Mindless Partisanship

[Oneuli]

One way to figure out whether someone's policy preferences are based on considered principles, or if they're just a symptom of partisan loyalty, is to see if those preferences swing with the partisan winds.

So, what about Republicans in general -- are they principled citizens whose agendas have been developed over a long period of thinking through the facts? Or are they gullible dupes who just embrace whatever position their favorite propagandists are pushing at the moment? And how about Democrats?

Here's a telling set of graphs:

As you can see, among those who lean Democrat, there's been a gradual evolution of opinion regarding free trade deals. Back in 2009, most people on that end of the spectrum thought free trade agreements tend to be a good thing for the US. Gradually, over the following years, that majority grew. But there were no sudden reversals.

The real action is on the Republican side. At first, Republicans thought free trade agreements have generally been a good thing for the US -- around 57% in 2009. Then Obama signed three trade deals, with South Korea, Panama, and Columbia, and pushed for a few others. Immediately, a slight majority of Republicans thought free trade agreements have generally been bad for the US. Then, over the next few years, Republican sentiment return to its historically pro-free-trade position.... until Trump became the leading Republican figure and took the opposite position, with most right-wing propaganda outlets taking their cues from him.

At that point, the Republicans moved dramatically against free trade. By the start of 2017, only 29% of Republicans thought free trade agreements have tended to be good for the US -- down from a majority just three years earlier. But then Trump started negotiating trade deals himself, culminating in signing a deal with Canada and Mexico. Republican opinion about trade deals obediently improved -- moving 14 points and it's now closing in on being a majority again.

That's not to say the Democrats are totally free of the partisan impulse on the topic. Maybe somewhere on that Democratic graph is a little hiccup that could be attributed to a politician they like or dislike having taken a particular position. But it's nothing like the crazed swings among the Republicans, most of whom seem completely untethered to any principle other than liking the Republican leadership and disliking the Democratic leadership.

 

[Lightbringer]

You do realize you just called yourself stupid, right?

So republicans analyze data and adjust accordingly, and that's a bad thing.

Yep, you're really dumb.

 

[Bourbon]

 

[anatta]

China does not practice free trade. NAFTA had bad sections in it.
it's not partisan to call these out and attempt to re-negotiate. it's dereliction of duty not to do so

 

[cawacko]

Is ironic that you titled your subject Partisanship and then made a partisan point yourself?


I offer you a post from Cypress in 2007 on trade on a thread about U.S. losing jobs to China.

"""You think this was an accident, or somehow all unintentional?

This was exactly what the wall street republicans, and corporate-sponsored Dems had in mind when the passed NAFTA, WTO, and China MFN.

A downward pressure on labor costs and wages in the United States.

People like Cawacko, Damocles, and Stuperfreak actually bought into the nonsense that William F Buckley, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Alan Greenspan were actually valiantly trying to improve the status, power, and wage potential of america's working middle class. Is it possible to be any more foolish that to believe scions of the conservative movement and america's rich investor were invested in improving the power and status of Joe and Jane working class american?"""


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...t-2-3-million-U-S-jobs-report&highlight=china



And how do you explain the Bernie phenomenon which was all about anti-free trade and our trade deals being bad? And Hillary feeling the need to turn against TPP which she worked on to create?

 

[Jack]

The test/example I give ... is the use of Internationally Banned Chemical Weapon Use in Syria.
When Obama proposed a 'surgical strike' against Assad and Syria, all the Republicans were against it. When Trump proposed something identical, Republicans were all for it.
That kind of told the tale.

Recently, a Reporter named Khashoggi was murdered inside a Saudi Embassy. Many Trump supporters here (like Volsrock) turned their attention away from this Premeditated Murder, by the State, of a Citizen, and feigned ignorance, just like their Supreme Leader. It was pretty clear that the Trump Lemmings would sell their Souls rather than stand up for Traditional American Values.

'Partisanshitheads' is what a Poster here at JPP calls this scum, .... I have to agree with him.

One way to figure out whether someone's policy preferences are based on considered principles, or if they're just a symptom of partisan loyalty, is to see if those preferences swing with the partisan winds.

So, what about Republicans in general -- are they principled citizens whose agendas have been developed over a long period of thinking through the facts? Or are they gullible dupes who just embrace whatever position their favorite propagandists are pushing at the moment? And how about Democrats?

Here's a telling set of graphs:

As you can see, among those who lean Democrat, there's been a gradual evolution of opinion regarding free trade deals. Back in 2009, most people on that end of the spectrum thought free trade agreements tend to be a good thing for the US. Gradually, over the following years, that majority grew. But there were no sudden reversals.

The real action is on the Republican side. At first, Republicans thought free trade agreements have generally been a good thing for the US -- around 57% in 2009. Then Obama signed three trade deals, with South Korea, Panama, and Columbia, and pushed for a few others. Immediately, a slight majority of Republicans thought free trade agreements have generally been bad for the US. Then, over the next few years, Republican sentiment return to its historically pro-free-trade position.... until Trump became the leading Republican figure and took the opposite position, with most right-wing propaganda outlets taking their cues from him.

At that point, the Republicans moved dramatically against free trade. By the start of 2017, only 29% of Republicans thought free trade agreements have tended to be good for the US -- down from a majority just three years earlier. But then Trump started negotiating trade deals himself, culminating in signing a deal with Canada and Mexico. Republican opinion about trade deals obediently improved -- moving 14 points and it's now closing in on being a majority again.

That's not to say the Democrats are totally free of the partisan impulse on the topic. Maybe somewhere on that Democratic graph is a little hiccup that could be attributed to a politician they like or dislike having taken a particular position. But it's nothing like the crazed swings among the Republicans, most of whom seem completely untethered to any principle other than liking the Republican leadership and disliking the Democratic leadership.

 

[Truth Detector]

Mindless partisanship occurs when your party offers nothing but Anti-Trumpism and the idiots still vote for you even though they are actually better off with Trumps policies.

 

[Oneuli]

You do realize you just called yourself stupid, right?

You misunderstood. Try harder.

 

[Oneuli]

China does not practice free trade. NAFTA had bad sections in it.
it's not partisan to call these out and attempt to re-negotiate. it's dereliction of duty not to do so

The point of this thread isn't to argue whether China's well-behaved or NAFTA can be improved. The point is to contrast each side's reaction to the issue as a whole. China didn't suddenly become much worse shortly after Obama took office, then improve, then get vastly worse in 2015 through 2017, then get better again. NAFTA's terms didn't get overhauled in huge ways that made it much worse, then better, then worse, then better again. The violent swings of Republican opinion are not the slow evolution of someone gradually adjusting his opinions to new data (that's what the Democratic graph looks like). Instead, the Republican graph is what it looks like when you have people with no principles operating on very low information, such that they just spasm in whatever direction they've been triggered by their handlers.

 

[Lightbringer]

You misunderstood. Try harder.

I didn't misunderstand you at all. You said adapting to changing conditions is an indication of ignorance. This is why I don't do parody usernames anymore...you people are impossible to satirize, I can't make myself dumb enough to emulate you.

 

[mak2]

Mindless partisanship occurs when your party offers nothing but Anti-Trumpism and the idiots still vote for you even though they are actually better off with Trumps policies.

OR

Mindless partisanship occurs when your party offers nothing but Trumpism and the idiots still vote for him even though they are actually better off without Trumps policies.

 

[Oneuli]

Is ironic that you titled your subject Partisanship and then made a partisan point yourself?

No. If you'll read more carefully, you'll see my subject is MINDLESS partisanship. Partisanship is fine. If you're a partisan for a party because you've thought through the issues and believe the party best represents the policies you'd like to see put into force, that's smart partisanship. If, on the other hand, your policy principles jump around wildly depending on what your faction's leadership has said, that's mindless partisanship, and should be beneath a citizen of a great nation like ours.

Anyway, I'd like to avoid discussing the merits of specific trade deals here, or even of free trade generally. A separate thread would be good for that. The point of this thread is to call attention to the fact that the "new protectionism" of wingnuts is not something that gradually evolved in the face of changing data, or something like that. It's merely the position a bunch of erratic partisans happen to land on from time to time because that's what their propaganda sources are pushing. Since the Republicans have taken all the positions, from very strongly pro-trade-deal to very anti-trade-deal, I suppose somewhere along the line they must have been right, the same way a random number generator will guess today's date correctly from time to time. But it sure doesn't look like the result of a process of reason.

And how do you explain the Bernie phenomenon which was all about anti-free trade and our trade deals being bad?

As you'll recall, the Democrats rejected Sanders by a fairly substantial margin (12.1 point). I'm not sure whether that's because most Democrats were pro-free-trade, as these charts show, or whether there were other considerations. Since the Sanders phenomenon wasn't much about anti-free-trade talk, but rather about things like higher minimum wages, free college, etc., I wouldn't imagine free trade played a big role, one way or the other.

 

[Oneuli]

The test/example I give ... is the use of Internationally Banned Chemical Weapon Use in Syria.
When Obama proposed a 'surgical strike' against Assad and Syria, all the Republicans were against it. When Trump proposed something identical, Republicans were all for it.
That kind of told the tale.

Recently, a Reporter named Khashoggi was murdered inside a Saudi Embassy. Many Trump supporters here (like Volsrock) turned their attention away from this Premeditated Murder, by the State, of a Citizen, and feigned ignorance, just like their Supreme Leader. It was pretty clear that the Trump Lemmings would sell their Souls rather than stand up for Traditional American Values.

'Partisanshitheads' is what a Poster here at JPP calls this scum, .... I have to agree with him.

That's a good example. For my own part, I found myself against Obama on a number of issues, because my policy principles aren't dictated by what the head of the Democratic Party believes at a given moment. That included disagreeing with the US getting involved in Syria... and Libya. But that kind of consistency,in the face of partisan political pressure, is ever rarer on the right.

 

[domer76]

I didn't misunderstand you at all. You said adapting to changing conditions is an indication of ignorance. This is why I don't do parody usernames anymore...you people are impossible to satirize, I can't make myself dumb enough to emulate you.

Adapting?

C’mon Nancy, you’re better than that.

It was a mindless, partisan swing. No more, no less. Pretty fucking obvious.

 

[Oneuli]

I didn't misunderstand you at all.

You did. Try reading more carefully.

You said adapting to changing conditions is an indication of ignorance.

I didn't. Reread.

 

[cawacko]

No. If you'll read more carefully, you'll see my subject is MINDLESS partisanship. Partisanship is fine. If you're a partisan for a party because you've thought through the issues and believe the party best represents the policies you'd like to see put into force, that's smart partisanship. If, on the other hand, your policy principles jump around wildly depending on what your faction's leadership has said, that's mindless partisanship, and should be beneath a citizen of a great nation like ours.

Anyway, I'd like to avoid discussing the merits of specific trade deals here, or even of free trade generally. A separate thread would be good for that. The point of this thread is to call attention to the fact that the "new protectionism" of wingnuts is not something that gradually evolved in the face of changing data, or something like that. It's merely the position a bunch of erratic partisans happen to land on from time to time because that's what their propaganda sources are pushing. Since the Republicans have taken all the positions, from very strongly pro-trade-deal to very anti-trade-deal, I suppose somewhere along the line they must have been right, the same way a random number generator will guess today's date correctly from time to time. But it sure doesn't look like the result of a process of reason.



As you'll recall, the Democrats rejected Sanders by a fairly substantial margin (12.1 point). I'm not sure whether that's because most Democrats were pro-free-trade, as these charts show, or whether there were other considerations. Since the Sanders phenomenon wasn't much about anti-free-trade talk, but rather about things like higher minimum wages, free college, etc., I wouldn't imagine free trade played a big role, one way or the other.

Wow, this is some revisionist stuff. The biggest flank of Bernie's campaign was based on trade. Did you not watch the primaries? Spare me the "wingnut" crap. That's mindless partisan rhetoric. You're young so you clearly are unaware of the history of trade deals in this country, union positions on trade and who supported what. You ought to write this thread about Democrats who found religion on free trade once Trump won office.

 

[Lightbringer]

Adapting?

C’mon Nancy, you’re better than that.

It was a mindless, partisan swing. No more, no less. Pretty fucking obvious.

Rudy, don't you have jockstraps to wash?

 

[Truth Detector]

OR

Mindless partisanship occurs when your party offers nothing but Trumpism and the idiots still vote for him even though they are actually better off without Trumps policies.

There you go with the clueless DNC narrative. Trump has done a LOT for the American public. You lack the honesty and grey matter to comprehend that snowflake. You are the definition of mindless partisanship.

 

[Oneuli]

OR

Mindless partisanship occurs when your party offers nothing but Trumpism and the idiots still vote for him even though they are actually better off without Trumps policies.

And, more to the point of this thread, "Trumpism" isn't even a principled political outlook, such that we could say people are Trumpists because Trump has aligned with their policy positions. Rather "Trumpism" is a cult of personality. Its policy positions can change wildly over time, because policy is beside the point. Trump could propose new trade rules tomorrow that greatly lowered tariffs, and they'd be for that, too. He could announce that we should pull out of Afghanistan immediately, or that we should double our troop strength there, and they'd support either. It's all about the partisanship itself, rather than being partisan in favor of particular ideas.

 

[Truth Detector]

Wow, this is some revisionist stuff. The biggest flank of Bernie's campaign was based on trade. Did you not watch the primaries? Spare me the "wingnut" crap. That's mindless partisan rhetoric. You're young so you clearly are unaware of the history of trade deals in this country, union positions on trade and who supported what. You ought to write this thread about Democrats who found religion on free trade once Trump won office.