A man you can bait with a Tweet

[BigRedBuster]

Duh....because he's the smartest man on earth.

 

Just ask him.

[BigRedBuster]

These people really don't have a clue how stupid they look going this.

 

[zoogs]

Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago, though, that we had a serious debate on here about whether at least Trump was more of a policy guy than the Democrats?

 

Reality can be, and is, created.

[RedDenver]

Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago, though, that we had a serious debate on here about whether at least Trump was more of a policy guy than the Democrats?

 

Reality can be, and is, created.

Kind of like revisionist history.

[Kiyoat Husker]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/03/the-problem-with-but-trumps-base-loves-it/?utm_term=.2ff36ec96cf5

 

An opinion piece from the Washington Post.

 

...what ensues is a regular and repeated pattern that goes like this:

1. Trump tweets something despicable.
2. Elected Republicans say, “I don’t approve of this.”
3. White House spokespeople offer laughably pathetic defenses of his behavior.
4. Journalists and commentators point out that as vulgar and infantile as Trump is being, his base loves this stuff, and therefore it may be a clever strategy and not just a hypersensitive, insecure man-child having a tantrum.

The problem with Step 4 of this cycle is twofold. First, by assuming his supporters are in fact a bunch of Cro-Magnon mouth-breathers who grunt in approval at any intimation of violence from their hero, it is deeply condescending. And second, it lets Trump off the hook, in effect excusing whatever he does as long as it can be hypothesized that it will be met with approval by his supporters.

 

....Trump’s approval ratings are down in the 30s, meaning there are quite a few Republicans who voted for him last year but don’t approve of him now......So if we say that “Trump’s base” likes what he does with Twitter, we have to acknowledge that the “Trump’s base” we’re referring to is a minority of Republicans....

 

That doesn’t mean it isn’t a strategy at all, only that if it is, it’s probably a foolish one.

[zoogs]

 

Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago, though, that we had a serious debate on here about whether at least Trump was more of a policy guy than the Democrats?

 

Reality can be, and is, created.

Kind of like revisionist history.

 

 

Is it?

 

To be as precise as possible on the wording, I believe we were debating who ran the more policy-focused campaign. This is the same kind of line Kellyanne & co. trotted out repeatedly last summer during campaign season, and which we saw regurgitated ad nauseam by Trump's most ardent supporter(s?) here. Since it has no basis in fact, my argument is that at least elements of these conceptions made their way into the mainstream. So let's recognize where they came from and how false they were to begin with. That's all.

[Danny Bateman]

I'd just add that it seems to me that Trump, Conway, Spicer, Sanders and the rest of the crew are just focused on taking shots at their opponents and veering off policy discussions as anyone else in politics. The only time they say they want to talk about creating jobs, deregulating, crushing terrorists and making better deals is when a reporter is asking them to explain something indefensible Trump did.

 

When they do get asked about policy specifics, they usually say they'll have to get back to us. No one seems to be able to explain how any of his policies will work with any level of detail beyond an apparent wave of Mr. Trump's magic wand.

 

If they were the more policy-focused group at one point, that time has long since passed.

[RedDenver]

I'd just add that it seems to me that Trump, Conway, Spicer, Sanders and the rest of the crew are just focused on taking shots at their opponents and veering off policy discussions as anyone else in politics. The only time they say they want to talk about creating jobs, deregulating, crushing terrorists and making better deals is when a reporter is asking them to explain something indefensible Trump did.

 

When they do get asked about policy specifics, they usually say they'll have to get back to us. No one seems to be able to explain how any of his policies will work with any level of detail beyond an apparent wave of Mr. Trump's magic wand.

 

If they were the more policy-focused group at one point, that time has long since passed.

The Repubs policies cannot stand up to any scrutiny, which is a big part of why I think the Dems need to talk policy - it's where the Repubs are very weak. It's not that I think the Repubs have better policy, it's that I think the Dems need to talk about their own policies and by contrast expose the ridiculousness of the Repubs - both ideologically and practically.

[zoogs]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/03/the-problem-with-but-trumps-base-loves-it/?utm_term=.2ff36ec96cf5

 

An opinion piece from the Washington Post.

This is very interesting, and I think worthy of a some analysis. Particularly this quote:

 

First, by assuming his supporters [...] grunt in approval at any intimation of violence from their hero, it is deeply condescending

I've redacted the straw man, without which the assumption is not condescending but I think entirely accurate. To denounce it seems like something that comes from a fear of offending, but refusing to see things for what they are is outright dangerous. This is not the fight we asked for, but it's the one we're in.

 

I'm puzzled by the claim that it excuses Trump in any way. Yes, anything Trump does will be met with approval by his supporters -- and that's accurate. How does that let him off the hook?

 

And yeah, there are quite a few Trump supporters and Republican politicians alike who are happy to loudly proclaim their disgust to an increasing unpopular guy. These folks should be held to the same standards as their standard-bearers. When it comes down to it, what do Graham or McCain or Sasse do? How many of them are either indifferent to Obamacare repeal or happy to see it happen? If so much of the voting electorate is to be excluded from this definition of the Trump base, where is their real opposition? Silent assent is complicity at the least. And so I view this as ultimately a meaningless distinction: between he's vocally cheering base and the portion of the rest of it that, when push comes to shove, is right there along for the ride.

 

I do think there's an increasing number who refuse to be part of either category. That's encouraging; confronted with the choice to be genuine or just acceptable they're choosing the former. "But Trump's true base is just a small minority of the GOP" is what lets people off the hook, by treating acceptable optics as enough. And, besides, some 30+ percent of the entire country being in support of Trump through all of this isn't an insignificant number. I'm not sure it can even be said to be a minority of the GOP.

[RedDenver]

I'm puzzled by the claim that it excuses Trump in any way. Yes, anything Trump does will be met with approval by his supporters -- and that's accurate. How does that let him off the hook?

I took the argument to be that focusing on the ridiculous stuff Trump's supporters say, it takes away focus from the ridiculous stuff Trump himself is saying.

[zoogs]

The Repubs policies cannot stand up to any scrutiny, which is a big part of why I think the Dems need to talk policy - it's where the Repubs are very weak. It's not that I think the Repubs have better policy, it's that I think the Dems need to talk about their own policies and by contrast expose the ridiculousness of the Repubs - both ideologically and practically.

I agree with this -- where one party abandons substance the other party should embrace it. However, they do, and it doesn't work. Trump can blurt some words about healthcare and harp on coal/pulling out of Paris, and this scores in some broad sense as policy talk. The Democrats can point out how crazy all of that is and get reduced to somehow not being the policy guys anymore. Never mind that they stand on the entire, arduously-fought framework of the ACA and push *for* climate initiatives and listening to climate scientists, all of which is patently clear and is also talked about.

 

What it comes down to, IMO, is that substantive policy talk is not memorable. The lack of substance on the GOP side is therefore not a weakness at all. Substance demands nuance, invites scrutiny and intraparty disagreement -- all of which we have seen in large quantities (which is great, apart from the lost elections). It ends up costing the Democrats even, apparently, to the extent where it looks like they're the ones who don't know what they're talking about.

[RedDenver]

 

The Repubs policies cannot stand up to any scrutiny, which is a big part of why I think the Dems need to talk policy - it's where the Repubs are very weak. It's not that I think the Repubs have better policy, it's that I think the Dems need to talk about their own policies and by contrast expose the ridiculousness of the Repubs - both ideologically and practically.

I agree with this -- where one party abandons substance the other party should embrace it. However, they do, and it doesn't work. Trump can blurt some words about healthcare and harp on coal/pulling out of Paris, and this scores in some broad sense as policy talk. The Democrats can point out how crazy all of that is and get reduced to somehow not being the policy guys anymore. Never mind that they stand on the entire, arduously-fought framework of the ACA and push *for* climate initiatives and listening to climate scientists, all of which is patently clear and is also talked about.

 

What it comes down to, IMO, is that substantive policy talk is not memorable. The lack of substance on the GOP side is therefore not a weakness at all. Substance demands nuance, invites scrutiny and intraparty disagreement -- all of which we have seen in large quantities (which is great, apart from the lost elections). It ends up costing the Democrats even, apparently, to the extent where it looks like they're the ones who don't know what they're talking about.

 

I absolutely disagree. And while I'm only one voter and it's anecdotal evidence, the Dems aren't going to get me onboard until they start tackling the issues. For example, I think the Paris Accord had the positive effect of setting agreed upon limits of temperature rise and CO2 levels to meet that temp goal, but it absolutely failed in any way to enforce these goals or plan for them. That's a good example of the Dems having a goal/talking point about fighting climate change but not talking about a policy/solution to get there. Right now they're just saying that what Trump/Repubs did was bad. Alright, then where are Schumer's/Pelosi's plan to meet the Paris Accord agreements whether Trump agrees to it or not? I mean, Hillary put the king of fracking (Ken Salazar) in charge of her transition team, so it kind of belies their stance of climate change, let alone have a solution.

[zoogs]

They tackle the issues, but they don't do everything you want.

 

To me, getting the US to ratify Paris at all was a policy achievement and came with lots of opposition. We fought to keep us in there for 2016 (whatever your feelings on how much further the text of the treaty should have gone), failed, and now we're out.

 

And that is to me a microcosm of the "Dems don't have policy" camp, wielding this rhetoric as an argument instead of the more accurate "I like my policy idea better than your policy idea", and then losing track of the actual fight that's before our eyes. What Trump/Repubs did was absolutely, clearly, bad. It's beyond horrendous. And somehow, we didn't see that. That's a massive and unforced failure of discernment.

[Danny Bateman]

So, I just saw Trump's tweet about jobs and the economy on Twitter.

 

I do agree with what zoogs said above. For some people, blurting out a few key words in tweets suffices as proof Trump is focused on policy. I think it's helpful to differentiate between policy and goals/ideals/rhetoric, though. Trump speaks almost exclusively in the latter. He doesn't understand the former (the means to his ends) AT ALL.

 

I don't think Trump won the election because he understood policy better. I think he successfully used populist rhetoric better than Clinton, however. He didn't, and still doesn't, seem to be able to grasp the underlying machinations that would allow him to implement it, though. And it doesn't matter all that much. Trump could boldly lie about how good those economic indicators he tweeted about are and a not-insignificant chunk of his base would never know the difference. If it came from Trump, it must be true. I'm wondering if that chunk on the right is large enough to create a substantial impediment for the left (if they don't have an analogue).

 

You seem to want more of the former from the Dems, right, Red? I think that's fair. I'm not sure what they do to move forward. I will say I think it is hard to both create substantial pieces of policy your entire party can rally behind while also trying to play defense against a GOP that controls all 3 branches of government.

[RedDenver]

So, I just saw Trump's tweet about jobs and the economy on Twitter.

 

I do agree with what zoogs said above. For some people, blurting out a few key words in tweets suffices as proof Trump is focused on policy. I think it's helpful to differentiate between policy and goals/ideals/rhetoric, though. Trump speaks almost exclusively in the latter. He doesn't understand the former (the means to his ends) AT ALL.

 

I don't think Trump won the election because he understood policy better. I think he successfully used populist rhetoric better than Clinton, however. He didn't, and still doesn't, seem to be able to grasp the underlying machinations that would allow him to implement it, though. And it doesn't matter all that much. Trump could boldly lie about how good those economic indicators he tweeted about are and a not-insignificant chunk of his base would never know the difference. If it came from Trump, it must be true. I'm wondering if that chunk on the right is large enough to create a substantial impediment for the left (if they don't have an analogue).

 

You seem to want more of the former from the Dems, right, Red? I think that's fair. I'm not sure what they do to move forward. I will say I think it is hard to both create substantial pieces of policy your entire party can rally behind while also trying to play defense against a GOP that controls all 3 branches of government.

I'm not sure what you're asking me. I don't want to derail this thread too much, so I'll respond on the Dems Rebuild thread if you want to clarify your question there.