is an effective political strategy. I agree with Tom on this one narrowly. It is a transparently rotten part of an overall very effective and conventional strategy of engaging in demagogue toward one’s own political base in order to mobilize enthusiasm and turnout.
My concern is that demonizing enemy voters displays hostility to the American values of tolerance, free speech, and the peaceful resolution of disputes through majority rule and the rule of law. And its unnecessary. Both remarks could have been turned around on the opposing candidate, or even to exert a moderate amount of pressure on the voters themselves, by talking about the issue itself. There is a reason politicians do not do this: their four or so years in the seat of power is more important to them than the survival and prosperity of the United States.
The very inability to have a serious conversation about issues pertinent to this nation’s well being without being accused of bigotry by political opportunists and purists is the very reason for the rise and popularity of Donald Trump. I don’t know how well the Republican party has come to understand this, but the Democratic party seems completely blind to it. The solution to this problem is not someone who will alternately create more of the disease or enable its spread (that is, Hillary Clinton). It is also wrong to believe that the solution is Donald Trump (although that would be a big help). The solution is rather one of the things Donald Trump has proposed: a willingness to negotiate principled concerns into actionable solutions that work for most people.
By the way I take a pretty dim view of Madeline Albright playing the woman card and Donald Trump playing the African American card, too.
posted by Houndentenor on
You mean the way Republicans demean, women, African-Americans, Hispanics, gay people, trans people, etc.? Agreed, it probably wasn’t Clinton’s best move but it’s not like attacking whole demographic groups hasn’t been the main play in the GOP playbook for 30 years now.
posted by Jorge on
You mean the way Republicans demean, women, African-Americans, Hispanics, gay people, trans people, etc.?
Republicans do not demean women, African-Americans, Hispanics, gay people, trans people, etc.
They demean imaginary radicals.
posted by TJ on
Maybe Stephen will argue that it’s (somehow) “OK” when Republican demonize voters .
The demonization was in full swing in the 1980s, although it probably kicked off with the Southern Strategy campaign.
posted by TJ on
If you don’t think that the Republican right-wing (which has been killing off the moderate GOP) hasn’t been demonizing voters, you have not been paying attention.
posted by TJ on
Jorge
I don’t recall Trump making any sort of substantive policy recommendations.
I have listened to just about every speech that he has made, going back to the GOP primaries.
posted by Jorge on
My charming co-worker and friend, with whom I agree on very little politically, endearingly called Trump’ss supporters idiots. I thanked him for calling me an idiot. He was not pleased. Maybe it’s because I tell him such horrible things to his face. I wasn’t pleased either; I’d dutifully kept my mouth shut after I asked his opinion of Kim Davis.
Apparently if you haven’t come by my cubicle and seen my wall-to-wall coverage of Trump, you have no way of guessing what I think about him.
Maybe it’s because I told him too many stories of how much I love Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum.
posted by TJ on
Loving someone who wants to put gay people in prison or someone who wants a religious test imposed for citizenship or who panders to white supremacist, would certainly be cause for concern.
posted by Jorge on
Who would that be?
posted by TJ on
jorge
you would be the person that other people would be concerned about.
posted by Jorge on
I do not want to put gay people in prison. I do not even know any white supremacists. I think placing a religious test on citizenship is a halfway decent idea that’s easily ruled out.
And I cannot figure who else you are talking about. Well, to be more accurate, that train of deplorables you mentioned doesn’t match any single person.
posted by TJ on
Jorge
Rick S. – a candidate you spoke fondly of – was quite clear that the right to privacy (in his mind) didn’t exist.
TPP racist and sleazy antics are an outgrowth of the Nixon era ‘Southern Strategy’ campaign.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s true that Trump doesn’t have much anti-gay on his CV. That’s why he had to pick Mike Pence as his running mate. So, no, he doesn’t get credit for not being all that anti-gay when he’s happy to pander to people who are including showing up at anti-gay conferences.
As for the Deporables, it was only mean because it’s true. At least half of Trump supporters are openly racist and proud of it. What Clinton said was only bad because it’s true and Republicans, while happy to pander to that, don’t want to own it. Boo-effing-hoo.
posted by TJ on
The GOP national platform still touts the same homophobia.
Policywise, Trump hasn’t really indicated an objection to the platform on this particular issue.
I realize that the LCR feel intense and overeaching pressure to bend over for Trump, but the few times he said something nice about gay or transgender rights, he back peddled or had his VP do damage control.
posted by TJ on
Their was actually quite a bit of intense debate and discussion over civil rights for women and for ethnic-racial minorities and political dissenters and gay people. Both within each movement and within the larger society.
It may be fun to look back at the civil rights for African Americans, as an example, as if it were an after school special. But the actual history was more complicated.
Dr. King emerged as a major player in said movement. However, it wasn’t easy building and mainting support of different segments of black and white people
Bayard Rustin was often sacrificed or given less credit in order to keep the coalition going.
President Kennedy’s outreach to Dr. King was important to his presidency, but he also needed support of Congressmen from the South and Western States, who were not especially interested in civil rights legislation.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
An interesting side note to the discussion.
posted by Jorge on
“I reprint this small sample of the nastygrams not to ruin your next meal but because the half of Trump supporters who aren’t motivated by prejudice, and the few voters who remain genuinely undecided, should be aware of the bigotry that Trump has brought into the open — and that those who vote for Trump are condoning.”
You can consider me informed. I can play that game, too.
Kim Davis was actually put in jail. A gay pastor falsely reported a slur on a cake–that was actually written by a gay employee.
There is an attempt to shame people into not discussing the issues of illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism.
When the Black Lives Matter movement began engaging in intimidation toward other civilians, and even inspiring attacks toward police and shaming of white people who hold different views, two counter-slogans formed. BLM and its sympathizers have tried to portray those counter-slogans as racist.
After the Obama administration pressured colleges and universities to adopt a “fair preponderance of the evidence” standard in sex abuse investigations and hearings, we have begun to see courts reversing university decisions against alleged sex offenders due to failure to provide due process.
These trends all have detrimental political and social consequences that go far beyond the coarsening of speech about public concerns. It is these consequences, and the fear that the socio-political leadership of this country will not forestall them, that is breeding such commentary.
Such virulence is rightly feared to herald dangerous consequences of their own. With that thought fully in mind, it is a small price to pay for saving a country that is increasingly turning law and order and respect for human rights on its head.
Oh, excuse me, Tom’s earlier posts would remind me that we really only have a slim influence at having a slim chance to save this country. Sooooo that means there’s really no problem?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Kim Davis was actually put in jail.
As she should have been. She was jailed for contempt of court, for refusing to obey a lawful order of a federal court. She remained in jail until she complied with the court’s order.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Oh, excuse me, Tom’s earlier posts would remind me that we really only have a slim influence at having a slim chance to save this country. Sooooo that means there’s really no problem?
As is often the case, I have no idea what you are talking about. I’m too old to understand a post-rational world, I guess.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I see that Lyin’ Ted has come to Jesus. I think that JEB! and John Kasich are the only holdouts at this point.
posted by Doug on
I figured Ted Cruz would finally come around and support Trump. Cruz is nothing but a cheap political whore who would do anything, including accepting insults about his wife and family, to advance is political career. The man has no principles whatsoever.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I just hope that Stephen doesn’t cave.
Stephen expressed support for Gary Johnson a couple months ago:
not because of TPP’s dismal positions on equality, but instead because:
We haven’t heard much since then. I hope that Stephen’s resolve holds, and that he doesn’t go the way of LCR.
By all indicators, LCR will be endorsing TPP, touting TPP’s “tough” position on ISIS murders of gays and lesbians and his preference for state-by-state marriage equality decisions over the FMA, while ignoring TPP’s opposition to same-sex marriage, opposition to Obergefell, pledge to rescind the administration’s EO’s on gay rights on “Day One”, pledge to appoint anti-equality judges and Justices, opposition to the Equality Act, support of FADA, and so on.
I can understand LCR and the other homocons flocking to support TPP as the party amps up the penalties for party disloyalty, but I think that they are wrong. Sometimes its better not to “have a seat at the table”.
posted by Lori Heine on
I believe that either Gary Johnson or Jill Stein would be far better choices for LGBT Americans.
posted by Jorge on
You mean Graham purchased a helmet so he can survive “Trump’s like being shot in the head”? He better get his own trump card ready if he does that.
but I think that they are wrong. Sometimes its better not to “have a seat at the table”.
I think we have reached the point where enough people have made that decision. The leak on President Bush actually voting for Clinton is an important development, but unfortunately I’m not sure he has a political future anyway. There will need to be a Republican opposition in the event of a Trump presidency. Most of the also-rans don’t have enough integrity for their dissent to make a difference in this area. I place Mitt Romney in that category as well simply for being too partisan.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think we have reached the point where enough people have made that decision. The leak on President Bush actually voting for Clinton is an important development, but unfortunately I’m not sure he has a political future anyway.
At 92 years old, I’m not sure he cares about his political future. He probably cares more about waking up on the right side of the grass every day.\
There will need to be a Republican opposition in the event of a Trump presidency.
I’m curious about where you think it will come from. It seems to me that TPP is the future of the party. TPP has garnered strong support from every wing of the Republican base, and that’s not going away. The tired, worn out ideas of the “Reagan coalition” are going the way of the dinosaurs. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
posted by Houndentenor on
George HW Bush obviously doesn’t have a political future but he does have a legacy and he also has grandchildren and great-grandchilden. He can’t in good conscience support Trump. No one with a conscience could.
posted by Jorge on
At 92 years old, I’m not sure he cares about his political future. He probably cares more about waking up on the right side of the grass every day.
That’s what I meant. I was trying to be polite.
I’m curious about where you think it will come from.
I think Sen. Lindsey Graham, House Speaker Paul Ryan, and Ohio Governor John Kasich have been clear enough on where they stand without being overly antagonistic to Trump. That’s someone from all the major alternate confederations of Republican government power. On top of that you have those congressional candidates who for electoral reasons are distancing themselves from Trump. Some of them will win. Opposition and skepticism among influential non-officeholders runs deeper (they’re the ideological elites, after all), and includes people who know how to handle being out of power.
These factions will not act in unison in public, if at all, as most of them can be bought by something different. What they will do is create small barriers, or voice critical commentaries, that will at times threaten to make the Democratic party more powerful.
It seems to me that TPP is the future of the party.
I certainly hope so.
The past doesn’t vanish all at once.
He can’t in good conscience support Trump. No one with a conscience could.
I have a very thoughtful and insightful Conscience. I support Donald Trump for President in 2016. I leave it to Conscience to provide the explanation, to recite the trail of dead bodies that were the doubts and dire warnings before they were hit with a stronger truth.
No explanation is necessary. Simply complete a bit of research, and you will find a host of grave problems this country witnesses that will not be mitigated by Hillary Clinton. Calculate the error rates: the range of possible resolutions during a Clinton or Democratic presidency, and how many possible resolutions herald severe or irreparable harm within the next four years. Divide the percentage chance of severe or irreparable harm under a Clinton term by the percentage of Trump supporters for a measure of how rational and conscientious they are.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
No explanation is necessary. Simply complete a bit of research, and you will find a host of grave problems this country witnesses that will not be mitigated by Hillary Clinton. Calculate the error rates: the range of possible resolutions during a Clinton or Democratic presidency, and how many possible resolutions herald severe or irreparable harm within the next four years. Divide the percentage chance of severe or irreparable harm under a Clinton term by the percentage of Trump supporters for a measure of how rational and conscientious they are.
What is interesting about this — and about the similar statements I hear from friends who are planning to vote for TPP&P — is that the analysis does not take into account the possible negative consequences (“severe or irreparable harm” as you put it) of implementation of TPP&P’s proposals, factoring those into the equation.
It all reminds me of an acquaintance with a gambling problem. When he heads to the casino, he doesn’t consider the possibility that he will lose rather than win. That comes the next day after he’s gambled away his rent.
posted by Jorge on
What is interesting about this — and about the similar statements I hear from friends who are planning to vote for TPP&P — is that the analysis does not take into account the possible negative consequences (“severe or irreparable harm” as you put it) of implementation of TPP&P’s proposals, factoring those into the equation.
My only real worry is a totalitarian takeover. I’m a bit dismissive of most other concerns.
I tend to look at politics as a series of pendulums. If things are swinging too far to the left, I have a hard time imagining an overswing in the other direction is possible without having time to blunt it. This is the first time in my adult lifetime that right-reactionarism (I do not count the Tea Party movement) has struck me as powerful enough to win an election.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Trouble in Alt-Rightland. Stephen’s much despised “Progressive Love” might be the least of Milo Yappiopoulous’s worries going forward.
posted by Jorge on
That has about as much chance of being successful as Trump’s attack on Miss Porky.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
That has about as much chance of being successful as Trump’s attack on Miss Porky.
Right.
posted by Jorge on
I must admit, I LOL’d.
posted by Bettybarce on
[img]http://i.imgur.com/GaW1ynpm.jpg[/img]
How to lose weight fast and lose up to 15 lbs per week?
When one has grown, some Natural methods can help you lose belly fat,
thighs or hips, and melt the accumulated fat in his body.
Discover a surprisingfood that allow you to lose weight in record time without dieting and without deprivation!
And if in addition you know that food is available everywhere but its effects were unknown until recent studies
reveals its full potential? So if you’ve tried everything and if you really want to lose
up to 22 lbs per week with a disconcerting ease, discover this miracle food and how to use it
by downloading the method here : http://filerack.net/file/35t9Q3
posted by Truthortbz on
Hi! I want to share with you secret
http://gstatic.host