Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
My Dear Friends on the Left: What Happened to You?
Half a century ago, when I was a young man, you were the ones celebrating individuality and anything-goes self-expression.
Back then, you were the ones burning the draft cards and defying authority. Today you’re a masked lump sitting on an airport bench, scolding with narrowed eyes anyone who delights in the air touching her face. What happened to you?
Back then, you were the ones demanding to be heard, saying the things the establishment didn’t want to hear, speaking truth to power. Today the phrase “free speech” terrifies you, and you offer a dozen excuses why we’re better off muzzled and restrained by those in power, like some kind of pet.
Back then, you cheered a good man as he made a great speech, sharing his dream of a future when what mattered was a man or woman’s character, not his or her skin. He died for that vision, but you lived it. Today you’re demanding segregated events, branding people “racist” for being the wrong color, obsessing about trivial differences as if they alone define a person and give him his worth.
Back then, women burned their bras and roared and you, fists in the air, roared with them: women could do anything and everything. Today you reject the very idea that “women” exist: your Woman of the Year is a man, and men lay claim to womanhood and everything that women fought to secure for themselves.
What happened to you? Yes, you got old; we all got old. But you didn’t have to become the thing you rebelled against. You didn’t have to embrace fear.
Dare to stand again for the things you once believed.
Published in Culture
I need some help from you. GR? NT? I’m a foreigner, I’m not familiar with the acronyms.
GR is the initials of another person at Ricochet who hates Trump with the passion of a thousand burning suns. He has recently admitted he will vote for democrats over anyone Trump or anyone he endorses.
NT = Never Trump. It is used to describe people who will never ever ever vote for Trump, specifically those who claim to be on the Right. It’s true, a lot have changed their minds after Trump’s four years in office showed him to be not terrible and actually positive in some respects, but the controversy around the 2020 election and fraud has renewed some of it. Contrary to Larry’s assertion, NTs still exist and many of us could name several who still hold positions of “influence” on the Right, even if their influence has deteriorated over the last 5-6 years.
He’s not that rare. I used the word crazy, but he’s not crazy, t. He’s a populist, and the problem with him and other similar politicians (and France has Macron, Melanchon and Le Pen, all populists) is the problem of politics centred on one person. But “T” is the wining team
When no one is championing your positions and one person pops up that does and rallies supporters, it’s easy to think the movement is centered on the politician.
If the movement is centered on the person, getting rid of the person would destroy the movement. It might make the movement easier to ignore because they no longer have representation, but they didn’t go anywhere. If anything, they become more angry until ANOTHER rando shows up to represent them.
The problem with your phrasing here is that you agree it’s a personality cult. You ignore the fact that there are real issues that the population cares about and that their elected “leaders” are ignoring.
Populism isn’t about a single person. It’s about actual ISSUES. They actually care LESS about the person championing them than that he actually acts on those issues.
Also, the best definition of “populism” is “serving the people, rather than the elite.” How could that be bad?
I don’t know who gets to decide what is “the best” definition. But, in response to your rhetorical question, imagine this:
Suppose “the people” decide that “the elite” should have their property seized without the due process guaranteed by the Constitution.
Could that be bad?
Yes, that would be bad. But perhaps not as bad as “the elite” deciding that “the people” should have THEIR property seized. Which is what might be happening now.
Better than the elite deciding it’s constitution to seize property from the people…
Which we currently have…
You both understand that I was simply replying to Ked’s rhetorical question, right? I’m not endorsing elite authoritarianism, nor any particular idea of populism. I like living in our democratic constitutional republic. It isn’t an either-or thing: one isn’t necessarily either a populist or an elitist.
Sometimes I think it’s best to just talk about specific issues and where people fall on them, rather than to use fraught labels.
Sure, but I resent the suggestion by some that “populism” is inherently evil and cannot be tolerated, even in a slight degree. After all, if you consider voting etc – even for a “republic” – the US is still essentially “populist.” And I don’t think that’s somehow automatically bad. It’s especially odd when you find someone who supposedly reveres/worships Reagan, claiming to be anti-populist.
Understandable. Perhaps we should all try to avoid sweeping generalizations about imprecise terms.
At this point in time, populism is only as powerful as the elite wishes it to be… which is a problem, not a good thing.
Populism isn’t wrong, isn’t evil. To complain about what it did in France ignores what it did here. Unless you want to argue that the US Constitution is just a reiteration of the Magna Carta (and not an expansion) and was just for the “new” American elite, then our constitution is a POPULIST document. It is meant to give the voice of the people a political outlet without resorting to revolution and rebellion and disposal of those occupying our highest offices.
At this point in time, the elite are only as powerful as the people allow them to be.
Substitute “democracy” for “populism” in everything you and Ked are saying and you’ll find people who agree wholeheartedly, people who disagree vehemently, and people who — like me — find arguing about vague labels unsatisfying.
Anyway. I like living in our particular democratic constitutional republic, value the things I mentioned in the original post, and hope that our friends on the right who also value those things will pause to consider that only one party — the Republican Party — is even making an effort to stand for those things.
Then what was the point of your original comment? I was addressing a specific thing brought up by Josef. What is your point?
Ummm…
My writing career may be over…
Nice try, Doc. But I’ve reviewed your Ricochet contract and the termination clause really isn’t very accommodating where you’re concerned. Frankly, I don’t think you can afford to stop.
Speaking of which, you’ve got only a single Main Feed story in the top five right now, and (looking at the clock) a deadline looming for your next piece. Best either set down the bourbon or pour another, and get cracking.
Because that worked out so well in the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. Those folks got The Terror and Stalinism, respectively, and somehow none of the property ever found its way into the hands of the peasants / proletariats.
I am unsure about the value of imprecise terms but generalizations are always wrong.
Extremists should be shot.
With bullets? Vaccines? Cameras? Purveyors of ambiguity might deserve opprobrium.
You got that right. Dr. B posts, KK pics, MFF recipes keep me motivated.
I’ve been sick with a head cold all weekend, finally feeling a little better. I’m just so tired of turning everything in to a discussion of Trump. I swear, ricochet would turn a discussion of chocolate vs vanilla into a litigation of Donald Trump!
I’m really not sure the bolded part of your comment is true. It is true in theory, but from where I sit, it seems like “the elite” (by which I of course mean rich people in power with whom I disagree) seem to control information, and that means they control what the common man believes, which means they control the common man. This is why, I think, the left have gone in to full melt down over Elon Musk buying Twitter.
We aren’t saying different things. Not quite.
The people allow the elite to do what they do because the people are apathetic and ignorant. Our job — and it’s a hard job — is to help rouse and educate normal Americans. I think most of us don’t spend a lot of time trying to do that, nor thinking about how to do that. Like everyone else, we have our jobs and our families and our streaming services and our distractions: for all our complaining, life remains pretty comfortable for most of us. We don’t want to rock the boat too much, go out of our way to get engaged, write letters or be active in primaries or give time and money to promising new candidates, etc.
Some do, of course. But I think most of us don’t.
Selectivity is very important in this regard. I have three or four active projects with apolitical friends. I don’t bother getting into discussions at all with my lefty friends. I value the friendship more than a futile attempt to educate them that will only end in an argument.
I’ll give you an example. The most hated community in my country are Gypsies. I don’t like them. As a culture, they are homophobic, racist and misogynist. The vast majority live from state handouts. They are overrepresented in jails. In my opinion, the best thing a Gipsy can do is to leave his community and never look back. We have now a populist party, the leader spends a really long time going on about gipsies. The problem is, they are a very small minority and if they magically disappeared tomorrow it wouldn’t solve any of the problems we face. We also have a communist party in our parliament. They are populist too. They talk about the bread and butter issues that affect the people, low salaries, lack of housing, education, health, etc…All very popular themes amongst the unwashed masses. I can enumerate problems too, I wish we had good factory jobs in our countries, I wish 100% of children were raised in homes with a father and a mother. Do I have a solution? No. And I don’t believe the right-wing or communist populists have one either. PS: I’m not talking about any politician in particular or country.
Except as you say, tiny groups being “populist” is irrelevant because they’re tiny.
Also, if the majority has a populist position to eradicate gypsies, a constitution protecting rights prevents a government from acting that out.
The constitution protects the rights of the people to not be assaulted or treated as second class citizens by the law.
However, it doesn’t say you can’t impose a tariff. So if the populist wants tariffs and the majority agree, then they are perfectly in keeping to enact such a policy, regardless how the minority feels about it.
I’m sorry but all I can think of is the movie Snatch:
“The dog went back to the gypos!”
“I [expletive] ‘ate pikies!”