What has struck me lately is the coverage... or lack thereof... of the "Democratic Civil War"!
For most of my life, the media has written almost continuously about the "Republican Civil War." Time and again, this was the theme the collective media ran with. Whether they were talking about Reagan versus the country clubbers, the GOP driving out the racists, the flight of the libertarians, the exodus (in-odus?) of the Religious Right, the revolt against Bush 1, Pat Buchannan versus George Bush, conservatives versus McCain, the Tea Party, Trump versus sanity, etc. In each instance, the storyline was that there was a "civil war" in Republican ranks and the "inevitable" implosion/explosion/break-up/shattering/END of the Republican Party™.
Now, in some of these instances, the feuds were indeed quite nasty. Some definitely changed the party for the worse, while some changed it for the better. Some people did leave the party during each of these. But the party never broke up. There was almost never a threat of the party falling apart. The body of the party really almost never turned on itself (the elites are a different matter -- they've never been loyal). So in the end, the idea of a civil war proved ludicrous even as that's been the constant liberal MSM headline since the 1970s.
On the other hand, the Democrats have periodically engaged in Civil War. They've expelled the small business class. They expelled white males. They tribalized and went to war with each other over the ranking of tribal pet peeves. In 1968, their fringe got famously violent. They unseated LBJ. They have rigged their elections and their conventions. They've sabotaged each other. They've run as third parties. And unlike Republicans, they do stay home when their ideological guy doesn't make it through the primaries. And for about two decades now, there has been a power struggle between "progressives" and progressives-who-think-they're-moderates (MORONS). Despite all of this, there hasn't been a peep about a "civil war."
This election cycle, the progressives have decided that being progressives isn't satisfying enough. They've decided to call themselves "socialists," though they SWEAR they aren't really socialists //wink wink. See, they don't want to nationalize things, they just want the government to run our health system system ("medicare for all" or "single payer")... and to set wages ($15 minimum)... and price controls ("drug companies, housing")... and open borders (end to ICE)... and open season for criminals (thugs need hugs, cops should be in jail). So yeah, not socialist.
The rest of the Democrats are freaking out because they see their best chance to win power slipping away from this idiocy and they are rigging their convention (again), using dirty tricks to rig primaries (again), planning third party runs... the usual stuff. It's indeed getting quite nasty with each side refusing in many ways to support the other and likely not turning out for the other. Yet, not a peep of a Democratic Civil War. Gee, I wonder why that is?
As an aside, lest you worry that the Democrats will be overrun by this new breed of "Democratic Socialist," (1) these are the same people who've tried it for 20 years and they've made no headway, (2) ironically, they are fighting against the MORONS who are essentially ideologically identical to them so their victory would mean no real change, (3) the Democrats are too tribal to pull anything off, and (4) this new group of open socialists numbers only around 50,000 people despite the headlines of a growing movement... that's it. There are probably more prohibitionists in the US. So this is much sound and fury signifying nothing, but man is it a lot of sound and a lot of fury... unless you hear the MSM tell it.
For most of my life, the media has written almost continuously about the "Republican Civil War." Time and again, this was the theme the collective media ran with. Whether they were talking about Reagan versus the country clubbers, the GOP driving out the racists, the flight of the libertarians, the exodus (in-odus?) of the Religious Right, the revolt against Bush 1, Pat Buchannan versus George Bush, conservatives versus McCain, the Tea Party, Trump versus sanity, etc. In each instance, the storyline was that there was a "civil war" in Republican ranks and the "inevitable" implosion/explosion/break-up/shattering/END of the Republican Party™.
Now, in some of these instances, the feuds were indeed quite nasty. Some definitely changed the party for the worse, while some changed it for the better. Some people did leave the party during each of these. But the party never broke up. There was almost never a threat of the party falling apart. The body of the party really almost never turned on itself (the elites are a different matter -- they've never been loyal). So in the end, the idea of a civil war proved ludicrous even as that's been the constant liberal MSM headline since the 1970s.
On the other hand, the Democrats have periodically engaged in Civil War. They've expelled the small business class. They expelled white males. They tribalized and went to war with each other over the ranking of tribal pet peeves. In 1968, their fringe got famously violent. They unseated LBJ. They have rigged their elections and their conventions. They've sabotaged each other. They've run as third parties. And unlike Republicans, they do stay home when their ideological guy doesn't make it through the primaries. And for about two decades now, there has been a power struggle between "progressives" and progressives-who-think-they're-moderates (MORONS). Despite all of this, there hasn't been a peep about a "civil war."
This election cycle, the progressives have decided that being progressives isn't satisfying enough. They've decided to call themselves "socialists," though they SWEAR they aren't really socialists //wink wink. See, they don't want to nationalize things, they just want the government to run our health system system ("medicare for all" or "single payer")... and to set wages ($15 minimum)... and price controls ("drug companies, housing")... and open borders (end to ICE)... and open season for criminals (thugs need hugs, cops should be in jail). So yeah, not socialist.
The rest of the Democrats are freaking out because they see their best chance to win power slipping away from this idiocy and they are rigging their convention (again), using dirty tricks to rig primaries (again), planning third party runs... the usual stuff. It's indeed getting quite nasty with each side refusing in many ways to support the other and likely not turning out for the other. Yet, not a peep of a Democratic Civil War. Gee, I wonder why that is?
As an aside, lest you worry that the Democrats will be overrun by this new breed of "Democratic Socialist," (1) these are the same people who've tried it for 20 years and they've made no headway, (2) ironically, they are fighting against the MORONS who are essentially ideologically identical to them so their victory would mean no real change, (3) the Democrats are too tribal to pull anything off, and (4) this new group of open socialists numbers only around 50,000 people despite the headlines of a growing movement... that's it. There are probably more prohibitionists in the US. So this is much sound and fury signifying nothing, but man is it a lot of sound and a lot of fury... unless you hear the MSM tell it.
7 comments:
A couple years ago, I saw a good back-of-the-envelope estimation based on a few verifiable figures of how many honest-to-goodness white racists there are in the the country. It's about the same--50,000--as the estimated number of socialists. So the cynic in me says, by all means, tar and feather the left with their tiny fraction of Marxists.
unless you hear the MSM tell it.
And they have even less credibility than the socialists/communists.
The interesting question is whether there are more communists today in Russia or in the USA. I'm sure that would be difficult to quantify precisely, but inquiring minds want to know.
LL, I find it so strange that the MSM has squandered all their credibility in such a short period of time be becoming an arm of the left. Within the span of my lifetime, they went from "well, they may be biased, but you can trust them" to "if they said it, you know it's not true."
In terms of the socialist being more honest, they are and that's going to be their big mistake. The Democrats have gotten along for years by being socialist, but talking like libertarians. Now they're abandoning that because they've lost touch with the public and they don't get how reviled the idea of socialism is.
tryanmax, That sounds about right actually. In fact, that's a point I've been trying to make for years. All these "movements" and when see what appears to be a wave of something online... it's just a handful of people trying to make you think there's an army of them. So when people freak out over these things, they need to remember that we're talking fewer people than can fill a stadium.
In terms of tarring the left, I'm all for it. They've been tarring us for decades by pointing even to single cranks and nutjobs. Why not do the same with them?
I think they are going to be shocked when they discover how poorly socialism sells though.
I'm all for the Dims letting their socialists keep talking, it's obvious they haven't a clue about crime, economics, or anything else. The Dims had to beg a guy in our county for a building to put their HQs in for this election. They got evicted from the last one because they couldn't pay the rent.
Critch, I'm all for them talking up socialism. Why not? It will drive away even more people and cement to working class Americans that the GOP is for them.
Andrew, I hate to be looked at with a jaundiced eye, but I believe that you'll get more balanced news from Pravda than you will from CNN or WaPo.
Post a Comment