The False Equivalencies of ag: A DFB Friday Night Smackdown

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

For quite some time, ag has regaled us with his grand theory of American politics in which Bernie Sanders supporters and Trump supporters are equally terrible. This grand theory of American politics is little more than the malformed and delusional notion of the "horseshoe theory of politics". Clearly, the extremes are just as bad and are equally terrible. Anyone who posts on this forum should recognize the whiff of cow excrement that wafts over one's nose whenever they read ag's grand theory of American politics but I'll try to unpack why his argument is nonsense.

ag (putative) argument #1: Bernie supporters and Trump supporters are equally bad because they're both opposed to free trade, which is akin to authoritarianism and the work of Lucifer.

Leaving aside whether or not ag's fixation with trade is healthy or justifiable, and I think it's neither because it's perfectly understandable why trade agreements have received hostility from the general public (there are distributional effects and the public is not happy about those effects), this claim is very stupid. It's stupid because it's not in-line with reality: Bernie supporters, for the most part, did not support Sanders because of his position on the TPP or NAFTA. Maybe the core of his "Bernie or Bust" support emanated from the hard left, which stands ready to oppose any trade deal at any cost, but the vast majority of Sanders voters are not economic nationalists. In fact, Sanders supporters were more likely to say that they supported free trade than Kasich supporters.



ag's putative argument #2: Bernie and Trump supporters are equally bad because they're nationalists who hate immigrants.

Does ag abuse drugs? Is he deaf and blind? Only a crack addict, someone afflicted by numerous disabilities or someone who is entirely ignorant of American politics could believe this claim.







So much for the unpacking and critique, then. This begs the question: why bother responding to claims that are so obviously wrong? I'm responding to these claims because they're part and parcel of a wider argument embraced by right-wing "neo-liberals", an argument that states that the rise of the leftist social movements is as damaging and threatening to "liberal values" as the rise of the "far-right". This argument is a frightening one because it is reminiscent of the unwillingness that middle class right-wing liberals displayed in the 1930s to cooperate with their socialist peers; instead, they actively collaborated with fascists, ditching their liberal allegiances and tethering themselves to the banner of fascism.

The idea that democratic socialists stand opposed to human rights of all kinds and the dignity of man (and woman) throughout the globe is, on its face, absurd. Who are the only actors in Europe willing to embrace refugees? The "far-left"; no citations are necessarily, everyone ought to be aware of the efforts of far-left parties in defending migrants and everyone ought to be aware of the work of activists who have tried to shield refugees from racist attacks; these people are heroes and keyboard warriors like ag disdain them because they're insufficiently supportive of his notion of globalization. Who was the only candidate in the Democratic presidential primary who opposed the militarization of the border? Bernie Sanders, the only candidate in the race who stood up for the rights of child migrants from Central America. I could go on and on but you get my point: in a decade defined by the re-emergence of the dark forces of reaction, the only force that has fully championed the cause of immigrants and that has attacked ultra-nationalism is the moral force of socialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptJf3ju3X1g

I do not mind criticism of Bernie Sanders or criticism of his supporters; they warrant such criticism but what I will not allow and what I will not put up with is the notion that his supporters are cruel, heartless and terrible or that they are equivalent to Trump supporters. Hundreds of thousands of Latinos supported Bernie Sanders for a reason and many undocumented immigrants advocated for his candidacy for a reason: because they saw a man who cared for them and their plight. The fact that a Mexican economist who is delusional and far removed from American politics thinks otherwise is, perhaps, unimportant; every society contains its fair-share of lunatics and weirdos who yell at clouds. Alas, Mexico is no different than America in this regard. It has been very infuriating to watch a man use the banner of Mexican citizenship to defame Mexican-Americans, and the millions of other Sanders supporters who are good and decent people, by suggesting that they vote for the White Nationalist Party. This man knows nothing of which he purports to know and should stick to what he knows best: economics. Stop defaming good people, ag. If you must defame, defame fascists, do not defame your compañeros.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

A note: suggesting that I should join the GOP because I caucused for Sanders is tantamount to suggesting that I hire a group of thugs to rape my mother or that I should submit myself to a hard-beating from a group of Klan members. It's not very nice! It's nasty! I take it personally. This is why I made the above post, really.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Beautiful.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/31/11338400/trade-poll-clinton-sanders

[Devout Centrist]

While I didn't support Bernie Sanders, I admired his perseverance and dedication to his cause. I release AG* is a Democrat, which is quite different from an Indepedent like me. I wouldn't say the average Bernie supporter is as bad as the average Trump supporter. If that were the case, there would certainly be a lot of tension between my girlfriend and I as she supported Senator Sanders during the primary.

With that said, here's my take. My foremost concern with Sanders supporters, mainly the more left wing ones, is the harsh rhetoric against Wall Street and freedom of trade. I'm not Laissez Faire myself, but Sanders's anti-Wall Street and top "one tenth of one percent" talking points are good for whipping up enthusiasm concerning income inequality, but are very poor in pursuing an actual solution. I despise his remarks on free trade, something I strongly and proudly support. I know his average supporter differs with him on this issue, but the problem isn't them. Like so many things in life, the issue is a vocal minority that seems insistent on getting their way on each and every issue. The Sanders campaign is as diverse as any political movement. The radicalism some on the New Left display is deeply concerning, especially since some apologize for authoritarian policies.

Again, I am not trying to indict Senator Sanders or the vast majority of his supporters. However, I can understand where AG* is coming from.

*capitalized for your convenience.

[LLR]

While I didn't support Bernie Sanders, I admired his perseverance and dedication to his cause. I release AG* is a Democrat, which is quite different from an Indepedent like me. I wouldn't say the average Bernie supporter is as bad as the average Trump supporter. If that were the case, there would certainly be a lot of tension between my girlfriend and I as she supported Senator Sanders during the primary.

With that said, here's my take. My foremost concern with Sanders supporters, mainly the more left wing ones, is the harsh rhetoric against Wall Street and freedom of trade. I'm not Laissez Faire myself, but Sanders's anti-Wall Street and top "one tenth of one percent" talking points are good for whipping up enthusiasm concerning income inequality, but are very poor in pursuing an actual solution. I despise his remarks on free trade, something I strongly and proudly support. I know his average supporter differs with him on this issue, but the problem isn't them. Like so many things in life, the issue is a vocal minority that seems insistent on getting their way on each and every issue. The Sanders campaign is as diverse as any political movement. The radicalism some on the New Left display is deeply concerning, especially since some apologize for authoritarian policies.

Again, I am not trying to indict Senator Sanders or the vast majority of his supporters. However, I can understand where AG* is coming from.

*capitalized for your convenience.

IIRC ag is an independent, he just has a democrat flair because Hillary or Trump or something

[MalaspinaGold]

God willing Trump runs for president of Mexico and wins so that he can deport this loser back to his Dacha in St. Petersburg.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

God willing Trump runs for president of Mexico and wins so that he can deport this loser back to his Dacha in St. Petersburg.

I think a sanitarium in Crimea is better.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

For a prestigious economics professor, ag definitely spends more time playing up his own credentials than he does proving how he has any in the first place.  I know I'm as much if not more of an asshole that he is on here, though it is frustrating to read through someone's expert "analysis" that's so littered with hyperbole and conceitedness that it flies so off base from reality.  It worries me in general, really, how much a life of academia can deprive a person of any real impression of the world they live in.  That's not something unique to ag by any means and I'm sure that 98% of us behave differently in real life than we do here (I know I do), but there's definitely a culture at work which pulls us away from the whole picture in pursuit of one thing.  And this forum has proven that point well.

[RI]

it is frustrating to read through someone's expert "analysis" that's so littered with hyperbole and conceitedness that it flies so off base from reality.

That describes a lot of academia though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ag is an economist. I don't see what relevance his credentials as an economist have when he discusses US politics.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ag is an economist. I don't see what relevance his credentials as an economist have when he discusses US politics.

Yeah, I was harkening back mainly to that convention thread where a debate about the definition of socialism turned into a dick size contest.  I thought everyone in the discussion was trolling at first (I became part of the fun), but then ag made clear how obtuse his perception of US politics really is.

So perhaps the lesson is not to delve into things we know little or nothing about.  I don't argue with Al about UK Labour politics just as no one here would argue with BRTD about emoviolence.  Not that anyone would want to, for the latter.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Ag is an economist. I don't see what relevance his credentials as an economist have when he discusses US politics.

Yeah, I was harkening back mainly to that convention thread where a debate about the definition of socialism turned into a dick size contest.  I thought everyone in the discussion was trolling at first (I became part of the fun), but then ag made clear how obtuse his perception of US politics really is.

So perhaps the lesson is not to delve into things we know little or nothing about.  I don't argue with Al about UK Labour politics just as no one here would argue with BRTD about emoviolence.  Not that anyone would want to, for the latter.

     I would hope though that someone posting on US Election Atlas would not be so shockingly ignorant about American politics, though.

[White Trash]

How can someone so vocal about their blatant bias on a subject be a moderator on that same subject? Did he just flash his credentials at someone when asking for the position?

[FairBol]

With the mention of "Friday Night Smackdown", I thought this was going to be a pro wrestling thread.  LOL.