I find if ironic, and laughable, that those who are screaming that the 2020 election was rigged are the very same folks plotting to rig the next election
Good observations but I'm looking at it through a different set of "progressive lenses" (no political pun intended).
My view is that when we frame the discussion with left, right, center and nuanced positions from one end to end, we're flat two-dimensional map of a spectrum from one side to the end. A flat-earth POV of political discourse. It's ingrained, 20th century vision, outdated, outmoded and our-of-touch. Oh, the view will allow the pundits and opiners a flat field on which to pander and propagandize their play-by-play, taking up time and ink to sell eyeballs to advertisers so it continues because there's money and power in using the paradigm.
But, it stinks like polluted fish.
The world of ideas isn't flat. The view "from the balcony" and (ask Bezos and Branson) beyond is at the very least 3-dimensional, over time, probably even 4.
There's no center to hold. As the spinning (of tales and official narratives) gets faster and beyond (self) control, the centrifugal force gets the common core of democratic ideas flying off the edges with the fringes hanging on like linguistic linguini flapping in a firestorm, hurricane, flood and twisted whirlwind of bullshit. Metaphors aside, it's like a Flying Spaghetti Monster (but let's leave God out of it for the time being -- a whole 'nuther world)
Simple solutions sell. Subtle solutions take time and talent and the party leaders of the world have that in short supply.
We live in a world of purposeful manipulation, mass marketing balkanized into targeted mismarketing, mislabeling and bullshit replicated into a continent of floating garbage upon a deep dying sea of marketing sharks and monsters.
Here's the deal, folks. It's not about MIS or DIS information. It's about MALinformation. Purposefully malicious in order to keep power where it's concentrated and the concentration is toxic.
So no. No left right center. No Liberal Conservative, Neowhatever Fascist Commie. Old labels on old garments that don't fit right because the body and body politic has changed shape over time.
My folks, like yours were depression people and Jews that went through WWII. They were Roosevelt Democrats and Eisenhower Republicans. Suburban Philly family that wanted social safety, upward mobility, equality, health and education, infrastructure and whatever else might be "good for the Jews." They supported the GI bill, a meritocracy and civil rights, as they knew what it was like to be part of an excluded class. They didn't march like good "liberals" probably because they felt safer in the background but they supported what they could.
Of course, these days, being an Eisenhower Republican would make them a Biden Democrat. Maybe even a Sanders fan ('cause--y'know, Jewish).
So what the hell is the center today, anyway? It's slippery at best. Don't ask if it can hold. Better, you should ask if it's even possible to hold on to.
The ship of state's on a more steady course this year but the seas full of swells. The skipper's doing his level best with half the crew while the others are planning mutiny. The iceberg's dead ahead and we're looking for the anchor while the media focuses on the Bermuda Triangle.
If there's any center, it's the media and the congressional blowhards who've been miscast into superstars (not superheroes) what want to. suck us into the hole that used to be the "center" It's not about the center holding. It's about the center as a black hole of our making.
First thing is to throw the verbiage overboard or chuck it into outer space. If we're going to kick the garbage can down the road, let's punt it as far downfield as we can and think about it along the way.
Labels and symbols are our inventions to help us understand one another and concepts in an agreed-upon shorthand. The ones we use today are the same words we used last century but the meaning's are flip-flopped or as irrelevant as "Boss Radio" would be today to whatever terrestrial station stuck in amplitude modulation in a streaming digital world.
The "political" conversation (I call it NONversation) falls flat because it uses a 20th century flat paradigm. Black and white, high contrast big picture framed in a small screen. Choose your channel. Same spots. Insult your intelligence, pain relief followed by fear presented by pain relief. We are what we eat and we're fed a line of...
BUT. I'm not pessimistic. Call me a passive mystic. The trick, as I see it. (through my "progressive lenses" -- no not rose-colored, is to do my best to stay conscious (even stoned but conscious on occasion to make sense of the media sphere around me) and see things, issues and folks as they truly are. Find the decency, stop the idea of "compromise" where everyone at the table is guaranteed to lose something and glom on to good old "collaboration" where you throw out what can't be done and work together on what needs to be done and make it stronger.
In a sense, then, I suppose I agree with you in that we need to work on most pressing issues first and then continue to press on the others one goal at a time. But we cannot give up on what's good and right for all and give into what's greedy and selfish for few.
The other week I was having a discussion (well, more like giving an ear) with a young, nice "conservative" fellow whose world view was clearly through a different set of spectacles and channels than mine to see if I might gain a more 3-D perspective and become a "bigger" man. After all if I'm thinking "liberally" that's what I'd do.
He gave me a little time to refute, redirect and look for a common set of actual facts in common form. It was clear we weren't going to change opinions on certain issues, but also clear that we saw something worthwhile simply in knowing we could talk for the moment. He than said "Well, it just looks like we're on two different sides."
I took a moment to think (more a good than a sometimes dangerous thing for me) and said, "Yes, we may be on two different sides but it's not like a coin. It's really more like a hexagon. Sure, we might not agree on two sides but there are another 4 where we might be absolutely congruent.
I find if ironic, and laughable, that those who are screaming that the 2020 election was rigged are the very same folks plotting to rig the next election
Good observations but I'm looking at it through a different set of "progressive lenses" (no political pun intended).
My view is that when we frame the discussion with left, right, center and nuanced positions from one end to end, we're flat two-dimensional map of a spectrum from one side to the end. A flat-earth POV of political discourse. It's ingrained, 20th century vision, outdated, outmoded and our-of-touch. Oh, the view will allow the pundits and opiners a flat field on which to pander and propagandize their play-by-play, taking up time and ink to sell eyeballs to advertisers so it continues because there's money and power in using the paradigm.
But, it stinks like polluted fish.
The world of ideas isn't flat. The view "from the balcony" and (ask Bezos and Branson) beyond is at the very least 3-dimensional, over time, probably even 4.
There's no center to hold. As the spinning (of tales and official narratives) gets faster and beyond (self) control, the centrifugal force gets the common core of democratic ideas flying off the edges with the fringes hanging on like linguistic linguini flapping in a firestorm, hurricane, flood and twisted whirlwind of bullshit. Metaphors aside, it's like a Flying Spaghetti Monster (but let's leave God out of it for the time being -- a whole 'nuther world)
Simple solutions sell. Subtle solutions take time and talent and the party leaders of the world have that in short supply.
We live in a world of purposeful manipulation, mass marketing balkanized into targeted mismarketing, mislabeling and bullshit replicated into a continent of floating garbage upon a deep dying sea of marketing sharks and monsters.
Here's the deal, folks. It's not about MIS or DIS information. It's about MALinformation. Purposefully malicious in order to keep power where it's concentrated and the concentration is toxic.
So no. No left right center. No Liberal Conservative, Neowhatever Fascist Commie. Old labels on old garments that don't fit right because the body and body politic has changed shape over time.
My folks, like yours were depression people and Jews that went through WWII. They were Roosevelt Democrats and Eisenhower Republicans. Suburban Philly family that wanted social safety, upward mobility, equality, health and education, infrastructure and whatever else might be "good for the Jews." They supported the GI bill, a meritocracy and civil rights, as they knew what it was like to be part of an excluded class. They didn't march like good "liberals" probably because they felt safer in the background but they supported what they could.
Of course, these days, being an Eisenhower Republican would make them a Biden Democrat. Maybe even a Sanders fan ('cause--y'know, Jewish).
So what the hell is the center today, anyway? It's slippery at best. Don't ask if it can hold. Better, you should ask if it's even possible to hold on to.
The ship of state's on a more steady course this year but the seas full of swells. The skipper's doing his level best with half the crew while the others are planning mutiny. The iceberg's dead ahead and we're looking for the anchor while the media focuses on the Bermuda Triangle.
If there's any center, it's the media and the congressional blowhards who've been miscast into superstars (not superheroes) what want to. suck us into the hole that used to be the "center" It's not about the center holding. It's about the center as a black hole of our making.
First thing is to throw the verbiage overboard or chuck it into outer space. If we're going to kick the garbage can down the road, let's punt it as far downfield as we can and think about it along the way.
Labels and symbols are our inventions to help us understand one another and concepts in an agreed-upon shorthand. The ones we use today are the same words we used last century but the meaning's are flip-flopped or as irrelevant as "Boss Radio" would be today to whatever terrestrial station stuck in amplitude modulation in a streaming digital world.
The "political" conversation (I call it NONversation) falls flat because it uses a 20th century flat paradigm. Black and white, high contrast big picture framed in a small screen. Choose your channel. Same spots. Insult your intelligence, pain relief followed by fear presented by pain relief. We are what we eat and we're fed a line of...
BUT. I'm not pessimistic. Call me a passive mystic. The trick, as I see it. (through my "progressive lenses" -- no not rose-colored, is to do my best to stay conscious (even stoned but conscious on occasion to make sense of the media sphere around me) and see things, issues and folks as they truly are. Find the decency, stop the idea of "compromise" where everyone at the table is guaranteed to lose something and glom on to good old "collaboration" where you throw out what can't be done and work together on what needs to be done and make it stronger.
In a sense, then, I suppose I agree with you in that we need to work on most pressing issues first and then continue to press on the others one goal at a time. But we cannot give up on what's good and right for all and give into what's greedy and selfish for few.
The other week I was having a discussion (well, more like giving an ear) with a young, nice "conservative" fellow whose world view was clearly through a different set of spectacles and channels than mine to see if I might gain a more 3-D perspective and become a "bigger" man. After all if I'm thinking "liberally" that's what I'd do.
He gave me a little time to refute, redirect and look for a common set of actual facts in common form. It was clear we weren't going to change opinions on certain issues, but also clear that we saw something worthwhile simply in knowing we could talk for the moment. He than said "Well, it just looks like we're on two different sides."
I took a moment to think (more a good than a sometimes dangerous thing for me) and said, "Yes, we may be on two different sides but it's not like a coin. It's really more like a hexagon. Sure, we might not agree on two sides but there are another 4 where we might be absolutely congruent.
Well done!