Posted on 05/31/2018 10:03:13 PM PDT by DoodleBob
...Genuine cosmopolitanism is a rare thing. It requires comfort with real difference, with forms of life that are truly exotic relative to one’s own. It takes its cue from a Roman playwright’s line that “nothing human is alien to me,” and goes outward ready to be transformed by what it finds.
(snip)
But it’s a problem that our tribe of self-styled cosmopolitans doesn’t see itself clearly as a tribe: because that means our leaders can’t see themselves the way the Brexiteers and Trumpistas and Marine Le Pen voters see them.
They can’t see that what feels diverse on the inside can still seem like an aristocracy to the excluded, who look at cities like London and see, as Peter Mandler wrote for Dissent after the Brexit vote, “a nearly hereditary professional caste of lawyers, journalists, publicists, and intellectuals, an increasingly hereditary caste of politicians, tight coteries of cultural movers-and-shakers richly sponsored by multinational corporations.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The column is actually pretty good, and is worth the read. In fact, embedded in the article is a LONG but GOOD >intellectual article on "outgroups" by an honest liberal. Cutting through thousands of words, the gist of the article is embodied in this section:
That means the Red Tribe feels intensely patriotic about “their” country, and the Blue Tribe feels like they’re living in fortified enclaves deep in hostile territory.
It was eye-opening to read the views ascribed by these writers to liberals and cosmopolitans. The articles explain A LOT. I encourage you to find the time to read the articles.
Ain't I been saying that for years too, though in a different way (secular liberalism is filling a vacuum where the liberality side of Christian faith used to be).
I've seen very little in the way of Christian worship organizations exhibiting that side. A very stark exception here is the Salvation Army, which has kept to orthodox evangelism along with its famous eleemosynary side. Why aren't all serious churches small-s, small-a salvation armies. This would take the wind out of the secular left's sails right quick.
He had read a column asserting that liberals had forgotten how important identity was to people and had promoted an empty cosmopolitan globalism that made many feel left behind. “Maybe we pushed too far,” Mr. Obama said. “Maybe people just want to fall back into their tribe.”
His aides reassured him that he still would have won had he been able to run for another term and that the next generation had more in common with him than with Mr. Trump. Mr. Obama, the first black man elected president, did not seem convinced. “Sometimes I wonder whether I was 10 or 20 years too early,” he said."
Obama was right. He was 10 to 20 years early.
The goal of the left is to create a non-white majority that will overwhelm the white minority.
Obama, a black president was premature. The success of a black president would require a non-white majority to implement policies to benefit the new non-white majority.
But Obama was elected while whites were still the majority so he couldn't implement the radical racial redistribution programs the left really wanted. He had to play it safe otherwise the white majority would catch on to what was happening. And they did. Hence the Trump win.
Obama did implement a few pro-non-white policies such as hamstringing the police on racial issues. Notice how every minor police incident became a national call for action.
A black president was 20 years too early and now that Americans have seen a glimpse of what a black president will do, white Americans are going to be more cautious about electing another black president.
“That means the Red Tribe feels intensely patriotic about “their” country, and the Blue Tribe feels like they’re living in fortified enclaves deep in hostile territory.“
No kidding. I hope they grasp this. Because that’s exactly their situation.
L
When he says tribe he really means nationality.
We like being Americans.
It means something to US that he will never understand.
He is a citizen of the world, literally.
British, Kenyan, Indonesian and American.
But not a natural born citizen.
Don't be deceived with clever words. The dead giveaway is air quotes for the right and no air quotes for left.
It is the left that creates hostile territory, it's the left that are in your face fascists. It's not "their" country, it's our country or the country.
The best and redeeming point of the article is "cosmopolitan globalists". Everything far left or progressives are born from "cosmopolitan left".
Is there any doubt from anybody in this forum that we aren't heading to a violent socialist state with a thug for a leader, brownshirts to back them up, and web censorship of anything contrary to their "cosmopolitan socialism".
Red Tribe: just leave us alone and get out of our faces
Blue Tribe: oh, hell no!
Red Tribe: whatever happened to he can’t even run his own life I’ll be darned if he’ll run mine?
Blue Tribe: that was only about your lot trying to limit the sexual and narcotic life choices of our lot.
Red Tribe: so you want government to administer everything that isn’t about getting your jollies? Only that’s forbidden when it comes to common sense regulation?
Blue Tribe: you’re putting words into our mouths.
Red Tribe: then don’t seek to regulate things we consider important enough and leave us alone for a bit.
Blue Tribe: oh, hell no!
Well stated, Fhios. It’s the Blue Tribe who is hostile. They are the ones who want to fundamentally transform the nation in their image. They want the Red Tribe to submit to those changes, changes that involve radical intrusive government interference in our lives and elimination of America herself in favor of some globalist utopia. The Red Tribe, on the other hand, generally just wants to be left alone. The Blues brought the war to us!
You nailed it! The Blue Tribe only favors liberty when it involves getting high or copulating. The right to enjoy a carbonated sugary beverage of one’s choice? Eh, not so much.
And they seriously wonder why we fight back?
For what it’s worth, “Cosmopolitan” was a Stalinist code word for “Jew”.
Modern gnostics.
And your point is?
I believe the big difference that masks religious-based charity is that their “liberalism” is not widely-advertised. In contrast, I know of plenty of such secular organizations (I actually support one of them), which do a “better job” than the religious ones on marketing - the secular have massive FB and website presences “pushing” their charity. Indeed, that’s why the Salvation Army is so big - they do better marketing.
Yes. I’ve long said that the only kind of freedom liberals believe in is sexual freedom.
The embedded article about outgroups or the"Red Tribe" and "Blue Tribe" does an excellent job (for the most part - the liberal writer makes a few wrong generalizations) of peeling back the layers. In short:
You can talk all you want about Islamophobia, but my friend’s “intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful people” – her name for the Blue Tribe – can’t get together enough energy to really hate Osama, let alone Muslims in general. We understand that what he did was bad, but it didn’t anger us personally. When he died, we were able to very rationally apply our better nature and our Far Mode beliefs about how it’s never right to be happy about anyone else’s death.
On the other hand, that same group absolutely loathed Thatcher. Most of us (though not all) can agree, if the question is posed explicitly, that Osama was a worse person than Thatcher. But in terms of actual gut feeling? Osama provokes a snap judgment of “flawed human being”, Thatcher a snap judgment of “scum”.
That is, Blue Tribe people ("...liberal political beliefs, vague agnosticism, supporting gay rights, thinking guns are barbaric, eating arugula, drinking fancy bottled water, driving Priuses, reading lots of books, being highly educated, mocking American football, feeling vaguely like they should like soccer but never really being able to get into it, getting conspicuously upset about sexists and bigots, marrying later, constantly pointing out how much more civilized European countries are than America, and listening to “everything except country”) rarely engage in any interr-tribal criticism: I detest Bill Mahler but look at how the left hates him when he attacks radical Islamic terrorists. But bash the Red Tribe - even if they look like themselves - of course!
The Blue Tribe always has an excuse at hand to persecute and crush any Red Tribers unfortunate enough to fall into its light-matter-universe by defining them as all-powerful domineering oppressors. They appeal to the fact that this is definitely the way it works in the Red Tribe’s dark-matter-universe, and that’s in the same country so it has to be the same community for all intents and purposes. As a result, every Blue Tribe institution is permanently licensed to take whatever emergency measures are necessary against the Red Tribe, however disturbing they might otherwise seem.
And so how virtuous, how noble the Blue Tribe! Perfectly tolerant of all of the different groups that just so happen to be allied with them, never intolerant unless it happen to be against intolerance itself. Never stooping to engage in petty tribal conflict like that awful Red Tribe, but always nobly criticizing their own culture and striving to make it better!
Deplorables aren't this messed up. We have no trouble criticizing Deplorables who get things wrong.
The opportunity for us, is to collect Blue Tribe members who see the self-destructiveness of their tribalism, and show them that they needn't live that way. You CAN hold certain liberal beliefs (e.g. War on drugs is bad) and Deplorables won't trash you.
Why do this? Because I don't want to lose this country or for Trump to be a one-term president. Let's take these years to convert Blue Tribe members to Deplorablism. Freedom always wins.
Some time ago someone did a study that revealed that tobacco smoke can prematurely kill the buzz of a May Jane high.
So now we know one reason why the criminalize tobacco but legalize marijuana crowd is at least being consistent and aren’t worried about the effects of their second hand smoke.
Not only that but they kept on bringing it and bringing it till we got annoyed, and for a lot of folks that took time.
In their minds we never get a “no” vote to the “progress” they want. We only get a “yes” vote and there’s no changing our minds if they have enough “yes” votes to get their way.
Especially if the “yes” votes are issued 5 of 9 ... or ever notice that whatever they like is settled law even though the Law had to be arrogated and unsettled in the first place for them to have it?
In a way the EU is the perfect exemplar of progressivism: there was never a vote on going in and, as in the words of one of their elite, the idea of voting for membership violates everything the EU is about.
It’s the most noticeable feature of the electoral map: so-called “progressives” squeezed into urban areas where they don’t have to encounter all the Deplorables unless they have need to.
necroposting
anyway, the other day this thread appeared:
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3793647/posts
... and I was eventually reminded of this thread and again saw your comments.
I think the idea that we are racist / deplorable if we do and racist / deplorable if we don’t matches up.
There is no doubt that racism still exists. We've all seen it, both in soft and harsh versions. The important thing is, where do we go from here?
As you state, the left uses racism to contain people - almost like how a dog owner uses an invisible fence. What is interesting in the case of the leftists, is that the fence doesn't exist...Republican won't burn minorities at the stake if minorities cross that fence.
The key, is to show everyone that the fence is fake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.