Single-issue radicals are not practical: They will say that if Harris/Walz loses, it will have taught the Democratic party a lesson. And that the disaster that follows will pave the way (in some nihilistic fantasy chain of events that would make even Karl Marx blush) to a new glorious day of Palestinian self-determination. One other thing: Just like Trumpians, they go after the 'heretics' of their own party with much more vitriol than they go after the other side.
Agreed, they are allowing their emotion to get the better of themselves, and they want their pound of flesh, regardless of the fact that Biden didn’t start the war.
I’ve tried to reach some of them; telling them that Trump would make it demonstrably worse, giving Netanyahu Carte Blanche to completely level Gaza and force millions into refugee camps in neighboring Arab states.
Of course, it always falls on deaf ears. They’re fine with throwing out the baby with the bathwater…:)
Definitions need to change based on new patterns of bad behavior. There wasn't such a thing as genocide until the word was retrospectively created in the light of World War II. It's pretty hard to kill 30,000 civilians, most of them by virtually indiscriminate bombing, and it not be genocide. The definition will catch up with the evil.
You are relying on statements made by Hamas, who are far better at propaganda than warfare. They still haven't discriminated civilian casualties from military, which is a tell. And no one employing expensive weapons does so indiscriminately: the question is whether their deliberate choices do or do not violate the law of war. If the IDF were bent on genocide, they all would be dead already.
Genocide is trying to systematically wipe out an ethnic or religious group. Like the Holocaust. There still are fewer Jews in the world than before the Holocaust. That’s genocide.
So the allies committed genocide when they firebombed the Germans and Japanese? It was harsh, perhaps misguided, but to call it genocide robs the term of all meaning.
The radical left and radical right share a trait of blurring definitions in order to get people riled up. In fact, I'd suggest (though I cannot prove) that the tendency to be imprecise in definitions is a telltale sign that the movement doing this is demagogic and, in the end, antidemocratic. Trump set about to redefine 'fake news' for example. All of the sudden mainstream media were the enemy of the people.
I believe Colleen, I believe these folks are so bummed out by the callousness of Israel toward human life that they have become monomaniacal. Meaning there's only one thing they can think about. Everything else falls by the wayside. I'm two thirds of the way there myself, but I have to balance the evil of Israel against the evil of Trump. BTW, the PETA people are also monomaniacal.
Americans are just as callous toward (non-American) human life as Israel... and this is not just an American or Israeli thing. Humans can be astoundingly callous towards anyone seen as Other.
It isn't a bug, but a feature.
One of the hallmarks of higher civilization/culture is that we struggle against that natural tendency at times. But when push comes to shove, the Other gets shoved, with as much regret (usually) as a cat has for shoving something off the edge of the table to watch it fall.
We literally burned down Japan and Germany during WW2. The "conventional" firebombing raids killed more people than the atomic bombs. We killed a lot of French people in the lead up to the Normandy invasions and destroyed a lot of French property. We killed, directly or indirectly a LOT of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do not point this out to say that we are evil because of that. However, it does show that we are human... and we often kinda, sorta feel bad about it afterwards (even if that doesn't actually change things or no real restitution is made).
There are a lot of things to be bummed out about in life. Unfortunately it is usually difficult to do anything about those things.
When has there been a lasting peace? Maybe when the Roman army took charge of most of Europe. But at that time there were conflicts in Asia. Now, the difference is we study history and we are supposed to have learned something such as wars only lead to more wars. The only way to create a lasting peace is when the victor in the war helps rebuild the loser, as the US did after WW II. That’s what Israel is refusing to promise to do.
For the first time in many years, I believe there are savvy people in the Democratic leadership. I'm pretty confident that the Harris/Walz campaign and the Chicago mayor's office who have been doing some intelligent planning about this.
Technically I'm a single-issue voter. This year at least. No other issues will matter if the party that endorses the "big lie" returns to power, now minus all the "guardrails" (Kelly, Mattis, Bolton, even Pence & Barr). The GOP is now a literal cult, that demands that their "leader" not be held accountable for the insurrection, election interference, and stealing classified documents. Imagine what all those "protectors" - who are prepared to steal this election too, and don't even pretend otherwise - would do if given another chance.
Touche. I and a number of Republicans and ex-Republicans are single issue voters in that respect. I'm not able to formulate an appropriate response yet :)
Agree. No issue matters except defeating Trump. When that is done, they can be productively active about the US policy toward Israel. Peter Beinart has a good piece in the NYT on this. He says KH should simply pledge now that she will follow the law, specifically the Leahy Law [1997] that prohibits the US from "assisting any unit of a foreign security force that commits ‘gross violations’ of human rights". It has never been applied to Israel, even though Israel has been charged with human rights violations, certainly by the vigilantes in the West Bank.
A party's radicals typically loathe their own party's moderates more than they do another party. MAGA members hate Never Trump Republicans with the fire of a thousand suns.
Never Trumpers might be moderate in tone, but we're certainly not more moderate on policy. MAGA people are quite often to the left of Never Trumpers, advocating more and bigger government. Bill Kristol is hardly a moderate. Neither is George Will or George Conway. The people who are most dedicated to conservative political principles tend to be the ones most anti-MAGA.
I remember coming out of college and going to Republican meetings. While I was a Republican due to the conservative beliefs I had developed in college, I was shocked to find so many Republicans had no strong convictions. Rather, to them, it was "Republicans Good, Democrats Bad." It is those Republicans, people not driven by political ideology, who are the most fervent supporters of Trump and MAGA.
The activists equate “being seen” with “ridding the world of evil.” Which is ridiculous. There was some truth to it back in the day when our information sources were 3 network news channels and the local newspaper, and you had to create a scene to make the cut for those 4 sources. Now? They just look ridiculous and erode support for the very cause they say they support. It’s selfish behavior, honestly.
Sure, that makes sense. I meant more of our modern impulse to assume social media is real life. I think those protestors are more interested in a performance than engaging in the messy reality of politics. If they were cognizant of that reality, I think they’d realize how much they help Trump and other aspiring demagogues on the right.
Before the Civil War, abolitionists were often accused of helping slave owners because of their extremist views. Single issue activists eventually can move the world. People, like me, who compromised seldom do
Doesn’t it trivialize American slavery to compare it with a foreign country’s excessive response to a terrorist attack? It is perverse for immigrants to chant “death to America” over American military aid.
A great analysis. Neotoddlerism is a very apt term, capturing very well many protests we've been seeing lately. However I will not dismiss ALL protests as neotoddlerism. The big civil rights demonstrations and marches of the 60s were non-violent, non-destructive, impactful actions. And in our day, there should be no objection to any orderly march or demonstration, non-obstructive, with civil language, whether the issue is Gaza, climate change, police brutality, whatever. and whether one agrees or not with the positions being taken But we don't see much of that in the US these days. Nevertheless, I am a more than a bit troubled by the idea of some folks that all protesters today (and maybe in Eric Hoffer's day too) are motivated by boredom, or have empty lives they are seeking to provide with meaning through passionate hatred of some group, or are just getting together noisily and seeking attention, or have other primarily ignoble motivations. There are people with consciences who are genuinely distressed by what is happening in Gaza, there are people who understand the workings of the natural world who recognize we are indeed heading toward a type of ecological catastrophe. I confess to being one of the latter. I would participate in an action that was orderly, non-destructive and used only civil language IF I could see that it might actually have some impact. In February 2003 I went to NYC with husband and daughter to join the march to the UN against the war against Iraq that President Bush was about to launch. My daughter and I also participated in the 2014 climate march in NYC. In both cases I hoped that sheer numbers of participants might affect decisions and policy. That did not happen, and I have not participated in any marches since then. For people who, as I said, are genuinely distressed by government or societal behavior they see as very immoral or just very bad in a practical way for humanity, what effective actions are available to individuals? I ponder this but have no good answer.
There does seem to be a meeting of the minds between the two extremes on certain issues—particularly the Israel-Palestine issue. Extreme Netanyahu allies and extreme Hamas supporters shake hands on the desire to have a general cataclysm in the region where one side or the other emerges victorious over the ruins.
At least one Palestinian-American I know is voting for Trump because he wants the Great Carpet Bombing you mention to happen—he imagines it will be less frustrating than seeing Dems support Israel. Really. :/
Netanyahu, as I recall, propped up Hamas in Gaza because he wanted them to serve as evidence that Palestinians couldn’t be trusted. Some Palestinians in the West Bank toasted with coffee when Netanyahu won the PM because it would show the world that Israelis couldn’t be trusted. They seem to deserve each other.
Extrapolate that lunacy to pro-Trump leftists in the U.S. It makes sense, in a bonkers way. :/
I do not believe that protests accomplish much these days, other than grab some attention for the protestors--and the way things tend to work thee days, that attention generally seems to be negative.
IOW, protesting, especially if it is near-violent or violent or generally disruptive, tends to be a net negative.
Regardless of how important you believe your cause to be, there are likely just as many people who either do not care or oppose you. Probably actually more. TBH, I do not think that there are really a lot of Americans (especially older Americans) that actually care about what happens to the Palestinians in other than the vague abstract.
And when you disript things (espeically their lives) over such a thing, they do NOT like it. It doesn't move them to change, it moves them to be against your cause.
As pointed out, proptests had more effect when they were more curated (because one of the big three had to decide to give it oxygen).
If you want results, buy some politicians. That's what works. That's how our system works. The problem is that politicians can be expensive and they do not always stay bought.
Ironic isn't it... In a weird way I almost think that these protests against Harris can be a positive to draw a clear line between her and these protestors. It will be difficult for R's to paint her as a Palestinian protestor sympathizer when they're calling her "Killer Kamala"
i want to stop the war for a different purpose, a fact that most here fail to grasp[&the effect israelis economy is tanking],is iran is bent on retaliation for the israeli assassination in its capital of a guest of its newly elected leader..they have said they will not retaliate if a ceasefire deal is agreed...we might have a week to settle that[if ever]if no deal, their attack goes ahead, and if any israelis are killed[highly likely] then israel are gonna retaliate even harder[they are not listening to biden now]....and iran is gonna do the same? would i prefer a ceasefire here or would i want a middle eastern war with american troops[even uk troops] involved ? No...and for america, its a winner for trump, for he could announce biden and the democrats are weak, want war, and that he didnt bring war for the american people because he is strong?[sighs] , yes rage against the protestors for having different principles[although i sorta admire them a little for standing up for something they beleive in] ,for having a different mindset that they think that protesting changes things, but ultimately if biden doesnt get a ceasefire here, then bibi and trump might be the only winners here ] :(
Those protestors should be doing everything they can to elect Harris because I’m pretty sure Trump would let Israel carpet bomb the entire region.
Single-issue radicals are not practical: They will say that if Harris/Walz loses, it will have taught the Democratic party a lesson. And that the disaster that follows will pave the way (in some nihilistic fantasy chain of events that would make even Karl Marx blush) to a new glorious day of Palestinian self-determination. One other thing: Just like Trumpians, they go after the 'heretics' of their own party with much more vitriol than they go after the other side.
Then they’re just as delusional as Trump…:)
In my book they are more like PETA...not able to stop themselves from engaging in activity that winds up trashing the cause they believe in.
Agreed, they are allowing their emotion to get the better of themselves, and they want their pound of flesh, regardless of the fact that Biden didn’t start the war.
I’ve tried to reach some of them; telling them that Trump would make it demonstrably worse, giving Netanyahu Carte Blanche to completely level Gaza and force millions into refugee camps in neighboring Arab states.
Of course, it always falls on deaf ears. They’re fine with throwing out the baby with the bathwater…:)
That the word "genocide" is again coming up convinces me that they are not serious people. How hard is it to check a dictionary?
Definitions need to change based on new patterns of bad behavior. There wasn't such a thing as genocide until the word was retrospectively created in the light of World War II. It's pretty hard to kill 30,000 civilians, most of them by virtually indiscriminate bombing, and it not be genocide. The definition will catch up with the evil.
You are relying on statements made by Hamas, who are far better at propaganda than warfare. They still haven't discriminated civilian casualties from military, which is a tell. And no one employing expensive weapons does so indiscriminately: the question is whether their deliberate choices do or do not violate the law of war. If the IDF were bent on genocide, they all would be dead already.
That is absurd. How many civilians did the US kill in its various wars?
And you know perfectly well the bombing wasn't indiscriminate.
If Israel had wanted to commit actual genocide, it would have killed at least a million Gazans by now.
People like you ignorantly throw around the word "genocide" the way the middle schoolers of my youth threw around the word "faggot."
That’s ridiculous. It’s war.
Genocide is trying to systematically wipe out an ethnic or religious group. Like the Holocaust. There still are fewer Jews in the world than before the Holocaust. That’s genocide.
There are more Arabs every year.
So the allies committed genocide when they firebombed the Germans and Japanese? It was harsh, perhaps misguided, but to call it genocide robs the term of all meaning.
The radical left and radical right share a trait of blurring definitions in order to get people riled up. In fact, I'd suggest (though I cannot prove) that the tendency to be imprecise in definitions is a telltale sign that the movement doing this is demagogic and, in the end, antidemocratic. Trump set about to redefine 'fake news' for example. All of the sudden mainstream media were the enemy of the people.
I believe Colleen, I believe these folks are so bummed out by the callousness of Israel toward human life that they have become monomaniacal. Meaning there's only one thing they can think about. Everything else falls by the wayside. I'm two thirds of the way there myself, but I have to balance the evil of Israel against the evil of Trump. BTW, the PETA people are also monomaniacal.
Americans are just as callous toward (non-American) human life as Israel... and this is not just an American or Israeli thing. Humans can be astoundingly callous towards anyone seen as Other.
It isn't a bug, but a feature.
One of the hallmarks of higher civilization/culture is that we struggle against that natural tendency at times. But when push comes to shove, the Other gets shoved, with as much regret (usually) as a cat has for shoving something off the edge of the table to watch it fall.
We literally burned down Japan and Germany during WW2. The "conventional" firebombing raids killed more people than the atomic bombs. We killed a lot of French people in the lead up to the Normandy invasions and destroyed a lot of French property. We killed, directly or indirectly a LOT of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do not point this out to say that we are evil because of that. However, it does show that we are human... and we often kinda, sorta feel bad about it afterwards (even if that doesn't actually change things or no real restitution is made).
There are a lot of things to be bummed out about in life. Unfortunately it is usually difficult to do anything about those things.
When has there been a lasting peace? Maybe when the Roman army took charge of most of Europe. But at that time there were conflicts in Asia. Now, the difference is we study history and we are supposed to have learned something such as wars only lead to more wars. The only way to create a lasting peace is when the victor in the war helps rebuild the loser, as the US did after WW II. That’s what Israel is refusing to promise to do.
Consciousness is the start. the realization that smoking causes lung cancer started a slow revolution.
Monomaniacal is right. Unfortunately it literally blinds you from assessing the fruits of your labor.
Nothing like pissing people off to their causes whether it is PETA or protests that shutdown hi ways and freeways. :)
Good analogy. I support several animal rights' organizations, none of which is PETA, which often seems to do more harm than good.
Cold comfort, though, if they derail the campaign.
For the first time in many years, I believe there are savvy people in the Democratic leadership. I'm pretty confident that the Harris/Walz campaign and the Chicago mayor's office who have been doing some intelligent planning about this.
Agree. As KH said, if you want Trump to win, then just say that as you disrupt the convention.
It seems there's real danger only in Michigan as far as I can tell.
They don’t have that power. They’re a tiny group and many aren’t voters anyway.
They are always delusional. Hard to see it any other way.
Most ideologues tend to be.
Yes, they are.
Technically I'm a single-issue voter. This year at least. No other issues will matter if the party that endorses the "big lie" returns to power, now minus all the "guardrails" (Kelly, Mattis, Bolton, even Pence & Barr). The GOP is now a literal cult, that demands that their "leader" not be held accountable for the insurrection, election interference, and stealing classified documents. Imagine what all those "protectors" - who are prepared to steal this election too, and don't even pretend otherwise - would do if given another chance.
Touche. I and a number of Republicans and ex-Republicans are single issue voters in that respect. I'm not able to formulate an appropriate response yet :)
Agree. No issue matters except defeating Trump. When that is done, they can be productively active about the US policy toward Israel. Peter Beinart has a good piece in the NYT on this. He says KH should simply pledge now that she will follow the law, specifically the Leahy Law [1997] that prohibits the US from "assisting any unit of a foreign security force that commits ‘gross violations’ of human rights". It has never been applied to Israel, even though Israel has been charged with human rights violations, certainly by the vigilantes in the West Bank.
A party's radicals typically loathe their own party's moderates more than they do another party. MAGA members hate Never Trump Republicans with the fire of a thousand suns.
Never Trumpers might be moderate in tone, but we're certainly not more moderate on policy. MAGA people are quite often to the left of Never Trumpers, advocating more and bigger government. Bill Kristol is hardly a moderate. Neither is George Will or George Conway. The people who are most dedicated to conservative political principles tend to be the ones most anti-MAGA.
I remember coming out of college and going to Republican meetings. While I was a Republican due to the conservative beliefs I had developed in college, I was shocked to find so many Republicans had no strong convictions. Rather, to them, it was "Republicans Good, Democrats Bad." It is those Republicans, people not driven by political ideology, who are the most fervent supporters of Trump and MAGA.
The activists equate “being seen” with “ridding the world of evil.” Which is ridiculous. There was some truth to it back in the day when our information sources were 3 network news channels and the local newspaper, and you had to create a scene to make the cut for those 4 sources. Now? They just look ridiculous and erode support for the very cause they say they support. It’s selfish behavior, honestly.
Another example of mistaking attention for action I suppose.
You can't win any cause without first drawing attention to it. The abolitionist got started decades before the Civil War.
Sure, that makes sense. I meant more of our modern impulse to assume social media is real life. I think those protestors are more interested in a performance than engaging in the messy reality of politics. If they were cognizant of that reality, I think they’d realize how much they help Trump and other aspiring demagogues on the right.
Before the Civil War, abolitionists were often accused of helping slave owners because of their extremist views. Single issue activists eventually can move the world. People, like me, who compromised seldom do
"Single issue activists eventually can move the world."
Of course, that can apply to both good and bad movements.
Doesn’t it trivialize American slavery to compare it with a foreign country’s excessive response to a terrorist attack? It is perverse for immigrants to chant “death to America” over American military aid.
Were they? Not sure this analogy works.
Abolitionists were originally faith-based. They had more than one core belief or issue.
Agree.
Best explanation of this is here: https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-outrageous-rise-of-neotoddlerism
“Neotoddlerism” is the perfect description of these protest movements.
Just seeing the word, I'd have initially attributed it Donald Trump.
A great analysis. Neotoddlerism is a very apt term, capturing very well many protests we've been seeing lately. However I will not dismiss ALL protests as neotoddlerism. The big civil rights demonstrations and marches of the 60s were non-violent, non-destructive, impactful actions. And in our day, there should be no objection to any orderly march or demonstration, non-obstructive, with civil language, whether the issue is Gaza, climate change, police brutality, whatever. and whether one agrees or not with the positions being taken But we don't see much of that in the US these days. Nevertheless, I am a more than a bit troubled by the idea of some folks that all protesters today (and maybe in Eric Hoffer's day too) are motivated by boredom, or have empty lives they are seeking to provide with meaning through passionate hatred of some group, or are just getting together noisily and seeking attention, or have other primarily ignoble motivations. There are people with consciences who are genuinely distressed by what is happening in Gaza, there are people who understand the workings of the natural world who recognize we are indeed heading toward a type of ecological catastrophe. I confess to being one of the latter. I would participate in an action that was orderly, non-destructive and used only civil language IF I could see that it might actually have some impact. In February 2003 I went to NYC with husband and daughter to join the march to the UN against the war against Iraq that President Bush was about to launch. My daughter and I also participated in the 2014 climate march in NYC. In both cases I hoped that sheer numbers of participants might affect decisions and policy. That did not happen, and I have not participated in any marches since then. For people who, as I said, are genuinely distressed by government or societal behavior they see as very immoral or just very bad in a practical way for humanity, what effective actions are available to individuals? I ponder this but have no good answer.
And Jared would sell off beach-front Gaza to his oligarchic pals.
Yeah.
There does seem to be a meeting of the minds between the two extremes on certain issues—particularly the Israel-Palestine issue. Extreme Netanyahu allies and extreme Hamas supporters shake hands on the desire to have a general cataclysm in the region where one side or the other emerges victorious over the ruins.
At least one Palestinian-American I know is voting for Trump because he wants the Great Carpet Bombing you mention to happen—he imagines it will be less frustrating than seeing Dems support Israel. Really. :/
Netanyahu, as I recall, propped up Hamas in Gaza because he wanted them to serve as evidence that Palestinians couldn’t be trusted. Some Palestinians in the West Bank toasted with coffee when Netanyahu won the PM because it would show the world that Israelis couldn’t be trusted. They seem to deserve each other.
Extrapolate that lunacy to pro-Trump leftists in the U.S. It makes sense, in a bonkers way. :/
I do not believe that protests accomplish much these days, other than grab some attention for the protestors--and the way things tend to work thee days, that attention generally seems to be negative.
IOW, protesting, especially if it is near-violent or violent or generally disruptive, tends to be a net negative.
Regardless of how important you believe your cause to be, there are likely just as many people who either do not care or oppose you. Probably actually more. TBH, I do not think that there are really a lot of Americans (especially older Americans) that actually care about what happens to the Palestinians in other than the vague abstract.
And when you disript things (espeically their lives) over such a thing, they do NOT like it. It doesn't move them to change, it moves them to be against your cause.
As pointed out, proptests had more effect when they were more curated (because one of the big three had to decide to give it oxygen).
If you want results, buy some politicians. That's what works. That's how our system works. The problem is that politicians can be expensive and they do not always stay bought.
Ironic isn't it... In a weird way I almost think that these protests against Harris can be a positive to draw a clear line between her and these protestors. It will be difficult for R's to paint her as a Palestinian protestor sympathizer when they're calling her "Killer Kamala"
i want to stop the war for a different purpose, a fact that most here fail to grasp[&the effect israelis economy is tanking],is iran is bent on retaliation for the israeli assassination in its capital of a guest of its newly elected leader..they have said they will not retaliate if a ceasefire deal is agreed...we might have a week to settle that[if ever]if no deal, their attack goes ahead, and if any israelis are killed[highly likely] then israel are gonna retaliate even harder[they are not listening to biden now]....and iran is gonna do the same? would i prefer a ceasefire here or would i want a middle eastern war with american troops[even uk troops] involved ? No...and for america, its a winner for trump, for he could announce biden and the democrats are weak, want war, and that he didnt bring war for the american people because he is strong?[sighs] , yes rage against the protestors for having different principles[although i sorta admire them a little for standing up for something they beleive in] ,for having a different mindset that they think that protesting changes things, but ultimately if biden doesnt get a ceasefire here, then bibi and trump might be the only winners here ] :(
...and he and Bibi will build beachfront condos to sell to Russian oligarchs and the ultra wealthy.
Trumpster said,"get it over with".